# Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?



## basilio (13 November 2011)

The IEA (International Energy Agency) says that unless we make far reaching changes to energy supplies within the next 5 years Global Warming will spiral out of control. In particular  we have to stop the next  proliferation of coal fired power stations that are planned for India China and anywhere else.



> "As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the "lock-in" of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals," said Fatih Birol, IEA Chief Economist. The WEO presents a 450 Scenario, which traces an energy path consistent with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to 2 °C. Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories.




http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/executive_summary.pdf

The Age offered an overview of the IEA report.


> ''The door to 2C is closing,'' the IEA warned on Wednesday, in its World Energy Outlook 2011. ''If stringent new action is not forthcoming by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place will generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035, leaving no room for additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would be extremely costly.''
> 
> *Frightening, coming from the conservative advisory body relied on by the fossil fuel industry, whose data on emissions and energy is regarded as the ''gold standard'', *as The Guardian reported this week under the headline: ''World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns.''




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/t...an-we-think-20111111-1nbhp.html#ixzz1dXnpeTnb

Maybe this is the real investment direction we need to make in the next 20 years.


----------



## JTLP (13 November 2011)

basilio said:


> The IEA (International Energy Agency) says that unless we make far reaching changes to energy supplies within the next 5 years Global Warming will spiral out of control. In particular  we have to stop the next  proliferation of coal fired power stations that are planned for India China and anywhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yawn yawn yawn. Self fulfilling agencies and government departments = money divested into crap to line their mates pockets.

Explain the Ice Age when man was probably lighting camp fires only? Carbon out of control then?

Cut me a break - Global Warming is a crock that lets the Lefty "Socialists' secretly make bank because they are closet capitalists.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 November 2011)

Global warming was always a little unstoppable due to the nature of warming and how far down the warming road we have already travelled, i mean you cant put the Genie back in the bottle any more than you can put back into long term storage all the carbon that has been released, carbon that took nature millions of years to store.

Denial denial denial...is also unstoppable.


----------



## explod (13 November 2011)

JTLP said:


> Yawn yawn yawn. Self fulfilling agencies and government departments = money divested into crap to line their mates pockets.
> 
> Explain the Ice Age when man was probably lighting camp fires only? Carbon out of control then?
> 
> Cut me a break - Global Warming is a crock that lets the Lefty "Socialists' secretly make bank because they are closet capitalists.




You allways yawn Champ, but did you ever read the "Sixth Extinction" as I suggested a number of times over the last year or two.

Till you have informed yourself you cannot discount the reality of what may be happening today.


----------



## sails (13 November 2011)

I don't know why we need yet another thread on this subject - maybe it should be merged with the other one.  I suppose Basilio doesn't like the other thread header.  I often think lefties like their propaganda to be on thread headers even though they are in the minority according to opinion polls.

And do we really have global warming that is any different to historical long term warming and cooling cycles of our globe?

The article link below is from Forbes by James Taylor which states co2 emissions have risen around 33% in the last decade and yet termperatures have remained flat during the same period.  

IMO, this would indicate that rising levels of co2 are having little, if any, effect on our globe's temperatures and it also states that temperatures have not risen as per computer modelling. 

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Up Sharply, Yet Temperatures Are Flat?

Methinks Basilio is part of a political campaign to guilt Australians into accepting a tax that is going to have little to do with the environment and everything to do with crippling this country financially.  

How can paying for carbon credits going to reduce atmospheric co2?  It doesn't make sense. China has received $6 billion from the EU in carbon credits since 2005.  And yet co2 has risen in that time?  Doesn't seem to be working, imo.

And if anyone thinks these billions of dollars are going to magically appear without any pain from the Australia electorate at large, they are off with the fairies, imo.


----------



## Boggo (13 November 2011)

Let me get my head around this, Australia gives $ foreign aid to China, Chinese carbon pollution is expected to increase by 70% by 2020 and we pay a tax on carbon.

Is it just me or is something not right with this whole scenario ?


----------



## JTLP (13 November 2011)

explod said:


> You allways yawn Champ, but did you ever read the "Sixth Extinction" as I suggested a number of times over the last year or two.
> 
> Till you have informed yourself you cannot discount the reality of what may be happening today.




Never saw you suggest the book - safe to say I won't pick it up. I'm here for a good time - not a long time - so don't need some negative nancy trying to scare me.

I'll refuse to believe anything to do with global warming whilst it remains the easiest money grab of all time. 



Boggo said:


> Let me get my head around this, Australia gives $ foreign aid to China, Chinese carbon pollution is expected to increase by 70% by 2020 and we pay a tax on carbon.
> 
> Is it just me or is something not right with this whole scenario ?




Everything is right mate. It's you that is wrong. Now be quiet - pay the carbon tax and be prepared to ride a bike to power your computer in 10 years.


----------



## sails (13 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Let me get my head around this, Australia gives $ foreign aid to China, Chinese carbon pollution is expected to increase by 70% by 2020 and we pay a tax on carbon.
> 
> Is it just me or is something not right with this whole scenario ?





You're not the only one, Boggo.  According to the last Nielsen polls in the middle of last month, 59% of Australians do not want a carbon tax and 84% of LNP voters oppose.


----------



## DB008 (13 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Let me get my head around this, Australia gives $ foreign aid to China, Chinese carbon pollution is expected to increase by 70% by 2020 and we pay a tax on carbon.
> 
> Is it just me or is something not right with this whole scenario ?




Your spot on Boggo.

I also posted a Terry McCrann article in which he pointed out that China 'increased' CO2 more than out total output in just one year. Even if were to emit zero CO2 tomorrow, it wouldn't make a difference. 

Sails has also posted a few links in which the whole carbon credits scheme is a farce. It's a joke. 
I think that instead of buying credits offshore, why not put the money to use here, in this country by planting trees, building solar powerplants, geothermal...etc etc...


----------



## sails (13 November 2011)

Danny,  I agree.

I cannot see how money changing hands can possibly have the slightest effect on co2 in the *atmosphere* regardless of whether it really is an issue or not. 

How can trading credits change *atmospheric co2*?  And it seems from the thousand pages of bills that were passed in the senate that labor doesn't expect any increase in renewable energy.  I guess that means people will pay more for coal fired electricity while we trade credits to PRETEND we are meeting our targets. Seems that co2 in the atmosphere is not really the issue.

From Senator Barnaby Joyce's website:



> Prior to the passage of the carbon tax, the amount of renewable (or as the government likes to describe it 'clean') energy that would be generated by our nation by 2020 was 50 terawatt hours, according to a report for the government by SKM MMA.
> 
> Yesterday, the Senate passed over 1000 pages worth of law, titled the Clean Energy bills. On the passage of these clean energy bills, the amount of clean energy generated in Australia by 2020 will be 50 terawatt hours.
> 
> That's right it is exactly the same amount. The clean energy bills will encourage exactly zero additional supply of electricity generation from clean energy sources.




Read more: *Clean energy and the effect of yesterday's vote*

Is this any better than a Nigerian scam?  Let's hope the coalition can repeal this legislation that seems it is designed to hurt Australia financially far more than it will do to reduce *atmospheric co2*.


----------



## wayneL (13 November 2011)

Chicken Little comes to mind.....


----------



## sails (13 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> Chicken Little comes to mind.....




LOL Wayne - and yet they want us to think the sky won't fall in with this carbon tax and they think it will all be forgotten by the time the 2013 election comes around.  

They have this funny idea that a tax that is going to put something like $24 billion into revenue won't be noticed. 

No wonder these sort of people have been hood winked into the excuse for said tax...


----------



## So_Cynical (13 November 2011)

sails said:


> Danny,  I agree.
> 
> I cannot see how money changing hands can possibly have the slightest effect on co2 in the *atmosphere* regardless of whether it really is an issue or not.




Then im afraid its official...you just don't get it.

In your world price increases have absolutely no affect on consumption....its not the price tag that stops people living in Double bay and driving ferraris.


----------



## basilio (13 November 2011)

I started the discussion with the IEA energy report.  The IEA is considered an independent world authority on energy resources. It is certainly no Government think tank. If anything it is aligned to the fossil fuel industry

If you look at its research and publications you'll find a number of extensive analysis of energy issues.

It just so happens that the major issue they are highlighting right now is the extreme risk of unstoppable global warming if we don't make drastic changes to how we produce energy. 

