TheHeaths you could also use the same data/arguments to say "see climate changed before and there was no human input". So climate changes regardless of human activities. No I'm not saying your wrong. But neither are you right.
Humans have the intellect to invent, evolve and create solutions. I doubt there is anyone with an IQ about 100 who doesn't beleive in cleaning up our act. The debate isn't about what we do. It's about how we do it.
TheHeaths said
10:30 PM Mar 24, 2021
Climate changed with no human impact for thousands of years. Correct. The cores prove that.
To say that proves climate change is not happening, as some like to do is, however, incorrect. It is not comparing the same things.
That was the contention of what I wrote, and I hold that to be logical and correct.
There are no accurate records of how and how much the climate changed in the past, nor how quickly it happened. There are only some generalised observations that have been analysed for a general picture. Now we have daily recorded information available, that is providing specific and detailed information. As the years pass, only then will the true picture emerge
I agree with you that improving the way we do things cannot do harm, whether climate change is real or no.
I am afraid in this thread, I do not see everyone agreeing something needs to be done, however. If they did all agree on the need for change, and only disagreed on the method, we would be well advanced in the quest for a better planet for future generations.
bgt said
09:40 AM Mar 25, 2021
The Heaths the problem is in the question. How pollsters ask a question is designed to get a particular outcome. If you ask simply about global warning/climate change then you will get black and white answers. However if the questions was to ask if we should clean up our act then a completely different result would be obvious. Who is asking the question is also an issue. ie the ABC is left bias. So if they ask a question they will get a biased answer because their audience is already left biased. You can say the same about Fox. Did deeper into 'independent' bodies and they aren't really independent.
So the question shouldn't be an "is there" types of question. But rather a "how do we" type of question.
Worst floods since 1961, so are they worse or only coming second? . My sincere sympathies to all currently affected, but question still stands. Also why is a new bridge floodproof, but still under water ?
The word 'since' should enable you to figure out the answer to your first question relatively easily. But JIC you can't, obviously 1961 was deemed to be worse than the current one.
As for the second question: Did the bridge get washed away or damaged? If not then it survived the flood and is flood proof. Wasn't claimed to be inundation proof.
DMaxer said
01:30 PM Mar 25, 2021
Back in the 1970's when I was a uni student, one of the requirements of obtaining a degree in your chosen field was to include subjects outside that field. I decided to do a few subjects in geology as the head lecturer was a great bloke and also the assessment was mainly based on undertaking field work, a bit of rock recognition and an essay on plate tectonics.
Anyway, on one of our field trips we went to these coastal cliffs and at about 100 feet or more above the sea we dug out these cliff rocks and found fossils of crabs, fish and shells. They were everywhere and the lecturer informed us that the sea level would have been to at least this point in the distant past, several thousand years ago. The next field trip we went out to western NSW and to an open cut mine and did the same sort of excavations in the shale rock. Amongst other things, we found fish, shell and sea fossils although we were hundreds of miles from the nearest coast. The lecturer and his offsiders informed us that this would have been an inland sea thousands of years ago.
What was great about these trips was of a night we would go into the nearest town and have a few beers and something to eat and the lecturer would tell us about his travels. He had been on geological digs inside the Arctic Circle in Iceland, Greenland, Lapland and northern Finland. He told us about finding fossils of grapevines and other Mediterranean crops that dated to about 14th century AD, some 500-600 years ago.
This lecturer has gone on to be well known in Oz as well as overseas. He would tell us that the climate was continually changing and that he did not accept that it was man made. He told us the majority of the warming came from CO2 releases under the ocean floor, not from mainland and that although looking after the environment was paramount, it had no effect on the climate change.
Another thing he told us about was the ozone layer. At that time it was opening at an alarming rate over the South Pole with everyone blaming fluorocarbons. It was his prediction that this would close. it now has.
I am certainly no climate scientist and like the idea of preserving the environment but do not really know whether the climate change is entirely man made.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 01:32:18 PM
bgt said
02:09 PM Mar 25, 2021
To add to DMaxers post. If you go to the foothills behind the Gold Coast you can find all sorts of sea fossils and debris. So if the sea is now rising how did that material get to where the sea has never been? Same with Sahara desert. If was once a forest. Climate change?
