Johannesburg Facing Pollution Nightmare

[Nod]

Straw man in bold.

We have a good understanding of what caused past climate change:

http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-6.1.html

http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-6.2.html

I've only read the first link. They "think" stuff "might" have happened how they described. It is not fact, or proven.
So do they have a good understanding of how it happened? No. At best they have a good theory or two.

 

[Wikkelspies]

Certainty is the province of the faithful

Straw man in bold.

We have a good understanding of what caused past climate change:

http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-6.1.html

http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-6.2.html

So Plimer is not alone in the world? With significant omissions, these documents provide a reasonably comprehensive summary of the material in his book while, at the same time, glossing over the points he raises regarding the extreme and rapid nature of past changes.

What we see here is different conclusions drawn from the 'same' body of evidence. The IPCC is committed to the models used by the futurologists. Plimer is simply saying that these models do not take enough evidence, let alone all the evidence, into the account. He would be the first to resile from his current position in the event that all the relevant historical, climatological, geological and paelaentological data is taken into account.

There are strong indications that a warmer climate, with greatly reduced global ice cover and higher sea level, prevailed until around 3 million years ago. Hence, current warmth appears unusual in the context of the past millennia, but not unusual on longer time scales for which changes in tectonic activity (which can drive natural, slow variations in greenhouse gas concentration) become relevant (see Box 6.1).

If I'm not mistaken, there were no people on earth three million years ago.

 

[BCO]

So Plimer is not alone in the world? With significant omissions, these documents provide a reasonably comprehensive summary of the material in his book while, at the same time, glossing over the points he raises regarding the extreme and rapid nature of past changes.

What we see here is different conclusions drawn from the 'same' body of evidence. The IPCC is committed to the models used by the futurologists. Plimer is simply saying that these models do not take enough evidence, let alone all the evidence, into the account. He would be the first to resile from his current position in the event that all the relevant historical, climatological, geological and paelaentological data is taken into account.

Many people hold the mistaken belief that reconstructions of past climate are the sole evidence for current and future climate change. They are not. However, they are very interesting and useful for all sorts of reasons: for modellers to test out theories of climate change, for geographers, archaeologists and historians to examine the impact of climate on past civilizations and ecosystems, and for everyone to get a sense of what climate is capable of doing, how fast it does it and why.

As a small part of that enterprise, the climate of the medieval period has received a very high (and sometimes disproportionate) profile in the public discourse – due in no small part to the mistaken notion that it is an important factor for the attribution of current climate change. Its existence as a period of generally warmer temperatures (at least in the Northern hemisphere) than the centuries that followed is generally accepted. But the timing, magnitude and spatial extent are much more uncertain. All previous multiproxy reconstructions indicate a Northern Hemisphere mean temperature less than current levels, though possibly on a par with the mid- 20th century. But there are only a few tenths of a degree in it, and so the description that it is likely to have been warmer now (rather than virtually certain) is used to express the level of uncertainty.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

If I'm not mistaken, there were no people on earth three million years ago.

Nobody's saying that ONLY humans cause climate change. Rather, that *current* climate change is anthropogenic.

 

[Wikkelspies]

History is on our side (as long as we can control the historians).

History is only of use to the extent that we take the trouble to understand it. Understanding flows from assembling the most accurate and comprehensive records possible from all fields of inquiry. As techniques are refined, and new tools become available, our knowledge grows. History suffers more than most academic disciplines from the abuse of manipulative ignorami, not least of which are those with political ambitions.

I support the climate scientists if only because we desperately need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. That has little to do with climate change, and much to do with the fact that reserves of such fuels are limited and far too much is beneath the soil of nations controlled by raving ratbags.

 

[BCO]

I've only read the first link. They "think" stuff "might" have happened how they described. It is not fact, or proven.
So do they have a good understanding of how it happened? No. At best they have a good theory or two.

Define "facts" and "proof". Are the any other better theories about the causes of past climate change than the ones I linked?

 

[Nod]

Define "facts" and "proof". Are the any other better theories about the causes of past climate change than the ones I linked?

Well, a theory does not imply that the subject is understood well, or at all.

I'm just pointing out that your sources were good theories at most. When it comes to anything that happened that far back in history, we only have theories to rely on. You can't shoot down one theory by pointing at another. At most you can debate on why your supported theory is possibly better.