And the response to date from the usual suspects (not everyone of course)  is that the IEA has got it absolutely and totally wrong. That global warming on the scale they are suggesting will never happen. That we have nothing to worry about. 

Big call.


----------



## sails (13 November 2011)

Basilio,

Are you saying that you don't believe the U.S. Department of Energy? Are they part of your usual suspects?

From the link below (bold is mine):



> The U.S. Department of Energy has just published its estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2010, concluding emissions rose by 6% from 2009 to 2010. This constitutes the largest rise yet recorded and means global emissions are rising faster than any of the scenarios advanced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report. Global warming activists are claiming the 2010 rise proves global warming is even worse than previously feared, but exactly the *opposite is the case*.




Carbon Dioxide Emissions Up Sharply, Yet Temperatures Are Flat?


----------



## qldfrog (13 November 2011)

basilio said:


> I started the discussion with the IEA energy report.  The IEA is considered an independent world authority on energy resources. It is certainly no Government think tank. If anything it is aligned to the fossil fuel industry...
> 
> Big call.



Fully agree with you; the IEA is a fossil fuel ally if any and definitively not a green, left wing etc ec (whatever the usual rant can be added here)but when people are in denial, nothing will change their mind; 
I am afraid it is indeed too late, people will bury their head in the sand till the end.People are still smoking and smokers with lung cancer do still deny any link with their own addiction.The real question is : is mankind worth saving?


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2011)

We can't get China, the major poluter, to say hello to the dalai lama or revalue their currency.
Maybe you think us bashing ourselves with a carbon tax will somehow encourage them to change their energy policy.
Best of luck with that.
Don't frett, I believe you will have more immediate problems than global warming, in the forseable future. 
Imported foreign labour coming to a workplace near you is my call, Asia pacific trading union not unlike the EU.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> We can't get China, the major poluter, to say hello to the dalai lama or revalue their currency.
> Maybe you think us *bashing ourselves* with a carbon tax will somehow encourage them to change their energy policy.
> Best of luck with that.




Maybe that should read "flagellate ourselves"? LOL



> Don't frett, I believe you will have more immediate problems than global warming, in the forseable future.
> Imported foreign labour coming to a workplace near you is my call, Asia pacific *trading union* not unlike the EU.




Almost Trade Union-like.....

Big Bro eat yer heart out....


----------



## sails (13 November 2011)

qldfrog said:


> Fully agree with you; the IEA is a fossil fuel ally if any and definitively not a green, left wing etc ec (whatever the usual rant can be added here)but when people are in denial, nothing will change their mind;
> I am afraid it is indeed too late, people will bury their head in the sand till the end.People are still smoking and smokers with lung cancer do still deny any link with their own addiction.The real question is : is mankind worth saving?




And when people are stuck with their head in the sand thinking that Australia can do something about this without the major polluters, they are in even worse denial than they think of those with more common sense.

Australia emits 1.3% of global co2 emissions.  Our target (at great expense) is 5% of our tiny 1.3% slice of the pie - that's 0.65%.

Below is a pie chart based on wiki info.  See the little orange slither?  That is Australia's 1.3%.  And imagine that divided further  by 20 to give  5% - that is our 2020 target at huge expense to this country.  Futile?  I think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2011)

Yes Aussiejeff, don't think Julias statement about workers moving from country to country is a one way street.

_She said the future workforce "will need to be a workforce that is highly adaptable, highly resilient because the pace of change will stress people".

"I think it will be a workforce increasingly mobile, it will be more and more common for countries to have guest worker arrangements. It will be more and more common for people to choose to live part of their life in another nation, so more mobile but in all of that I stress again, we can't forget the foundation skills," she said.

And Ms Gillard had an uncompromising message to people seeking work in countries such as Australia.

"If you don't have the ticket that gets you into the rest of the conversation, and that comes in the way of literacy and numeracy, then the rest of it will always be locked away from you," she told the business leaders_.

She could have finished the line with" If you do have ticket that gets you into the rest of the conversation, the rest will be unlocked for you"

Anyway sorry I think I am getting off thread.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 November 2011)

basilio said:


> I started the discussion with the IEA energy report.  The IEA is considered an independent world authority on energy resources. It is certainly no Government think tank. If anything it is aligned to the fossil fuel industry



As someone who has read rather a lot of IEA publications over the years and noted the overall "tone" of the organisation's views as well as its' original purpose, I'd take IEA alarm about climate change as a code word for "peak oil is here but we can't say that so we're making comments about CO2 in order to sort of explain away what's about to happen as being necessary to protect the environment when in reality it's unavoidable no matter what the climate does".

There's half a century of data to back the peak oil case and it looks pretty convincing both "on paper" and in terms of recent events. My own suspicion is that the level of talk surrounding CO2 has more to do with lack of fuel to burn than genuine concern about the effects of burning it.

Take China. They already use literally half the world's coal and have become a net importer. How can they possibly sustain such a growth rate? Who is going to mine it? Where are the thousands of ships to carry it going to come from? How are they going to actually get into and out of the ports? How on earth could the coal exporting countries cope with such a rapid infrastructure build? Some growth maybe, but the days of booming consumption would seem to be limited indeed.

And then there's oil. China, with 4 times the US population, wants a US lifestyle. The US today uses 25% of the world's oil, meaning that China is going to need literally the whole lot. Now where's that going to come from? Not even the most optimistic proponents of shale, drilling in the arctic and so on are saying we're going to see that sort of production increase ever. So that's not going to happen either.

Hence I'd take any IEA panic about CO2 as more an indication of the state of the oil, and to a lesser extent coal, markets than anything else.


----------



## Boggo (13 November 2011)

And meanwhile back on the world stage...


----------



## bellenuit (13 November 2011)

sails said:


> Australia emits 1.3% of global co2 emissions.  Our target (at great expense) is 5% of our tiny 1.3% slice of the pie - that's 0.65%.




Make that 0.065% reduction.


----------



## basilio (13 November 2011)

Interesting observation Smurf on why the IEA is now focusing on Global Warming risks associated with continued use of coal fired power stations.

My reading is that they have only come to acknowledge Peak Oil issues in the last few years. But as I read the current report they took a fair bit of trouble to analyse the amount of future CO2 emissions that are committed when  counting the  exploding number of coal fired power stations planned by India and China. If anything their figures are conservative.

___________________________________________________________

Sails the two issues you raise about global temperatures stalling for 10 years and the influence Australia has on global CO2 have been answered a number of times.

The first query is just wrong and has been proven so. The analysis is outlined on the Skeptical science website.  Australia's impact of world CO2 levels is relatively high with regard to our population.  The issue is one of all countries playing their part and Australia can't be exempted.

 ____________________________________________________________

If there is a human analogy to this issue it would like going to a doctor and getting a terrible diagnosis of cancer and then refusing to accept it.  The reasons can be  anything you can conjure up but basically its because  is too awful to take onboard.

Talking about scungy reductions in CO2 levels is meaningless. The IEA analysis is plainly saying there has to  enormous changes made in the next few years if we are to have any chance of limiting global warming. And if we can't or won't  take these actions the consequences are inevitable and disastrous.


----------



## sails (13 November 2011)

basilio said:


> ...Sails the two issues you raise about global temperatures stalling for 10 years and the influence Australia has on global CO2 have been answered a number of times.
> 
> The first query is just wrong and has been proven so. The analysis is outlined on the Skeptical science website.  Australia's impact of world CO2 levels is relatively high with regard to our population.  The issue is one of all countries playing their part and Australia can't be exempted.




That's your opinion, Basilio.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Skeptical Science is a blog to the best of my knowledge.  Why don't you read Jo Nova's blog?

 Quote per capita all you like, but it is* total emissions*  that are being targeted. Per capita is a partial truth to make it look like Australia are the worst offenders.  *Rubbish*.  Our total global emissions are tiny and a fraction of the US and China.

Exempting Australia - how pathetic.  It sounds like the rest of the world is pricing carbon and Australia is the only one not participating.  I can't believe how pathetic your responses have become.  *Most of the world is NOT pricing carbon.*  Get real.




> If there is a human analogy to this issue it would like going to a doctor and getting a terrible diagnosis of cancer and then refusing to accept it.  The reasons can be  anything you can conjure up but basically its because  is too awful to take onboard.




