Live Earth - Best/Worst

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by The Lithium)

Yeah, that's a great idea! Let's not only destroy our own planet, but the whole fucking universe! Just imagine the consequences, man!

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by The Lithium)

Yeah, that's a great idea! Let's not only destroy our own planet, but the whole fucking universe! Just imagine the consequences, man!

Kelso: Okay Hyde, do you know what sarcasm is?
Hyde: (stares blankly) No.

Calm down. Breathe. Maybe go for a walk. Breathe some more. I was on a bit of a Fark trip, so I wasn't in a totally serious mind, 'kay? Kay.

[Sincirr]

oh man i wish i saw this thread when I was watching it all. I didnt get much sleep cos I was watching as much of the live feeds as I could!

From what I saw, I loved my own countries effort, but yeah thats cos I was familiar with the bands, but I also thought Rio and South Africa kicked ASS!

Australia's concert was really cool and the bands chosen to play were not too bad - most of them being immensely committed to combating environmental and world issues, so you knew what came outta their mouths wasnt just bullshit to look good for the concert y'know. U could trust it.

As for the political side of it all...when the budget in Australia was announced by our treasurer, there was really nothing set aside for the global warming crisis (Australia's ozone layer being worst than any other country, this is insane!!!!), so here especially, it was really necessary to put immense pressure on our leaders to change their priorities, even if they weren't the original ones that did the damage.

I hope these series of concerts can now be real catalyst for action and change - not just for our world leaders, but for even the multitiudes of induviduals, that weren't aware of how much they really could help.

Rock on.

[RMadd]

okay, so the concert was nice... but does anyone think this alone will be the catalyst for action in backasswards countries like the US and (evidently) Australia?

[eusebioCBR]

On the matter of Earth's recent climate history, it is implausible that despite variance in solar irradiance Earth has had a stable temperature for the last 1,000-2,000 years. History instructs us this is not so, literature tells us this is not so, and a large spectrum of paleotemperature reconstructions tell us this is not so. USA Today and the hokey "Hockey Stick" representations are obviously wrong, regardless of how politically correct their concept of human culpability might be.

Regarding whether Earth has really warmed to some extent, regardless of our ability to accurately determine it? Yep, we have no problem with that. We have seen nothing compelling regarding Earth's current suspected temperature trend being anything extraordinary nor alarming but we have no reason to believe Earth's mean temperature is not changing, or that it does not do so continuously -- frankly, temperature stasis is a myth.

Does increasing carbon dioxide affect Earth's mean temperature? Yes, although probably only trivially and to a declining extent. Note that Professor Pielke, Sr., is firmly in the camp of believers in anthropogenic global warming but freely admits carbon dioxide to be a less-than-critical factor necessitating obsession and, despite somewhat bizarre claims of Professor Lindzen being a "hired gun" and paid-for shill of an alleged "Big Oil" conspiracy, he is a senior and well-respected pure scientist who gleefully admits carbon dioxide's role in enhanced greenhouse, although he does point this out to be trivial and does not subscribe to the planetary emergency scenario. Pielke and Lindzen are no orphans since most so-called "skeptics" similarly point to anthropogenic climate influence as interesting effects to be understood without necessitating hand-wringing and hair shirts.

Increased solar activity? Absolutely and at least half of Earth's estimated mean temperature increment since the Nineteenth Century can be attributed to increased solar irradiance, probably more than four-fifths is from that source although we are still trying to sort out climate and forcings, something which will likely require decades yet. Nonetheless, the best available thermometric temperature records list Earth's global mean temperature as variance from a commencing benchmark average, usually 1951-1980 or 1961-90, and show -0.3 °C c1880 or 1870, with 0.0 °C variance from this average occurring c1940 and with 2000 listed as +0.3 °C. In other words, Earth warmed 0.3 °C from origin of record to benchmark average by 1940, then warmed another 0.3 °C subsequently. Since the vast majority of the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere occurred following the Second World War and this is concurrent with only half the apparent temperature increase, the assumption is that this increase was driven by some other cause, in this case the increase in solar irradiance. There is no reason to believe all other temperature varying forces ceased to exist when carbon dioxide began accumulating, hence the "at least half" attribution above.

Are we looking at a looming disaster from carbon dioxide emissions? There is absolutely zero indication of that. Although human emission of carbon dioxide has likely had some measurable effect on planetary temperature the effect from continued emission is rapidly diminishing as radiative windows in which carbon dioxide is active approach saturation. Before long carbon dioxide emission will have exactly no discernable effect on global temperature.

Can we have significant effect on global temperature trend by limiting future carbon dioxide emission? No -- no equivocation and no argument entertained, allusion to "control" of the planetary thermostat by tweaking minor parameters is a nonsense.

Do we face a planetary emergency precipitated by carbon dioxide emissions? No, there is zero evidence that such a scenario might be true.

Are we personally troubled by carbon dioxide emissions? No.

Do we believe a warmer world would be worse than a cooler world? No, quite the reverse since a cooler world would make feeding the current population significantly more difficult, far more so the anticipated increasing population of the next generation or so. If there is to be a change in global mean temperature then warmer is distinctly preferable to cooler.


Frankly USA Today have made a nonsense of "global warming" and we don't know what planet Ozone Al is on but he apparently has no idea about this one or its climate. As always, we need to adapt and protect ourselves from the natural environment and that will take more than shouting to frighten away the thunder, as our distant ancestors apparently did. Fortunately we are continuing to master our built environment while increasing productivity to leave more room and resources for wildlife and wild habitat, something only increased productivity can do in the face of increasing human population. Of course, increasing productivity relies both on abundant, affordable energy and abundant carbon dioxide. There are no apparent looming shortages of either, provided we don't do anything stupid. Suddenly affecting lemming-like qualities and following Ozone Al's teachings like a bunch of blind Patagonian Sheep would qualify as something really stupid.
You're not likely to do that, are you?




"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" - 1984

[The Lithium]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Kelso: Okay Hyde, do you know what sarcasm is?
Hyde: (stares blankly) No.

Calm down. Breathe. Maybe go for a walk. Breathe some more. I was on a bit of a Fark trip, so I wasn't in a totally serious mind, 'kay? Kay.

Yeah, I know man - it's chill! I got that you weren't 100% serious and my answer wasn't either.

[Sincirr]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

okay, so the concert was nice... but does anyone think this alone will be the catalyst for action in backasswards countries like the US and (evidently) Australia?

For many of Australia's youth, I think yes; But it is going to take things like constant media campains and the like, to keep it at the forefront of people's minds so it becomes part of one's lifestyle as opposed to the latest trend.

It wont be the immediate changes that will make the difference. But the application of those changes over a decade or more. And seeing the climate change affecting our farmers of inland Australia over the last decade especially, the urgency of the situation and the need to do whatever possible sets in.

Like any problem, the public needs to be continually confronted by it to remember it exists...and also to gain a heart for the matter.