 

[Wikkelspies]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

Nobody's saying that ONLY humans cause climate change. Rather, that *current* climate change is anthropogenic.

And that means that humans, because they contribute to climate change, can affect the rate of change or even reverse it?

I'd like to believe that. I also sincerely believe that we need to reduce all human activities that pollute and/or damage the environment. I do what I can by walking to work and back each day (About 6.5km) although I have to confess that I do it principally because I enjoy it, because parking space is at a premium, and because the lunatics on the road during rush hour are a pain in the proverbial.

BTW, I like Plimer - not because I think he is the Messiah, but because he is challenging the establishment to work harder and do better.

 

[BCO]

And that means that humans, because they contribute to climate change, can affect the rate of change or even reverse it?

I'd like to believe that. I also sincerely believe that we need to reduce all human activities that pollute and/or damage the environment. I do what I can by walking to work and back each day (About 6.5km) although I have to confess that I do it principally because I enjoy it, because parking space is at a premium, and because the lunatics on the road during rush hour are a pain in the proverbial.

BTW, I like Plimer - not because I think he is the Messiah, but because he is challenging the establishment to work harder and do better.

I dislike him because his stall tactics only help entrench the status quo. This is the denialist modus operandi - create the impression that the science is shaky, so that there's an excuse to do nothing, while we wait for "better theories"/more data etc etc

 

[Wikkelspies]

Define "facts" and "proof". Are the any other better theories about the causes of past climate change than the ones I linked?

The IPCC documents are a glib summary. Essentially they are saying, "Yes, well, this or that happened in the past but its not happening now. What is happening now is what our scientists say is happening and its different from what happened in the past because its happening now. Based on what we think is happening now, we can confidently predict what will happen in the future. Amen!"

They could be right, but there is a better than even chance that they could be wrong. They just haven't done enough work, and that's all that Plimer is saying.

 

[Wikkelspies]

I dislike him because his stall tactics only help entrench the status quo. This is the denialist modus operandi - create the impression that the science is shaky, so that there's an excuse to do nothing, while we wait for "better theories"/more data etc etc

I can see that he could be invoked by the "do nothings". The fact that Australia's PM-in-waiting (A wannabe if every there was one) quotes him with approval is a bit of a worry. Abbott is a dinosaur.

Another reading of Plimer's work might well be that climate change is an unavoidable part of living on Planet Earth. To me he seems to be saying that, so far we humans have been very, very lucky. Relatively small changes, mostly resulting in cooling, caused massive disruptions to the lives of our ancestors, with long winters, crop failures, famine, wars and disease. All this within recorded history and even during the currency of European settlement in South Africa.

Reading Plimer's book does not make me feel comfortable ... not in the least. We do need to prepare for climate change from whatever source. I don't think that he is telling us to sit on our hands, only that by looking at the amount of CO2 puffing our of our exhaust pipes, chimneys and smokestacks we are looking in the wrong place. He is also saying that the Earth has warmed before, and that it was a much more comfortable place when it was warm than when it was cold. In Plimer's view, it is cooling that we should fear; not warming. As for coping with droughts, heatwaves and wildfires, perhaps we should be taking a closer look at our built environment which was designed for a colder world? Each year people in European cities die from the heat in temperatures that South Africans find enjoyable. This is a design and adaptation problem.

 

[Chicken Boo]

why is the water rising? will it get worse once it rains?

 

[nivek]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3960978,00.html

Academic boycott in works: Ben-Gurion University officials said Monday they were closely following political groups affiliated with Islam pressuring South Africa's University of Johannesburg to impose an academic boycott on the southern Israel institution.

Such boycott would see the termination of a signed agreement on a joint research project between the two schools.The project aims to solve water contamination problems in a reservoir near Johannesburg.

 

[Nod]

why is the water rising? will it get worse once it rains?

I think it has something to do with the water table. So, if it does, rain will definitely increase the rise in water.

 

[dlk001]

why is the water rising? will it get worse once it rains?

The water table maybe rising as a result of old mining. Naturally water percolates downward through the soil and rock. It then starts to rise and fall from season to season. The water table usually varies round some average depth.

Your question is “Why does the water table rise and why does it not rise to same levels as before mining?”

Mining creates voids underground, lowers the water table and changes the natural flow of groundwater. During mining operations, the water is pumped into reservoirs underground and sometimes it is pumped out of the mines.