A closer analogy would be getting the diagnosis and being told that it will cost you several million dollars to trade cancer credits and you might have a chance of reducing your cancer cells by 0.65% IF the money exchange actually reduces those 0.65% of cancer cells in your body.

How stupid is that?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 November 2011)

basilio said:


> If there is a human analogy to this issue it would like going to a doctor and getting a terrible diagnosis of cancer and then refusing to accept it.  The reasons can be  anything you can conjure up but basically its because  is too awful to take onboard.



If I have cancer and have 100 days to live then that's certainly not good. But if the doctor proposes giving me some treatment with drastic side effects and which is expected to extend my life by 16 hours if successful, but which most likely will not succeed, then I'll say "no thanks" since it's a whole lot of pain for practically no gain. If it actually cured the disease or at least lead to a major increase in my life expectancy then I'd go along with it, but there's no point in a lot of pain for virtually no gain.

The same could be said of much of the proposed action on climate change. A lot of misery and suffering only to see the same fuel get burnt somewhere else instead thus making it pointless in terms of actually reducing CO2.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> As someone who has read rather a lot of IEA publications over the years and noted the overall "tone" of the organisation's views as well as its' original purpose, I'd take IEA alarm about climate change as a code word for "peak oil is here but we can't say that so we're making comments about CO2 in order to sort of explain away what's about to happen as being necessary to protect the environment when in reality it's unavoidable no matter what the climate does".
> 
> There's half a century of data to back the peak oil case and it looks pretty convincing both "on paper" and in terms of recent events. My own suspicion is that the level of talk surrounding CO2 has more to do with lack of fuel to burn than genuine concern about the effects of burning it.
> 
> ...




Maybe thats where Bob's talk of the world government comes in. LOL
I think he has sold Julia on the idea, she is just hoping to get a seat.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2011)

sails said:


> I don't know why we need yet another thread on this subject - maybe it should be merged with the other one.  I suppose Basilio doesn't like the other thread header.  I often think lefties like their propaganda to be on thread headers even though they are in the minority according to opinion polls.



My thoughts exactly when I saw the thread started earlier today.  I'm astonished that it has attracted so many responses.  Given the repetitiveness of basilio's very polite posts, I'm a bit surprised that anyone actually read the initial post.

I suppose the largely antagonistic responses are yet another indication of how disgusted most Australians are about this ridiculous and illogical tax.



Boggo said:


> Let me get my head around this, Australia gives $ foreign aid to China, Chinese carbon pollution is expected to increase by 70% by 2020 and we pay a tax on carbon.
> 
> Is it just me or is something not right with this whole scenario ?



Relax, Boggo.  It's not you who is nuts.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Then im afraid its official...you just don't get it.
> 
> In your world price increases have absolutely no affect on consumption....its not the price tag that stops people living in Double bay and driving ferraris.



That's pretty insulting toward sails.  Why should you assume she lives in a world where cost is unimportant?  How presumptuous of you.

I don't think anyone is worried about the effect of cost increases on the supa rich, except on the same principle as they affect everyone else, i.e. it's a non-productive nonsense, brought into existence simply to appease the extremist Greens on whom the government is dependent.  Don't kid yourself it's for any environmental reason.

I'm genuinely concerned for the people who are already unable to pay their power bills, whose cost of living is already causing them real distress.  
You have some hide to be suggesting these people should be seeing a further increase in that cost of living for no discernible result, other than the political joy to Julia Gillard of remaining in power.

Until the Greens issue their next demand.  It won't be long.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2011)

Julia said:


> I'm genuinely concerned for the people who are already unable to pay their power bills, whose cost of living is already causing them real distress.




Most poor people have electrical hot water systems, they are the cheapest to buy. Also when it fails it cost $500 to replace, like for like. as opposed to $2500 to replace it with solar.The cost is more if it is a gas H.W.S.
Where is the sense in compensating the poor to keep their inefficient H.W.S and taxing the generators to supply electricity to run it. That is just dumb.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 November 2011)

sails said:


> Quote per capita all you like, but it is* total emissions*  that are being targeted. Per capita is a partial truth to make it look like Australia are the worst offenders.  *Rubbish*.  Our total global emissions are tiny and a fraction of the US and China.
> 
> A closer analogy would be getting the diagnosis and being told that it will cost you several million dollars to trade cancer credits and you might have a chance of reducing your cancer cells by 0.65% IF the money exchange actually reduces those 0.65% of cancer cells in your body.
> 
> How stupid is that?




Hows this for an analogy...the tax i pay is "tiny and a fraction" of Australia's total tax take so therefore it doesn't matter if i pay tax, in fact i shouldn't pay tax because it doesn't make any difference.

 :cuckoo:

Its a totally stupid argument to make, idiotic nonsense....stupid idiotic nonsense when it comes to GHG's, Tax, forestry, illegal immigration, murder, rape whatever...stupid idiotic nonsense with a capital S any way you look at it.

Even the cancer credits argument  is nuts...Australia would represent in GHG terms maybe 2 toes yet you don't want to pay for the treatment because its not worth the money to save 2 toes.


----------



## sails (13 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Hows this for an analogy...the tax i pay is "tiny and a fraction" of Australia's total tax take so therefore it doesn't matter if i pay tax, in fact i shouldn't pay tax because it doesn't make any difference. :cuckoo:
> 
> Its a totally stupid argument to make....stupid when it comes to GHG's, Tax, forestry, illegal immigration, murder, rape whatever...stupid with a capital S any way you can look at it.





Spin in how ever you like.  Australia is peanuts in the world scene and we produce peanut size co2 emissions.

And no amount of money changing hands is  necessarily going to reduce atmospheric co2 and certainly not from Australia's little orange slither of the pie below ...

What is so difficult to understand?


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Hows this for an analogy...the tax i pay is "tiny and a fraction" of Australia's total tax take so therefore it doesn't matter if i pay tax, in fact i shouldn't pay tax because it doesn't make any difference.
> 
> :cuckoo:



Hope you have a tree or two growing in the backyard for sequestration. I sense a great deal of carbon dioxide being emitted from the house of cynics. :


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Hows this for an analogy...the tax i pay is "tiny and a fraction" of Australia's total tax take so therefore it doesn't matter if i pay tax, in fact i shouldn't pay tax because it doesn't make any difference




Well you got that right, as Kerry Packer said at a tax hearing. " I'll pay tax when you idiots start spending it in a responsible manner"
If you like, I can post you a picture of insulation batts rotting in a compound at Canning Vale in Perth, they are still there two years later. 
Why you think these idiots are doing the right thing, when no one else is following suit stuns me. 
With their track record how you can pin your ideological beliefs to their incompetence beggers belief.
I guess I am just getting too old for blind faith.


----------



## basilio (13 November 2011)

Obviously the sticking point about this discussion is many members unwillingness to accept any chance that the worlds climate science community could be right about the current global warming  situation, it's largely human causes and the inevitable consequences.

It doesn't matter which organizations come up with the same answers or which records show the same result. The response is always the same. Serious global warming can't be happening. Therefore it isn't. Full stop. End of story.

Serious skepticism is one thing. But what is happening in this forum and I think its a reflection of the larger community,  is a "will not to know ". 

There is an excellent presentation from a former climate change skeptic which offers some comments on "not wanting to know".  


> *How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change*
> 
> I gave a talk called “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” for the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, I am a Republican and a geochemist who, until a few years ago, was quite skeptical about the idea that humans are causing significant climate change.
> 
> In the presentation, I briefly talked about how I had made the transition from being a climate change “skeptic” to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science.  I then discussed how it is that people like me can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change.




http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/how-to-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/

_______________________________________________________________________

Sails please get it right about the Skeptical Science site. As any person would understand from visiting the site it pulls together information from the whole  scientific community  on climate  science.  It makes the science accessible and always refers back to original papers. The writers have extensive science backgrounds

It is particularly effective at examining every argument put up against the global warming evidence and explaining either the mistakes or total deceptions involved.

Why not stick to simply saying that in your opinion global warming isn't happening and leave it at that ?