Santa said
02:18 PM Mar 25, 2021
DMaxer wrote:
Back in the 1970's when I was a uni student, one of the requirements of obtaining a degree in your chosen field was to include subjects outside that field. I decided to do a few subjects in geology as the head lecturer was a great bloke and also the assessment was mainly based on undertaking field work, a bit of rock recognition and an essay on plate tectonics.
Anyway, on one of our field trips we went to these coastal cliffs and at about 100 feet or more above the sea we dug out these cliff rocks and found fossils of crabs, fish and shells. They were everywhere and the lecturer informed us that the sea level would have been to at least this point in the distant past, several thousand years ago. The next field trip we went out to western NSW and to an open cut mine and did the same sort of excavations in the shale rock. Amongst other things, we found fish, shell and sea fossils although we were hundreds of miles from the nearest coast. The lecturer and his offsiders informed us that this would have been an inland sea thousands of years ago.
What was great about these trips was of a night we would go into the nearest town and have a few beers and something to eat and the lecturer would tell us about his travels. He had been on geological digs inside the Arctic Circle in Iceland, Greenland, Lapland and northern Finland. He told us about finding fossils of grapevines and other Mediterranean crops that dated to about 14th century AD, some 500-600 years ago.
This lecturer has gone on to be well known in Oz as well as overseas. He would tell us that the climate was continually changing and that he did not accept that it was man made. He told us the majority of the warming came from CO2 releases under the ocean floor, not from mainland and that although looking after the environment was paramount, it had no effect on the climate change.
Another thing he told us about was the ozone layer. At that time it was opening at an alarming rate over the South Pole with everyone blaming fluorocarbons. It was his prediction that this would close. it now has.
I am certainly no climate scientist and like the idea of preserving the environment but do not really know whether the climate change is entirely man made.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 01:32:18 PM
Well said DMaxter, I have similar views to yours, I did a layman's course in geology as a young man, it's remained an interest to this day.
Over the years I've worked in the mining industry, opal and mineral in the far North of SA, in my final years before retirement worked in the geology section at Olympic Dam.
Coober Pedy produces enormous numbers of fossil shells in the sandstone laid down during the Cretaceous period, these fossils occur in beds up to 50 meters underground, the whole of central Australia was once an inland sea, hard to imagine when you view it as the vast waterless area we see today.
The Cretaceous is defined as the period between 145.5 and 65.5 million years ago, as a rule thing move slowly geologically speaking, however as you say, geology provides an excellent window on the past environment.
What most don't understand is that Australia's last ice age was only about 20000 years ago, a mere moment in geological time, evidence of glaciation can still be seen at Hallett Cove just South of Adelaide.
Yep, the climate is in a constant state of flux, not saying we are not contributing, we obviously are, with a burgeoning population the word certainly does need to think seriously about the way we go about our living.
bgt said
02:47 PM Mar 25, 2021
OK but where does the movements of the earths tectonic plates fit into the picture? The sea may, or may not, be rising relative to the rising, or lowering, of the earths tectonic plates. Confused? So in fact the sea level may be constant but the tectonic plates are the ones affecting sea levels. Now can humans stop that happening?
Buzz Lightbulb said
03:32 PM Mar 25, 2021
The movement of the techtonic plates and subduction is what causes the "inland" seas to be lifted. That's why the fossils are being found at many different altitudes. It's not, mainly, dies to sea level rise and fall. I'm surprised that some of you didn't learn this in geology.
The "great acceleration" shows that most of the damage done by humans has been since the 70's. That's probably why the lecturer didn't believe in human effect on climate change in those days. I'd be very surprised that they'd still have the same opinion. Nearly all the geologist at Geoscience Australia, where I worked for a while, would laugh if they were told that humans didn't affect climate change.
DMaxer said
03:45 PM Mar 25, 2021
I don't really understand the need to use such large print Buzz. Does that make your opinion more relevant than everyone else's view.
In relation to whether this particular geologist still holds the same view today as he did back then I can confirm he does, I listened to one of his recent lectures.
