Sure, but I'm looking through the other end of the telescope to you.
New Zealand is a small country (population wise) and our exports are the
basis of our economy.
Wool, mutton and lamb exports have over the last 50 years dropped by
50-80%, while beef and dairy products have doubled several time over the
last couple of decades.
Britain used to be our main export market, but now Europe is. From our
point of view there's little difference in supplying a specific part of
Europe, or spreading those exports over the whole of Europe.
You get a choice of supply and we get a choice of customers.
Of course 'Canterbury Lamb' is superior to 'Welsh Lamb'.
True, but humans also produce methane and there are vastly more humans
than ever before so total methane production will be well up.
As the say goes, the only sure way to make money from the horses is to
carry a bucket and spade!
beamendsltd wrote in
S. American Beef, NZ dairy, European Beef and Dairy, sheep in Auz etc
etc etc??? There's more to the world than our former colonies in the
Northern areas of America
Given the results since then (ruling out 2nd order effects
of solar variation, for one thing), it's probably in the
92-95% certainty range (though I've not worked out the stats,
the 90% is fulloy worked including all quatifiable errors).
Given that the politicians want us to believe it's a lot less
serious than all the scientific evidence points to, I'd be
interested in the reasoning here.
Can't see that from here, so can't comment on how plausible
or othwerwise they are.
But suggest you read the most comprehensive (though very cautious, and
probably understated) assessment instead:
IPCC 2007, volume 1, Camb. Univ. Press. See above for title.
Library ought to be able to source it. At 90 UKP it's a bit
much unless you need to have the details to hand at all
times (which is why I bought it).
Tosh, unmitigated and absolute. There is political feed into IPCC
reports. It has always manifested itself in demands to dilute
the recommendations which emerge from the science.
You really, badly, need to talk to some of the people who
know something about this stuff - or at the very least
read some stuff - in order y=to get aa grasp of the science
which underpins this work. Yes: it's ann attempt to grapple
whith what is probably the most complex topic ever tackled
scientifically, but the body of evidence ammassed is
literally overwhelming. The science community who know
about this stuff (and those on the fringes who keep up
with the peoiple who know) are aA DAM' SIGHT MORE WORRIED
than any hide-it-under-the-carpet bletherings from the
politicians would suggest.
I'm now going to retire from this discussion for the
good of my health. Please feel free to renew this
discussion //AFTER// you have read and considered
volume 1 of the IPCC 2007 report. I'll be happy to
discuss points and issues then, once I have some
confidence that you've considered some of the evidence.
North America is definitely Canada and the US. Mexico, maybe. Depends on
which Mexicans you talk to. Quite a few of them are some sore about
their gummint's deals with the US and Canada. The bits between Mexico
and Colombia are Central America. Those bits in the ocean east and north
of Central America are the Caribbean.
Don't matter squat what they teach in NZ schools.
Yes, I've seen this graph, and recent updates, too. I wasn't aware that
some people called it "the" hockey stick graph (I guess I don't read the
more polemical screeds.) Kinda silly, if you ask me. Maybe they are
thinking of that curious game played on grass with a ball and a bent
Daly's argument is that the "hockey stick graph" somehow denies the
medieval warming and the little ice age. I think he misunderstands the
graph. As I read it, the graph shows a general cooling trend that
reverses ca. 1900-1950. Whether that reversal is a the beginning of a
new trend, or another variation that will be subsumed by a longer-term
cooling trend, we cannot tell, yet. What we can be sure of, though, is
that we are conducting a test of the climate models proposed by the
climatologists. Unfortunately, you and I are unlikely to see how that
test turns out, since confirmation of the worst case scenario (climate
"flip". ie, major change on a time-scale of 100 years or so) will occur
around 2050 at the earliest, by which time I would be well over 100
Daly refers to historical anecdotes as evidence for climate (which they
certainly are), so here are a couple of anecdotes for you:
a) When I moved here to mid-northern Ontario in 1972, there were no
raccoons here, as the winters were too long and too cold for them. They
are now ubiquitous.
b) We used to have frost in the ground by late October - early November.
We now get frost in the ground in late November - early December. And
it doesn't go as deep: it used to go down to 3 to 5 ft, now it goes down
a foot or so.
c) Up to the late 70s, the North Channel (between the mainland and
Manitoulin Island) froze over enough that one could ride a snowmobile
across (it's about 30 miles). Not any more.
d) Business from snowmobilers has shrunk from an 8-10 week season in the
1970s to a month (or less) now. The snowmobile clubs that patrol the
trails issue warnings as late as February about using the lake crossings
- not enough ice to support a snowmobile.
BTW, Daly must be using some "free" HTML program to fancy up his
website, because the pages do not display correctly in Firefox. The text
wanders past the margins, which makes it difficult to read. Why does he
want his website to look like a coil-bound notebook? Silly, if you ask
me. He's also more than cheap and chintzy with the graphs, they aren't
big enough to see detail clearly. Bah!
And if you had quoted a reliable source I would believe you but you
quoted Wikipedia instead, the best example of GI-GO on the planet.
Actually trees convert the carbon in CO2 to carbon in cellulose in the
daytime however at night they use up some oxygen. The net result is
positive in favour of CO2 conversion.
Wrong! You are taking the carbon locked up in the cellulose fiber and
burning it with oxygen from the atmosphere to create CO2. You are in
effect undoing what a tree did some time ago.
Surely it is pretty arbitrary anyway? My school's books didn't have a
central America, just north and south - but they also had an APT... Are
France and Denmark in North America?
I've noticed a lot of (US?) Americans won't believe that most of the UK,
Ireland, Portugal, bits of Africa, and everywhere this side of Greenwich
are in the west.
For what it's worth, "North American Market" in the automotive world,
and probably other areas of endeavour, includes Mexico since Mexican
legislation tends to mimic US/Candian rules. Other Central American
markets tend to be lumped with South America, again due to legislation