_____________________________________________________________________

With regard to what needs to be done to slow down global warming ? The IEA spells it when it says we are almost beyond hope.  The carbon trading schemes could have been effective 20 years ago. Today it is too little and too late. If we accept the IEA analysis we somehow have to stop all new coal fired power stations (or capture all the CO2), start replacing the old ones  in a similar way and embark on immense  carbon capture schemes. Engineers like Smurf would appreciate how this would be practically impossible.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 November 2011)

sails said:


> Spin in how ever you like.  Australia is peanuts in the world scene and we produce peanut size co2 emissions.




Spin...oh please ill leave that to the deniers 

Please tell me why i should pay income tax if my contribution is so small it wont make a difference....then explain to me why i will go to jail if i don't pay tax using your "wont make any difference" argument.



sptrawler said:


> If you like, I can post you a picture of insulation batts rotting in a compound at Canning Vale in Perth, they are still there two years later.




And i can Post a photo from Lidcombe of a small mountain of batts rotting in a yard...your point is?

Oh Govt's waste money...yeah i heard the Howard Govt spent something like 100 million on advertising work no choices and the terrorism ads...and here is some irony, they also spent around 300 million on something called the Aust greenhouse office.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Obviously the sticking point about this discussion is many members unwillingness to accept any chance that the worlds climate science community could be right about the current global warming  situation, it's largely human causes and the inevitable consequences.




Well basillio, I think everyone agrees this could be happening. What most seem to be saying is why not work towards a global solution.
Why whip ourselves for no net benefit and if you say "because Julia and Bob say so" you should be taken down the back and slapped, probably by Bob or Tim.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh Govt's waste money...yeah i heard the Howard Govt spent something like 100 million on advertising work no choices and the terrorism ads...and here is some irony, they also spent around 300 million on something called the Aust greenhouse office.




I'll give you the tip mate, work choices is play school, to what I think is coming under your so called union friendly Labor party.


----------



## wayneL (14 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Obviously the sticking point about this discussion is many members unwillingness to accept any chance that the worlds climate science community could be right about the current global warming  situation, it's largely human causes and the inevitable consequences.
> 
> It doesn't matter which organizations come up with the same answers or which records show the same result. The response is always the same. Serious global warming can't be happening. Therefore it isn't. Full stop. End of story.
> 
> .




Oh not this disingenuous straw man argument again.

Basilio, it is this sort of intellectually offensive crap that causes the attitude polarization on ASF and the wider community.

In fact, it's the alarmists that refuse to accept scientific and political balance in the debate, forcing people to the opposite argument.

Must I point out again, that you yourself have admitted on this forum to personally doing virtually nothing about what perceive is a problem, yet come on here preaching the end of days.

What's that about?

1/ Get off the alarmist blogs and read some balanced science FFS.

2/ Get a small modicum of credibility and start your new ascetic carbon free lifestyle and stop this gross hypocrisy.


----------



## basilio (14 November 2011)

> .
> Oh not this disingenuous straw man argument again.
> 
> Basilio, it is this sort of intellectually offensive crap that causes the attitude polarization on ASF and the wider community.
> ...




Couldn't stop yourself could you Wayne ? Back to totally and compete BS. Back to personal attacks on me and anyone else who you want to bully as if that somehow changes what is happening  in the rest of the world. (_And  exactly why do I have to justify my life to you ?  And why the xxxx would I bother when I see how you twist every nonsensical statement under the sun into a  grotesque parody ?_ )

Then trying to keep up the climate denier fantasies.   The suggestion that somewhere there is some real science that somehow refutes all the research that extensively documents what is happening to our environment as a direct result of human actions.
*
There is no credible refutation of the work of climate scientists. Period. *If there was it would be spelt out in science journals and carefully examined. The BEST report shattered the story that temperature rises were being misrepresented. Whats left is lies and misrepresentations from Monckton and co that are as phony as a $3  note.

For pities sake open your eyes and see if you can learn something instead of being a leader and mouthpiece for lying dribble and nasty personal attack's .

And finally lets get it  clear for the 1000th time. I don't make up my comments.   I quote from people with  far more knowledge and skills than you or I have in this field. Your attacking and dismissing virtually the whole  scientific community in this field. And the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic.


----------



## macca (14 November 2011)

Why have we got 2 threads on the same subject ? 

This is simply another report on alleged AGW and should be part of the other thread IMO


----------



## Knobby22 (14 November 2011)

It's actually a different subject about the closing of the window to act but very few have stayed on the subject and it has regressed to the standard expected.


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2011)

basilio said:


> For pities sake open your eyes and see if you can learn something instead of being a leader and mouthpiece for lying dribble and nasty personal attack's .




I'm afraid you are showing your true colours, basilio. You have won recognition as leader of the hystericals. You even have a couple of followers on these pages, but you are clearly frustrated and angry that you are only preaching to the converted. Your new thread is an exercise in futility.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> It's actually a different subject about the closing of the window to act but very few have stayed on the subject and it has regressed to the standard expected.




Well there is one thing for sure, if the window closes at least it ends the speculation.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

basilio said:


> ...And finally lets get it  clear for the 1000th time. I don't make up my comments.   I quote from people with  far more knowledge and skills than you or I have in this field. Your attacking and dismissing virtually the whole  scientific community in this field. And the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic.




You get them from blogs like skepticalscience...ROFL.  No more or less scientific than blogs with differing opinions.

Try reading Jo Nova's for some balance: http://joannenova.com.au/ and articles like this from Menzies house: The Greens $2.3 Trillion Dollar Renewable Fantasy.

And Garth Paltridge has written about government funding for AGW science: A less-than-nobel consensus.  (If the font is too difficult to read, copy and paste the article into Word or Open Office writer).

And you don't take any notice of these three guys in the video below who were interviewed by Bolt and who have impressive scientific qualifications? Listen to what Professor Garth Paltridge, Professor Peter Ridd and Professor Bob Carter have to say:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMHuQthzeg


----------



## wayneL (14 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Couldn't stop yourself could you Wayne ? Back to totally and compete BS. Back to personal attacks on me and anyone else who you want to bully as if that somehow changes what is happening  in the rest of the world. (_And  exactly why do I have to justify my life to you ?  And why the xxxx would I bother when I see how you twist every nonsensical statement under the sun into a  grotesque parody ?_ )
> 
> Then trying to keep up the climate denier fantasies.   The suggestion that somewhere there is some real science that somehow refutes all the research that extensively documents what is happening to our environment as a direct result of human actions.
> *
> ...




Just as you have trouble distinguishing science from propaganda, you have trouble distinguishing a personal attack from criticisms of behaviour.

By pointing out your (apparently arrogant and belligerent) hypocrisy, I have not called you a moron, idiot, cheater, liar etc. (*Which you are apt to do I notice*)

If I were on here preaching against pre-marital sex and adultery, all the while fornicating like there was no tomorrow, you would be well within your rights to call me out on that. Yet you believe you should somehow be sheltered from the same?

How precious of you my dear! 

Repetitions of standard propaganda doesn't support your version of the purported science one iota... and continuous accusations of 'denial' when such is clearly not the case will endear you to no one.

Instead, it highlights the grotesque straw man argument hysterical alarmists such as yourself have attempted to construct... and failed.

You will find many of those arguing against you are taking substantive environmental measures in their own lives, which further debases, both morally and intellectually, your hollow sermons on CC.

In fact I am stunned by not only your hypocrisy, but your arrogance.

Now please note that I have not insulted your person one iota, merely criticized the most absurd of your views. So stop the whining misrepresentations of what I am doing here and man up, even if you are female.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 November 2011)

From now on, denial-siders can't use "fear mongering" as a valid argument.

"The government is just using this as a cash grab!!  Hold onto your wallets, the government wants more tax from you!!"      Isn't that fear  mongering also?

PS. I'm not on either side.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> It's actually a different subject about the closing of the window to act but very few have stayed on the subject and it has regressed to the standard expected.





come on Knobby - you don't expect those of us who care about this country to sit on our hands and let a nonsense tax potentially rip this country apart?

Basilio has his own opinions, but they are NOT factual science as he likes to pretend.  Most of AGW is based on computer modelling and, as such, is predictive only and NOT fact.

Actual data from space tells us that temperatures have NOT apparently risen anything like the modelling predicted - computer modelling can get things very wrong:







Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2011.png

And more information from this article poster earlier in the thread:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...issions-up-sharply-yet-temperatures-are-flat/


----------



## wayneL (14 November 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> "The government is just using this as a cash grab!!  Hold onto your wallets, the government wants more tax from you!!"      Isn't that fear  mongering also?