As to the important views held by the geologists at Geoscience Australia, I imagine they would be pretty cluey. I would also be prepared to bet that they read his texts and learned from his observations in obtaining their respective degrees.
As to plate tectonics, I only wrote an essay of about 1000 words based on texts in the library so I don't hold myself out as any type of authority. Really interesting stuff though, especially the parts about the UK being situated near the Equator before the continental drift moved it north. Just incredible science.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 03:49:28 PM
bgt said
04:24 PM Mar 25, 2021
DMaxer my point is/was that I doubt it's as simple as blaming emissions/humans for everything that is supposedly going on. Too many folks try to take a very complicated subject and get a very simplistic view.
Recoup said
04:47 PM Mar 25, 2021
DMaxer wrote:
I don't really understand the need to use such large print Buzz.
I have to agree , I had to go out of the room to read it , cheers
Plain Truth said
05:10 PM Mar 25, 2021
Maybe this is the reason why we think we have climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW16LGVPfIc
DMaxer said
05:39 PM Mar 25, 2021
I agree with you bgt. I think you put it quite well.
msg said
11:50 AM Mar 26, 2021
Australia is 10-12 years behind the rest of the worlds uptake of electric vehicles, according to e-mobility expert Dr Jake Whitehead. And he blames it on government. If they were serious about climate change, theyd be serious about the uptake of electric vehicles, he said of the governments approach. Sales figures in China are expected to reach about 3.7 million in 2021, whereas growth in Australia has been comparatively miniscule. Microsoft news 26/3/2021
Huh? Sales figures in China? 3.7million in 2021. Um what is their population? Have no idea but has to be at 1billion. compared to
Australia's 26million? Huh?
But he or "they " the reporters got their magic word in "Climate change".
-- Edited by msg on Friday 26th of March 2021 11:53:15 AM
Buzz Lightbulb said
03:34 PM Mar 26, 2021
DMaxer wrote:
I don't really understand the need to use such large print Buzz. Does that make your opinion more relevant than everyone else's view.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 03:49:28 PM
I use large text because, as discussed in another thread, this web interface is very difficult to use and others have complained about people using tiny fonts.
One can't please everyone.
Buzz Lightbulb said
03:48 PM Mar 26, 2021
bgt wrote:
OK but where does the movements of the earths tectonic plates fit into the picture? The sea may, or may not, be rising relative to the rising, or lowering, of the earths tectonic plates. Confused? So in fact the sea level may be constant but the tectonic plates are the ones affecting sea levels. Now can humans stop that happening?
You misunderstand.
The fossils are layed down and the tectonic plate movement causes those fossils to be at higher altitudes over millions of years. The fossils being in high altitudes is because of tectonic plates movement.
The affect of tectonic plates on sea level is miniscule over hundreds of years but climate change is affecting sea levels over decades.
Humans can't stop tectonic plate movements but they can help prevent sea level rising by addressing their affect on climate change.
Is not rocket science.
DMaxer said
05:00 PM Mar 26, 2021
Buzz, you have got that totally wrong about fossils being at higher altitude due to plate tectonics. I only did geology for one year during my degree in another field but that certainly is not what I was taught. Sea level rises due to three forces, global ice melting, water on land and sea warming due to plate movement. They do not lift up fossils and put them on a mountain.
I know quoting Geoscience Australia sounds great but is only a Government Department with its own agenda. The real brains are in academia and the mining companies and they sing a completely different tune.
Tell me, are you a geologist if that is not too personal a question.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 26th of March 2021 05:02:16 PM
Santa said
06:11 PM Mar 26, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
You misunderstand.
The fossils are layed down and the tectonic plate movement causes those fossils to be at higher altitudes over millions of years. The fossils being in high altitudes is because of tectonic plates movement.
The affect of tectonic plates on sea level is miniscule over hundreds of years but climate change is affecting sea levels over decades.
Humans can't stop tectonic plate movements but they can help prevent sea level rising by addressing their affect on climate change.
Is not rocket science.
Spot on Buzz, nicely explained.
