Copenhagen Climate Change Conference = The League of Nations

[Q.]

Personally - I would love to see see green energy, green cars, re planting of forests etc etc... but im also a realist that in the fact that we are being very hypocritical in the fact that, whilst we introduce a carbon tax to combat our energy consumption (and feel good about ourselves), we are encouraging coal mining, the production of petrol cars... ok, baby steps, baby steps but are baby steps going to get us to where we need to be - I personally don't think so...

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2011/03/09/lomborgs-false-dichotomy-a-carbon-price-would-pay-for-research/

The orthodox economic view is that when you put a price on carbon, the costs of high-emission energy and technologies go up. Low-emission alternatives become relatively cheaper, and so more commercially viable, and so more investment is attracted to develop them. In addition, if the government raises any funds through a carbon tax or an auction of carbon permits, those funds may be invested in early-stage R&D, accelerating the process. That’s what the tax or permit revenue is for. Transitional compensation is only to gain the political support to implement the scheme, without which nothing is possible.

[fish]

I was applying what rigour I could to the issue using the only data I had - I hadn't found the figures you revealed here, in my searches. I am grateful to you for providing them and I am giving them serious consideration. Presumably, your working in a related area, as you recently mentioned, helped you know where to search for the data.

Google is your friend. It doesn’t take much knowledge to type in “vostok ice core data”, which is what I did. The first hit listed is the Wikipedia page you posted a link for. The second hit is the ice core data site where I sourced the raw data.

Note that the raw data I posted is exactly the same data that is represented graphically in the Wikipedia page that you (incorrectly) used to conclude that “The Vostok Ice Cores indicate our highest ever CO2 levels were reached about 325,000 years ago in the mid- Pleistocene”.

You expressed no doubts whatsoever about the CO2 readings from the ice cores then – why not?

That would be better than trying to bully me...

Sorry Psyber, but exposing your poor research skills and inconsistencies in relation to ice cores and climate change does not constitute bullying.

[auto]

I was under the impression ice core data was only useful up to 100,000 years.

[fish]

Firstly without doubt humans have, and are, increasing the CO2 levels in our atmosphere... is it all too late though... Can anyone seriously see all civilisation on the earth adopting green energy? the fact that we (as the human race) are making token efforts to reduce CO2 emissions - whilst we continually growing in numbers and using more energy - I cant help that feel that a reduce in CO2 will not decrease until the fossil fuels have run out and we are ultimately forced to change our energy producing needs... Is climate change something that, instead of fixing, we learn to adapt too it, or are the effect that drastic that we are unable to adapt? are there any realistic forecast of the effects of climate change - and I'm not talking about the maps of cities flooded...
Personally - I would love to see see green energy, green cars, re planting of forests etc etc... but im also a realist that in the fact that we are being very hypocritical in the fact that, whilst we introduce a carbon tax to combat our energy consumption (and feel good about ourselves), we are encouraging coal mining, the production of petrol cars... ok, baby steps, baby steps but are baby steps going to get us to where we need to be - I personally don't think so...

Scoob your analysis is pretty spot-on.

I too am pretty pessimistic about the prospects for humankind to take the concerted and united action required to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Everybody seems to think others should take action first, or that climate change needs to be proved before action is taken, and the issue has become clouded amongst policymakers and the public by the influence of the climate deniers. See also the Merchants of Doubt.

I often think the only thing that will spur the global community into action would be some tipping point such as the rapid collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or a huge crop failure or sustained drought on a continental scale.

Either way we’ll have to adapt to climate change as some of the effects are inevitable no matter what we do. For us lucky ones in the developed world adaptation will be easier than those in the developing world, as they are more vulnerable to crop failures, droughts, disease, extreme weather events and the like.

This Australian Museum webpage provides a short summary of the predicted impacts of climate change.

If you feel like looking through something a bit weightier, try the IPCC website, particularly the 2007 Synthesis Report, which is their most recent comprehensive report that encompasses the peer-reviewed research on climate change by hundreds of the world’s scientists. A warning though - it can be pretty heavy going. Their next major report is due in 2014.

For Australia-wide impacts try this CSIRO report.

The SA Government has just released a Draft Climate Change Adaptation Framework for South Australia , which provides a lot of detail about the predicted impacts of climate change in South Australia. It includes sections on individual sectors such as Community Health and Individual Wellbeing, Water resources, Coastal management, Biodiversity, Agriculture, Fisheries and aquaculture, Forestry, Infrastructure and urban areas, Emergency management, Tourism, Manufacturing and services, Minerals and energy.

Happy reading!

[Psyber]

Google is your friend. It doesn’t take much knowledge to type in “vostok ice core data”, which is what I did. The first hit listed is the Wikipedia page you posted a link for. The second hit is the ice core data site where I sourced the raw data. Note that the raw data I posted is exactly the same data that is represented graphically in the Wikipedia page that you (incorrectly) used to conclude that “The Vostok Ice Cores indicate our highest ever CO2 levels were reached about 325,000 years ago in the mid- Pleistocene”.
You expressed no doubts whatsoever about the CO2 readings from the ice cores then – why not?

That would be better than trying to bully me...

Sorry Psyber, but exposing your poor research skills and inconsistencies in relation to ice cores and climate change does not constitute bullying.

I freely admit the "poor research skills". Research had not been part of my training and career.
But reading other people's publications and methodology critically had been.
[I hadn't done the B Med. Science, just the MBBS.]

I have not been a big Internet "searcher" as it was not part of my work, and I had little time for it until my recent retirement from busy medical practice.
I had mostly used the Internet for email, to use this forum to keep track of SANFL results from Melbourne, and to read on-line medical journals.
Yahoo had been the only search engine I used, and at the time that did not bring up the ones you provided - perhaps the Yahoo"bots" have found it since.
I had, naively I admit, assumed all search engines tend to find the same stuff - but more recently I tried Bing for something else.

I expressed no doubt about those CO2 readings from the ice cores because I was not trying then to compare them with data from a different sampling method.
In medicine we are aware that the same blood tests done by different labs can produce different raw results, and have to be compared with the standardised normal ranges from each labs set up.
Fortunately, they are not widely variant and it only matters when looking at marginal results at each end of the scale.
[But it can be important if monitoring something critical, like anticoagulants for example.]

I had not considered the time delay implicit in the ice core samples until I saw the figures you provided that included the dates they related to.
Perhaps I should have thought of it, but it hadn't occurred to me - most medical data is much more immediate in origin.
I promptly acknowledged here that it was a flaw in my past assumptions once I saw the data you gave me the links to.

As I said to R&B, what more could I do but acknowledge that and go on to explore the implications of the new information, which is what I am doing.
What I perceive as bullying is demanding I accept your conclusions from the data, without checking the validity of comparisons between the two sampling methods.
If you, or anyone else, can satisfy my concern about that we don't have a problem.

[fish]

Does anyone know whether in theory "Flask Air" gives comparable or higher readings than bubbles in Ice Cores?

YES - each method yields very similar results for carbon dioxide concentration