Not if it's the truth.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 November 2011)

I'm not for the tax, at least in its present form, and as many have said here it will make little difference.  The article was about the failure of the world to change to less problematic energy supplies.

I'm rapt you are using satellite temperatures as it will be very interesting to see what happens when next El Niño happens. I am hoping La Nina lasts for ever under the new conditions but feel that option is faint. 

I am also hoping that we have hit a new steady state at a higher temperature and everything will be OK as heat loss is achieved by other factors.  This is more likely.

I am not as confident as many here that there will be no problems with increased carbon dioxide, but then again as many have pointed out, there are many other problems we are creating and it is very likely that something will come out of left field to surprise us.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> From now on, denial-siders can't use "fear mongering" as a valid argument.
> 
> "The government is just using this as a cash grab!!  Hold onto your wallets, the government wants more tax from you!!"      Isn't that fear  mongering also?
> 
> PS. I'm not on either side.




It's not fear mongering if it's the truth.  I'm more interested in history and actual data for the facts. How's the UK going with their green taxes - here are some articles from the Uk daily mail and the Guardian:

Green taxes 'hit tipping point that will damage jobs and investment'

The green tax con: Climate change levies are swallowed up by Treasury

And the EU:
Green group accuses China of climate blackmail

Surely it's not fear mongering to find out what's going on in other countries who have priced carbon before us?


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> Not if it's the truth.




Agree...

And this article from the AGE (not a Murdoch paper...lol) that says this:


> The federal government has set up a special unit to pitch its carbon-pricing policy, which polls show has failed to gain much traction among voters.




and from Eric Abetz (same article) and agree that taxpayers should NOT have to fund labor's propaganda and even more so when the majority didn't want the tax in the first place:


> Liberal frontbencher Eric Abetz said today taxpayers should not have to fund a Labor "propaganda" unit, particularly given the impending carbon tax would break a Labor election promise.
> 
> "What this does in the minds of the Australian people is add insult to injury," he said.



Full article from the AGE: *Labor sets up carbon tax spin unit* 

Anything that needs to be sold to the public with SPIN (aka propaganda) is not telling the full truth imo.  Definition of Propaganda:


> Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.




Shame on the spinners...


----------



## Knobby22 (14 November 2011)

sails said:


> Agree...
> 
> Anything that needs to be sold to the public with SPIN (aka propaganda) is not telling the full truth imo.  Definition of Propaganda:
> 
> ...




You have to admit that there has been spinning in both directions.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I'm rapt you are using satellite temperatures ...




Knobby, I am looking for the truth and believe that history and actual data gives us facts.  Computer modelling is not factual - it is a predictive tool depending on it's inputs.  Reliability will be proven as actual data comes to hand to tell us how those models are stacking up against reality.  At this stage, it's not looking too good for the modelling as per the Forbes article below which I have posted earlier:

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Up Sharply, Yet Temperatures Are Flat?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 November 2011)

sails said:


> It's not fear mongering if it's the truth.




Fear is fear.... but everyone has a different truth, that's the problem.  Your truth, their truth, the government's truth, china's truth.

Seems there's intelligent people on both sides of the fence.  Each has their own truth.  A bit like the Muslims vs the Christians....it will rage on until each side realizes their truth isn't true.  

How much truth is there in a truth that can have an opposite truth?


----------



## Knobby22 (14 November 2011)

Sails

I agree, the modelling is not worth much. And the temperture rise appears to have stopped but as many say we don't really understand how it works yet.

I said to Wayne about 5 years ago, we will know what will happen much better in ten years. 

It will be extremely interesting to see what happens when the present El Nina ends. If the means starts dropping like the sine wave shown on the graph, believe me, I will be the first to celebrate.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> You have to admit that there has been spinning in both directions.




Paid for by taxpayers?  I don't think so.

If you listen to the interview of Bolt to the three professors and read Garth Paltridge's article, you will find that those opposing AGW don't seem to get the same ease of funding - if any funding at all.

As one of the professors said on the video, a court case needs a prosecution and a defence  in attempt to get to the truth.  The case against AGW has not been given a fair go with funding, as far as I can see.  

If Australians really want the truth as opposed to spin, then both sides of the AGW science debate should be given equal funding and equal media time so the public can become a jury and decide for themselves.

Much like the anti Murdoch media issues which seem more to be about shutting down one side of the political debate than anything else.  If we want the truth, we need to have ALL the cards on the table so the people can make informed decisions at the polls.

If there labor/greens have nothing to hide politically or on science climate - why the push to try and shut down those with a differing, but often highly professional, opinion?

Let me restate: If we want the truth, we have to have ALL the information, imo.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Sails
> 
> I agree, the modelling is not worth much. And the temperture rise appears to have stopped but as many say we don't really understand how it works yet.
> 
> ...




Knobby - I agree.  I think this tax is way to premature especially in the light of this latest satellite data.  Actual data will show us how accurate or not is climate science computer modelling.

I think it's somewhat crazy as our weather forecasters have some difficulty in getting next week's weather predicted accurately, let alone next month's.

How can they possibly predict the next 10 or 50 years with any accuracy?  How can the 'science be settled' when that science is based on modelling?  These are the questions that keep coming back to my mind. And a couple of years ago I was a passive warmist but have since found way too many inconsistencies imo...lol


----------



## Knobby22 (14 November 2011)

sails said:


> Let me restate: If we want the truth, we have to have ALL the information, imo.




True, we are not that far apart. Spin, be it from News limited or the Government is another word for propaganda.

Debasing the arguments with propaganda turns off the public so they don't trust the sources. 

The media's job is to provide the information but it is so debased it can only push barrows and reprint propaganda.


----------



## wayneL (14 November 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Fear is fear.... but everyone has a different truth, that's the problem.  Your truth, their truth, the government's truth, china's truth.
> 
> Seems there's intelligent people on both sides of the fence.  Each has their own truth.  A bit like the Muslims vs the Christians....it will rage on until each side realizes their truth isn't true.
> 
> How much truth is there in a truth that can have an opposite truth?




Anthropogenic climate change is an untestable hypothesis. Screeching about worst case disaster scenarios as if inevitable is fear mongering, as it is not tempered with the presentation of other possible scenarios.

That governments are taxing carbon dioxide with no chance of reducing emissions (probably increasing them) with likely zero net effect on the climate is demonstrably true. Dullard et al have already done it.


----------



## MACCA350 (14 November 2011)

> Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?



Not 'becoming', it's always been unstoppable........just as global cooling is unstoppable. The earths climate has been doing swings and roundabouts for millions of years, and will do for millions more. 
Any impact we have on these swings in temperature are minuscule in comparison to the changes that occur naturally........you may as well piss on a state wide bush fire, you'd have better luck with that

Cheers


----------



## basilio (14 November 2011)

Sails you quoted an article a couple of times from the Heartland Institute which suggested that temperatures hadn't increased in a ten year period. That was intended to cast doubt on  whether the climate was getting warmer and therefore the increase in CO2 emissions was not having any more effect.

A couple of things. Firstly taking any 10 year period and trying to "prove" a trend is just not scientific. It's just too short a time and that has been acknowledged by McIntyre.

Secondly there are other factors affecting climate which ebb and flow. When you have a look at the graphs which track temperature increase over the last times science can identify La Nina and El Niño effects, volcanic explosions, sunspot activity and so on. These factors exists as well as long term climate cycles and the effects of increased greenhouse gases. We can't change the other issues. 

*In fact there are 6 quite clear short time temperature declines from 1973 to 2010.* But when you look at the overall picture there is a steady clear rise in temperature over the same time. Cool  eh !

http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-2.html

With regard to wanting to examine all the science rather than just one side of the picture. In the end the research has to add up and make scientific sense. That means other scientists in the field have to see the data and agree it is accurate and that the logic and assumptions made in the paper are justified.  Thats what peer review is about and unfortunately very few papers that disagree with the current GW hypothesis have put up a credible evidence based argument. 

____________________________________________________________________

I also have reservations about how carbon tax and trade schemes will work. They are certainly open to rorting. But if as a start there was an agreement that adding extra CO2 was going to cause a dangerous change in the climate then the debate could be about the best ways to tackle the issue and how rorting could be stopped. This is where we should have been many years ago.