The pic below may help those trying to understand why fossils occur in unexpected places.
Hang on a minute. If one plate slips under another plate the plate slipping under will lift the other plate. Unless both plates are of the exact same size and mass then water has to respond to that movement. So water/sea will rise or fall. This has nothing to do with where fossils are found. I raised the issue of plates simply to give an alternative explanation of changes in sea levels. It's simple physics. Same arguments is used when ice shelves melt.
DMaxer said
07:39 PM Mar 26, 2021
I accept that plate tectonics causes mountain ranges Santa as does glacial erosion around areas causing valleys. It has nothing to do with the sea level that was around thousand of years ago though.
As I said, I am no geologist but am just going on what I learned at school and then later in tertiary studies. However, people much wiser in this field have told me what I quoted.
Humans have the intellect to invent, evolve and create solutions. I doubt there is anyone with an IQ about 100 who doesn't beleive in cleaning up our act. The debate isn't about what we do. It's about how we do it.
To say that proves climate change is not happening, as some like to do is, however, incorrect. It is not comparing the same things.
That was the contention of what I wrote, and I hold that to be logical and correct.
There are no accurate records of how and how much the climate changed in the past, nor how quickly it happened. There are only some generalised observations that have been analysed for a general picture. Now we have daily recorded information available, that is providing specific and detailed information. As the years pass, only then will the true picture emerge
I agree with you that improving the way we do things cannot do harm, whether climate change is real or no.
I am afraid in this thread, I do not see everyone agreeing something needs to be done, however. If they did all agree on the need for change, and only disagreed on the method, we would be well advanced in the quest for a better planet for future generations.
So the question shouldn't be an "is there" types of question. But rather a "how do we" type of question.
2020!
The word 'since' should enable you to figure out the answer to your first question relatively easily. But JIC you can't, obviously 1961 was deemed to be worse than the current one.
As for the second question: Did the bridge get washed away or damaged? If not then it survived the flood and is flood proof. Wasn't claimed to be inundation proof.
Back in the 1970's when I was a uni student, one of the requirements of obtaining a degree in your chosen field was to include subjects outside that field. I decided to do a few subjects in geology as the head lecturer was a great bloke and also the assessment was mainly based on undertaking field work, a bit of rock recognition and an essay on plate tectonics.
Anyway, on one of our field trips we went to these coastal cliffs and at about 100 feet or more above the sea we dug out these cliff rocks and found fossils of crabs, fish and shells. They were everywhere and the lecturer informed us that the sea level would have been to at least this point in the distant past, several thousand years ago. The next field trip we went out to western NSW and to an open cut mine and did the same sort of excavations in the shale rock. Amongst other things, we found fish, shell and sea fossils although we were hundreds of miles from the nearest coast. The lecturer and his offsiders informed us that this would have been an inland sea thousands of years ago.
What was great about these trips was of a night we would go into the nearest town and have a few beers and something to eat and the lecturer would tell us about his travels. He had been on geological digs inside the Arctic Circle in Iceland, Greenland, Lapland and northern Finland. He told us about finding fossils of grapevines and other Mediterranean crops that dated to about 14th century AD, some 500-600 years ago.
This lecturer has gone on to be well known in Oz as well as overseas. He would tell us that the climate was continually changing and that he did not accept that it was man made. He told us the majority of the warming came from CO2 releases under the ocean floor, not from mainland and that although looking after the environment was paramount, it had no effect on the climate change.
Another thing he told us about was the ozone layer. At that time it was opening at an alarming rate over the South Pole with everyone blaming fluorocarbons. It was his prediction that this would close. it now has.
I am certainly no climate scientist and like the idea of preserving the environment but do not really know whether the climate change is entirely man made.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 01:32:18 PM
Well said DMaxter, I have similar views to yours, I did a layman's course in geology as a young man, it's remained an interest to this day.
Over the years I've worked in the mining industry, opal and mineral in the far North of SA, in my final years before retirement worked in the geology section at Olympic Dam.
Coober Pedy produces enormous numbers of fossil shells in the sandstone laid down during the Cretaceous period, these fossils occur in beds up to 50 meters underground, the whole of central Australia was once an inland sea, hard to imagine when you view it as the vast waterless area we see today.