The water pressure below the water table is known as hydrostatic pressure. At a water table level, hydrostatic pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure. There is a theory that the water rising from abandoned mining activity has a high hydrostatic pressure, resulting in irregular increase in water table and sometimes springs of water.

The problem is the water from abandoned mines might be contaminated and acidic. This water is starting to infiltrate with natural groundwater and there is a threat that our river streams will be contaminated as a result.

 

[Wikkelspies]

These recent articles contain a fair amount of detail concerning the problem. The Canadians became interested because some of their mines are causing similar problems.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ground-threatens-johannesburg/article1715669/

http://ww2.news24.com/SciTech/News/SA-facing-water-pollution-crisis-20100928

 

[Emjay]

Ian Plimer's denialist book on global warming was published in 2009 and sold about 20,000 copies in Australia and a similar amount in the USA. The book was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism.

Taken from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer.

Wikkelspies, I suggest you try another source.

Sea rises can be attributed to global warming, which could be part of the Earth's natural cycle. However, there are new concerns such as acidification of the oceans. There is a nice discussion about it here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rob_dunbar.html

Rob Dunbar hunts for data on our climate from 12,000 years ago, finding clues inside ancient seabeds and corals and inside ice sheets. His work is vital in setting baselines for fixing our current climate -- and in tracking the rise of deadly ocean acidification.

 

[Wikkelspies]

Thanks. I know where Plimer's critics are coming from. At no point does he deny global warming, or variations in sea levels. What he is saying is that the predictive models are badly flawed because the data sets are incomplete relying on samples taken over a fraction of the Earth's surface during a relatively short period of the Earth's history. He says that so-called climate scientists are ignoring millions of years of historical, meteorological and geological evidence showing that the Earth has survived more extreme changes in the past.

Plimer's book does not address industrial pollution which continues to be a problem regardless of whether or not it contributes to climate change. He is not arguing against the need the protect and preserve the environment or to reduce industrial pollution - such as the threat facing South Africa's fresh water resources - and our reliance on fossil fuels. He does not say that we should not be ready for climate change so as to be able to adapt in the best way we can.

Plimer believes wholeheartedly in climate change. He simply does not believe that human beings can influence or control it because its about much, much more than the relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases produced by human activity. He does not deny that our emissions damage the environment in other ways.

The response to him has been predictably hysterical because of the risk that his work will be used in support of the arguments of the real denialists, know-nothings and flat-earthers.

I accept his argument that predictions based on computer models - at this time - are next to worthless. Since 1998 most of the predictions made a decade ago have been invalidated. Climate is just too complex, and this is what Plimer is saying. He knows all about change, and its not just the weather: its seismic, its cosmic! Read Plimer and you will see that there is nothing on this planet which is not changing. Even the Earth beneath our feet is rising and fallling, however imperceptibly, in line with natural processes that have nothing to do with human produced CO2, one compound out of many that affect life on Earth.

 

[daveza]

Does anyone have a reference to the number and location of mine tunnels running below Johannesburg ?

In particular I'm looking for details on the longest tunnel running off a working or retired mine shaft.

 

[Wikkelspies]

EMS completes trials to convert AMD to potable water

By: Christy van der Merwe
4th October 2010

Environmental solutions developer Earth Metallurgical Solutions (EMS) said it had completed trials proving that acid mine drainage (AMD) and AMD brines could be converted to potable water and saleable by-products, including fertiliser, explosives and the thermal salts for concentrated solar power plants.

"The trials have been a complete success and show effluent-free processes are possible and commercially attractive," said EMS CEO Richard Doyle.

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/ems-completes-trials-to-convert-amd-to-potable-water-2010-10-04

And someone who believes that overpopulation - and that means, inter alia, water security - is a bigger issue than climate change. Population growth, of course is the largest single contributor to all industrial emissions, environmental degradation and pollution.
http://openforum.mweb.co.za/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1802033633

 

[Wikkelspies]

Does anyone have a reference to the number and location of mine tunnels running below Johannesburg ?

In particular I'm looking for details on the longest tunnel running off a working or retired mine shaft.

Can't help you there, but the people who have been voicing their concern about the rising water levels must have access to this sort of information?
How much time are you prepared to spend Googling information and emailing people?