I started this thread because the most up to date information from the IEA is very confronting.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

Basilio,

It seems that temperatures are not rising at the predicted rate by computer modelling.  At least, that's my understanding.  If atmospheric co2 has risen by 33% in the last decade and yet temperatures remain somewhat flat, the lack of correlation doesn't help to confirm that rising co2 emissions are causing global warming.

This carbon tax seems to be as clumsy as a bull in a china shop.  The treatment may well be worse than the tiny bit of 'cure' we can offer in ACTUAL reduction of global co2.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Why not stick to simply saying that in your opinion global warming isn't happening and leave it at that ?



Maybe take your own advice.
You could just say that in your opinion we are all going to fry and total annihilation is inevitable.
Instead you go on with your endless proselytising.


----------



## noco (14 November 2011)

I watched Andrew Bolt interview Professor Will Steffen, the Climate Commissioner.

Andrew Bolt said there had been a decline in Global temperatures in the last ten years, Steffen's asnwer as per the link went whether you were looking at sea, air or upper atmosphere temperatures over 30 years.

He the sea were rising 2-3mm per year. Or should it be that some of those coral atolls were in fact sinking?



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/yet_another8/


----------



## Whiskers (14 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Secondly there are* other factors affecting climate which ebb and flow*. When you have a look at the graphs which track temperature increase over the last times science can identify La Nina and El Niño effects, volcanic explosions, sunspot activity and so on. These factors exists as well as long term climate cycles and the effects of increased greenhouse gases. We can't change the other issues.
> 
> *In fact there are 6 quite clear short time temperature declines from 1973 to 2010.* But when you look at the overall picture there is *a steady clear rise in temperature over the same time.* Cool  eh !




Inigo Jones postulated early last century that the 'heating' of the earth occurred in about 35 year cycles. He recorded one from 1867-8 and predicted the prompt end of the heat wave of 1902-3. 

Jones charted and predicted (before his death in the 50's) major cycles of drought and floods up to the drought leading into this millennium and the approximate end (within a year or two) by his cycle. 

So, 1902 + 35 = 1937 + 35 = 1972 + 35 = 2007 about the top of this 'hot' and DRY cycle. 

Then there is the 11 year sunspot cycle which is expected to peak mid 2013... BUT is expected to be the smallest sunspot activity cycle for 80 years. 

In summary; these two (arguably strongest) cycles point to more 'normal' weather patterns, no extended 10 year droughts (in Aus at least) for quite some time.

Although the effect of the top of the sunspot cycles on the stratosphere and ocean temp's continues to affect weather for a season or so, and this cycle is expected to be quite small and we are coming off the back of the 35 year cycle, it can be seen that temp's should trend lower for another decade or so.

Wasn't it about 2002... the top of the last sunspot cycle, which just happened to be nearing the peak of the 35 year cycle that Al Gore and his band of climate alarmists were getting to their fever pitched high!?

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable? As someone else already said... there will always be global warming and cooling cycles and they will not be stoppable. If they stopped, the cycle of seasons and life will be severely affected.

Maybe we ought to be more concerned with predicting the next 'Mini Ice Age'. Wasn't the last only a few hundred years ago! I suspect that will be much more disruptive to 'human' activities than the recent warming and cooling cycles.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2011)

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if scientists stuck to doing actual science in regard to the subject rather than promoting specific economic policies to address a scientific issue.

Climate scientists dabbling in economics makes about as much sense as an electrician becoming an art critic. In reality, the scientist needs to do the research into climate and the electrician needs to keep the lighting and air-conditioning working in the art gallery. Leave the economics and choice of artwork to those who actually know something about such things.

What next? The symphony orchestra employs a chef to conduct the orchestra? Next time I get on a plane there's an announcement from the Captain, who just happens to be a medical Doctor, advising that we all get our pulses checked? No... Let musicians worry about the orchestra, pilots fly the plane and leave the climate scientists to research the climate, not the tax system.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if scientists stuck to doing actual science in regard to the subject rather than promoting specific economic policies to address a scientific issue.
> 
> Climate scientists dabbling in economics makes about as much sense as an electrician becoming an art critic. In reality, the scientist needs to do the research into climate and the electrician needs to keep the lighting and air-conditioning working in the art gallery. Leave the economics and choice of artwork to those who actually know something about such things.
> 
> What next? The symphony orchestra employs a chef to conduct the orchestra? Next time I get on a plane there's an announcement from the Captain, who just happens to be a medical Doctor, advising that we all get our pulses checked? No... Let musicians worry about the orchestra, pilots fly the plane and leave the climate scientists to research the climate, not the tax system.




Smurf - I entirely agree.  It makes no sense that politicians and economists pick up on a cure for a supposed scientifically identified problem.

In medical science, it is scientists who then work on treatment once a cause has been found to an illness  - it is most certainly NOT handed over to economists and politicians.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if scientists stuck to doing actual science in regard to the subject rather than promoting specific economic policies to address a scientific issue.
> 
> Climate scientists dabbling in economics makes about as much sense as an electrician becoming an art critic.



And vice versa, viz Ross Garnaut, an economist, beating the environmental issue up as though he's a climate scientist.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 November 2011)

You People really need to have a look at this video...then tell me that tiny strip of atmosphere is not worth protecting, not worth doing everything humanly possible to safe guard...our lives depend on it.

Talk about chicken little and the sky falling....dude there is no sky, just some noble gases between us and the void of outer space.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23775


----------



## DB008 (14 November 2011)

sails said:


> Full article from the AGE: *Labor sets up carbon tax spin unit*
> 
> Anything that needs to be sold to the public with SPIN (aka propaganda) is not telling the full truth imo.  Definition of Propaganda:
> 
> ...





Good find comrade Sails.
I thought that Australia was a Western Democratic country? 
Hmm....

The propaganda department in full swing....


----------



## qldfrog (14 November 2011)

very disappointing overall:
a talk about a threshold being reached and we got a barrage of posts about the carbone tax in Australia and how bad it is for your wallet  and the country; I am the first to agree that this carbon tax is a scam, but even if Australia is too small to matter, I still would prefer the world to be given a chance, (however small Australia is, we will pay the same price and probably worse than the average).
As for people denying climate change, get off your PCs: visit the Alps glaciers in Europe, have a walk in SE Queensland and see how blackberries are being replaced by lantanas, or the fact that where I live, swallows do not even bother to migrate anymore  all this in a 10y period...but I must be a fanatical green....
if in denial, the peak oil argument at least should be taken into account: shouldn't our society/economy get ready for the end of cheap oil?
anyway, have a good night and how I wish the deniers were right..I would sleep much better.


----------



## lurker123 (14 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Maybe take your own advice.
> You could just say that in your opinion we are all going to fry and total annihilation is inevitable.
> Instead you go on with your endless proselytising.




I gotta agree with Julia here, I don't know why you started this thread when its pretty obvious that the majority of the forum don't believe in the human contribution to climate change.

It is pointless to try and convince people who made up their minds, its like trying to convince a indoctrined muslim/christian to become a atheist.

The stance i take is that I trust that the scientists who study the field are not collectively trying to mind **** me, and that the human contribution to climate change is real. When I say scientist, I don't mean any scientist, I mean those who study the field. I wouldn't trust my GP to do surgery if I needed it instead I would get it done by the respective specialist surgeon. 

However due to the fact that there is no global effort to reduce carbon emissions and the fact that australia by itself will have little influcence. The carbon tax is pretty much just a pointless gesture. Not to mention the fact that it may decrease our CO2 emission by exporting it offshore e.g. the carbon tax increases the cost of steel production within australia making australian produced steel uncompetitive hence more chinese steel is purchased. Thus the increase in chinese steel production and CO2 emission, not to mention all the CO2 emitted from transporting all that australian iron ore to china. 

I however highly doubt that the carbon tax is the leading cause of the australian steel industries woes. In my opinion the major cause of their problem is the high australia dollar. I do believe it has indirectly contributed to increasing electricity prices through uncertainty causing lack of investment in electricity generation by the power companies. Since electrical infrastructure is long term, as a generalization, it would be foolish to invest in a new coal fire power plant if a carbon tax is in the works. Likewise it would be foolish to invest in more windfarms if the carbon tax happens to get dismantled by abbot. 