The Cretaceous is defined as the period between 145.5 and 65.5 million years ago, as a rule thing move slowly geologically speaking, however as you say, geology provides an excellent window on the past environment.
What most don't understand is that Australia's last ice age was only about 20000 years ago, a mere moment in geological time, evidence of glaciation can still be seen at Hallett Cove just South of Adelaide.
Yep, the climate is in a constant state of flux, not saying we are not contributing, we obviously are, with a burgeoning population the word certainly does need to think seriously about the way we go about our living.
The movement of the techtonic plates and subduction is what causes the "inland" seas to be lifted. That's why the fossils are being found at many different altitudes. It's not, mainly, dies to sea level rise and fall. I'm surprised that some of you didn't learn this in geology.
The "great acceleration" shows that most of the damage done by humans has been since the 70's. That's probably why the lecturer didn't believe in human effect on climate change in those days. I'd be very surprised that they'd still have the same opinion. Nearly all the geologist at Geoscience Australia, where I worked for a while, would laugh if they were told that humans didn't affect climate change.
I don't really understand the need to use such large print Buzz. Does that make your opinion more relevant than everyone else's view.
In relation to whether this particular geologist still holds the same view today as he did back then I can confirm he does, I listened to one of his recent lectures.
As to the important views held by the geologists at Geoscience Australia, I imagine they would be pretty cluey. I would also be prepared to bet that they read his texts and learned from his observations in obtaining their respective degrees.
As to plate tectonics, I only wrote an essay of about 1000 words based on texts in the library so I don't hold myself out as any type of authority. Really interesting stuff though, especially the parts about the UK being situated near the Equator before the continental drift moved it north. Just incredible science.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 03:49:28 PM
I have to agree , I had to go out of the room to read it , cheers
Maybe this is the reason why we think we have climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW16LGVPfIc
I agree with you bgt. I think you put it quite well.
Australia is 10-12 years behind the rest of the worlds uptake of electric vehicles, according to e-mobility expert Dr Jake Whitehead. And he blames it on government. If they were serious about climate change, theyd be serious about the uptake of electric vehicles, he said of the governments approach. Sales figures in China are expected to reach about 3.7 million in 2021, whereas growth in Australia has been comparatively miniscule. Microsoft news 26/3/2021
Huh? Sales figures in China? 3.7million in 2021. Um what is their population? Have no idea but has to be at 1billion. compared to
Australia's 26million? Huh?
But he or "they " the reporters got their magic word in "Climate change".
-- Edited by msg on Friday 26th of March 2021 11:53:15 AM
I use large text because, as discussed in another thread, this web interface is very difficult to use and others have complained about people using tiny fonts.
One can't please everyone.
You misunderstand.
The fossils are layed down and the tectonic plate movement causes those fossils to be at higher altitudes over millions of years. The fossils being in high altitudes is because of tectonic plates movement.
The affect of tectonic plates on sea level is miniscule over hundreds of years but climate change is affecting sea levels over decades.
Humans can't stop tectonic plate movements but they can help prevent sea level rising by addressing their affect on climate change.
Is not rocket science.
Buzz, you have got that totally wrong about fossils being at higher altitude due to plate tectonics. I only did geology for one year during my degree in another field but that certainly is not what I was taught. Sea level rises due to three forces, global ice melting, water on land and sea warming due to plate movement. They do not lift up fossils and put them on a mountain.
I know quoting Geoscience Australia sounds great but is only a Government Department with its own agenda. The real brains are in academia and the mining companies and they sing a completely different tune.
Tell me, are you a geologist if that is not too personal a question.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 26th of March 2021 05:02:16 PM
Spot on Buzz, nicely explained.
The pic below may help those trying to understand why fossils occur in unexpected places.
I accept that plate tectonics causes mountain ranges Santa as does glacial erosion around areas causing valleys. It has nothing to do with the sea level that was around thousand of years ago though.
As I said, I am no geologist but am just going on what I learned at school and then later in tertiary studies. However, people much wiser in this field have told me what I quoted.