Even though I believe in the human contribution to climate change I don't really care about it. There are so much problems that the human race has to deal with that climate change is just 1 problem of many. From peak oil, the peak of other mineral resources, peak in global food production/deterioration of arable farmland, lack of freshwater, overpopulation and our reliance on ever increasing population for economic growth, the fact that our entire economic system is based on endless growth.

To sum it up there are like 3 competing forces at work. There is the earth which only has a limited number of resources which in this way will wipe the human race out of existence. The human race and its inability to accept change unless forced onto it, and propensity for self destruction/ the coming wars over resources. Finally we have technology and the power of technology to overcome limitations.

There are 4 maybe 5 possible outcomes. Outcome 1 and 2 which I think are the most likely is that the human race wipes itself out, or the major conflict/lack of resources in the near future wipes out the majority of our race leaving a few scattered survivors who possibly have to live in a wasteland we now call earth.

Outcome 3 the least likely outcome, where mankind starts changing for the good.

Outcome 4 and 5 where technology allows us to start harvesting the resources of other planets, or start recycling everything extremely efficiently.

Outcome 1 & 2 means mankind has failed to become a class 1 civilization. Outcome 3,4 & 5 means that mankind either made the great transition to class 1 or is well on the way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj_UKcBBScc

Since I believe in outcome 1 & 2, yeah we are all going to fry and total annihilation is inevitable.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> You People really need to have a look at this video...then tell me that tiny strip of atmosphere is not worth protecting, not worth doing everything humanly possible to safe guard...our lives depend on it.
> 
> Talk about chicken little and the sky falling....dude there is no sky, just some noble gases between us and the void of outer space.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23775




No use trying to convert Australians - we only produce around 1.3% of global co2 emissions.

Maybe get yourself on to Chinese or US message boards where they emit almost half of co2 global emissions between them.  But I think they are not interested in pricing carbon.


----------



## Whiskers (14 November 2011)

sails said:


> No use trying to convert Australians - we only produce around 1.3% of global co2 emissions.
> 
> Maybe get yourself on to Chinese or US message boards where they emit almost half of co2 global emissions between them.  But I think they are not interested in pricing carbon.




You'll no doubt fall on a pretty deaf ear there too.

The typical argument from third world and developing nations like China is that we, the developed world created the current 'pollution/CO2' problem via unrestricted industrial emissions AND want to stop the developing nations from growing under similar low cost unrestricted emissions, and want the developing nations to help meet the cost of our past unrestricted emissions.

With China and the US locking horns in a trade and currency war, the US is in no position to cough up for an emission trading scheme or carbon tax.

But, as far as CO2 and any correlation with warming goes, I firmly believe the closer we get to 2020's the more apparent it will become that it's all an alarmist hoax.

Now, if the tax was on really toxic emissions being pumped into our atmosphere and waterways, that would be a different story.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 November 2011)

sails said:


> No use trying to convert Australians - we only produce around 1.3% of global co2 emissions.




Ok i give up...lucky i can do that because.

WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A CARBON TAX and GHG REDUCTION REGIME.


----------



## ghotib (15 November 2011)

Maybe the bankers will save us. 

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/will-bankers-kill-king-coal



> ... if the world’s political deliberations on climate change represent little more than a speed hump for Big Coal and Big Oil, then maybe the financial community might present more formidable resistance. That would be a delightful irony considering the mess that bankers have got us into it now, but naked self interest may, for once, serve a greater purpose and force bankers to do what the politicians daren’t: say no to coal.
> 
> At least one big bank thinks they might. HSBC Bank overnight produced a report that stated that there are three key reasons why the IEA’s stark scenario – the world will be locked into a plus 2 °C trajectory unless really serious action was taken by 2017 – might be avoided, or at least delayed. These were credit risk, cleantech and stranded assets. ...




Ghoti


----------



## wayneL (15 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Ok i give up...lucky i can do that because.
> 
> WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A CARBON TAX and GHG EXPORT REGIME.




Corrected for accuracy


----------



## macca (15 November 2011)

Even though I also believe that this is the closest thing to the truth, it will be fought because pollution in the form of smoke, chemicals, waste products etc  are easy to measure and have been substantially reduced in the western world. This would not bring in enough tax income for the snouts in the trough.



Whiskers said:


> You'll no doubt fall on a pretty deaf ear there too.
> 
> The typical argument from third world and developing nations like China is that we, the developed world created the current 'pollution/CO2' problem via unrestricted industrial emissions AND want to stop the developing nations from growing under similar low cost unrestricted emissions, and want the developing nations to help meet the cost of our past unrestricted emissions.
> 
> ...


----------



## sails (15 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Ok i give up...lucky i can do that because.
> 
> WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A CARBON TAX and GHG REDUCTION REGIME.




Shame on you SC for being so jubilant that this legislation was passed when it was very clear that the majority absolutely did NOT want this tax.    I suspect the next election will be as good as a referrendum on carbon tax.

You seem to be as undemocratic as those who have forced this on to our country against the will of the majority.  There should at least have been a referendum on such a major issue if democracy was being respected.

I can only guess that you THINK this tax won't hurt you.  But where do you think the billions is going to be found?  The 500 will pass their costs on to Australians - they are not charities.

And this from Greg Hunt explaining the $24billion that carbon tax will add to the construction industry by 2020.  It's a good article and well worth the read if we want to understand the horrendous impact this tax will have on our working people.

http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=2238


----------



## Logique (15 November 2011)

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Bob Brown and the Greens are becoming unstoppable. Shudder.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2011)

lurker123 said:


> I gotta agree with Julia here, I don't know why you started this thread when its pretty obvious that the majority of the forum don't believe in the human contribution to climate change.
> 
> It is pointless to try and convince people who made up their minds, its like trying to convince a indoctrined muslim/christian to become a atheist.




The other thread is titled "Resisting Climate Hysteria."  Basilio is all about *creating climate hysteria. *By opening a new thread he hoped to attract more alarmists to his cause. He has failed to do this, but has retained a few of the usual suspects who are mainly rusted-on lefties.


----------



## basilio (15 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> The other thread is titled "Resisting Climate Hysteria."  Basilio is all about *creating climate hysteria. *By opening a new thread he hoped to attract more alarmists to his cause. He has failed to do this, but has retained a few of the usual suspects who are mainly rusted-on lefties.




Let me introduce the latest group of climate alarmists who think we need to deal with what is known about current global warming trends. Definitely subversives. 
_
(The Defence Science Board Report is quite good as well.)_



> *CIA urged to be more open about climate change*
> 
> US government agency says CIA should abandon its traditional culture of secrecy and begin sharing its intelligence on the issue
> 
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/14/cia-urged-open-climate-change


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Let me introduce the latest group of climate alarmists who think we need to deal with what is known about current global warming trends. Definitely subversives.
> _
> (The Defence Science Board Report is quite good as well.)_




So they think the CIA should be more transparent. I am surprised that The Guardian would give any credence to CIA machinations. However I guess it is their job to be alarmist.


----------



## spooly74 (15 November 2011)

> ...
> 
> *Human hand fingered?*
> 
> ...




I find the last line interesting.
Why only 2-3 decades? Natural Climate Variability has the potential to span all timescales.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 November 2011)

spooly74 said:


> I find the last line interesting.
> Why only 2-3 decades? Natural Climate Variability has the potential to span all timescales.




Re-read it, it makes sense.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (15 November 2011)

Looking at the title of this thread - Would I be correct in assuming that if man didn't produce any Co2 (eg the 3% of total CO2) then humans could stop global warming? 

Was the global climate "stable" in centuries past before CO2 from man? Is this what the historic trends show? If so, can I request for 26 deg C everyday pls.

Should I move my unanswered questions from the hysterical alarmist thread to here, where someone with traditional authority and knowledge can answer some very basic questions on CO2 and observed evidence? Unless Basilio wants to go back and actually answer them without referring to propaganda blogs and models?


----------



## sails (15 November 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Looking at the title of this thread - Would I be correct in assuming that if man didn't produce any Co2 (eg the 3% of total CO2) then humans could stop global warming?
> 
> Was the global climate "stable" in centuries past before CO2 from man? Is this what the historic trends show? If so, can I request for 26 deg C everyday pls....




My thoughts too, OWG.  History tells us there have been extreme weather events throughout history and long before industrialisation may have had any impact on the planet.

But, extreme weather events frighten people, so I suppose if one wants to con people into parting with their money, making them afraid is one way of doing so.


----------



## spooly74 (15 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Re-read it, it makes sense.




So for the next 20 or 30 years, there should be no conclusive attribution of weather extreme events due to AGW? 
Seems like a backflip.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 November 2011)

spooly74 said:


> So for the next 20 or 30 years, there should be no conclusive attribution of weather extreme events due to AGW?
> Seems like a backflip.




Weather is highly variable so even though the warming will have an effect it will be swamped by the highly variable weather so .. for instance.. a cyclone happens that is really bad, it will be difficult to quantify how much worse it is because the waters in which it was created were hotter than normal because that is very difficult to measure.  An if vs a reality. 

Think of it like the share market.
Say a share makes consistently 7% more profit a year but the market is very volatile (like now). The share price is likely to range far more than 40%. The effect of the increased profits will have a positive effect but it is swamped by the market. Nonetheless the profit and the higher price you get for the share - on average and in the long term - is very real.

They are scientists so they are naturally aware of the swamping effect. It takes many years of measurements and research to quantify these things.  Those glaciers therefore will just keep melting.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2011)

qldfrog said:


> I am the first to agree that this carbon tax is a scam, but even if Australia is too small to matter, I still would prefer the world to be given a chance, (however small Australia is, we will pay the same price and probably worse than the average)



Please explain to me how relocating emissions from one country to another is giving the world a chance? A chance at what, exactly?

If the carbon tax actually reduced emissions then it may be of some benefit depending on your views on the issue. But simply relocating emissions from Australia to some other country is a dud no matter what you believe regarding the CO2 issue itself. We're all on the same planet - moving pollution around isn't going to help in the slightest.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Then im afraid its official...you just don't get it.
> 
> In your world price increases have absolutely no affect on consumption....its not the price tag that stops people living in Double bay and driving ferraris.



Price increases have no effect on consumption when there is a legal option to not pay the price increase and not reduce pollution.

It's like income tax. Why would I pay income tax if there were legal means to avoid it? For most of the major polluters, the carbon tax is entirely optional - how many do you think will bother with it or reducing emissions?


----------



## explod (15 November 2011)

sails said:


> But, extreme weather events frighten people, so I suppose if one wants to con people into parting with their money, making them afraid is one way of doing so.




They are actually killing people.

And it is interesting that the mainstream press under report this aspect.


----------



## explod (15 November 2011)

Logique said:


> Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
> 
> Bob Brown and the Greens are becoming unstoppable. Shudder.




Because maybe thier propaganda is better than the mainstream.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Price increases have no effect on consumption when there is a *legal option to not pay* the price increase and not reduce pollution.
> 
> It's like income tax. Why would I pay income tax if there were legal means to avoid it?* For most of the major polluters, the carbon tax is entirely optional* - how many do you think will bother with it or reducing emissions?



Orly? please explain. 

---------------------

Over time all businesses will take action to reduce there GHG footprint/Baseline...over time it will be just another cost input to be managed, most of the big businesses affected in this first round (top 500) will appoint a GHG manager and give him/her a small specialist team. 

That team will establish a base line (under Kyoto rules) and develop policy and advise on GHG reduction initiatives and possibly's etc...pave the way forward.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Orly? please explain.



Easy.

Ship Australian coal and metal ores to a non-taxed country.

Produce metal in said country.

Tax avoided. 

Simple really and it's the same approach as what happened with the forest industry in Tasmania once electricity supply became an issue. Investment in the paper mills stalled, exports of raw wood ramped up, and only 1 of the 4 mills we once had is still in operation today despite booming global demand for paper products over that time. 

Now we're about to see the same thing with metals processing on mainland Australia - shut the local processing and ramp up ore exports in order to sustain the economy overall. It's a pretty sure way to wreck the local environment when you think of what that really involves and it's not much good economically either.

Now look at what's happened in other places which have gone down the high energy cost track. They also offshored their manufacturing and emissions. Spot the pattern here? Few will pay any tax when it's easy to avoid it and you can't compete in manufacturing without competitively priced energy.

Would you pay income tax if you had a legal and relatively easy means of avoiding it? Possibly you might but I seriously doubt it... 

If this carbon tax was to work then it needs to apply to Australian consumption of goods rather than production. So there would be a carbon tax on a fully imported car, for example, since producing it caused the emission of CO2 overseas. Indeed there would be a tax on practically everything imported into Australia, with the same tax on domestic production and zero tax on production to export (administed in the form of a tax credit / rebate type arrangement).

Trouble is, that arrangement actually cuts emissions without screwing Australian industry. That's too good an outcome...


----------



## So_Cynical (15 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Easy.
> 
> Ship Australian coal and metal ores to a non-taxed country.
> 
> ...




Yes but there's a cost to that for most of the big polluters, if not all of em...look at the power stations and Alloy smelters they could simply build 5 new smaller plants to replace the out put from a large plant and thus avoid the tax...if there keen on spending billions to avoid it.

Some industry's will certainly move offshore...no doubt about it, and clean green industry's will replace them or at least ease the pain of there withdrawal....the Aussie economy is in transition and the carbon tax will speed things along.



Smurf1976 said:


> If this carbon tax was to work then it needs to apply to Australian consumption of goods rather than production. So there would be a carbon tax on a fully imported car, for example, since producing it caused the emission of CO2 overseas. Indeed there would be a tax on practically everything imported into Australia, with the same tax on domestic production and zero tax on production to export (administed in the form of a tax credit / rebate type arrangement).
> 
> Trouble is, that arrangement actually cuts emissions without screwing Australian industry. That's too good an outcome...




Would probably be in breach of our trade treaty commitments...seen as a breach of free trade etc i would think.


----------



## qldfrog (15 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Please explain to me how relocating emissions from one country to another is giving the world a chance? A chance at what, exactly?
> 
> If the carbon tax actually reduced emissions then it may be of some benefit depending on your views on the issue. But simply relocating emissions from Australia to some other country is a dud no matter what you believe regarding the CO2 issue itself. We're all on the same planet - moving pollution around isn't going to help in the slightest.



 And once again, please read what I said, this is NOT a thread about the carbon tax. 
I fully agree with you about the existing tax, to be effective, this should apply to all imports, and sorry but it has to hurt to be useful: no extra money for compensation whether you are a brown coal plant or a 4wd driving  pensioner;
It should not be a class leveler as it is now

but the fact is, if you believe in science and not talk shows or exxon propaganda (g\uess what, they pay scientist as well) with your taxes quite often thru subsidies, we are in for a serious wake up call


----------



## sails (15 November 2011)

explod said:


> They are actually killing people.
> 
> And it is interesting that the mainstream press under report this aspect.




Explod, extreme weather events have always been killing people - this is nothing new.  I believe there were a number of deaths in the 1893 floods BEFORE the globe apparently warmed by one degree.  Of course, this is probably an effective way to scare people into paying a tax, but I can't see how money changing hands is actually going to change our weather patterns enough to save lives - and I think it's unlikely that the trading carbon credits won't actually reduce atmospheric co2. 

So, even if you are a full blown warmist, surely this business of trading carbon credits doesn't make sense if you really want atmospheric co2 reduced?

So far, the predictions of no more dam filling rains have not come true.  What will happen when people are taxed to the poor house and bad weather still kills people?  What will the excuses be?



explod said:


> Because maybe thier propaganda is better than the mainstream.




Explod, are you admitting that deception is being used to mislead the people?

Definition of Propaganda:

"Information, esp. of a *biased or misleading nature*, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."​


----------



## sails (15 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> ...Over time all businesses will take action to reduce there GHG footprint/Baseline...over time it will be just another cost input to be managed, most of the big businesses affected in this first round (top 500) will appoint a GHG manager and give him/her a small specialist team.
> 
> That team will establish a base line (under Kyoto rules) and develop policy and advise on GHG reduction initiatives and possibly's etc...pave the way forward.




SC - This tax will hopefully exist for not much more than a year as the coalition are committed to repleal it.  See the link to Greg Hunt's article below.

And I understood that Japan, Russia, Canada are not planning to renew their support for Kyoto.  Link below.

http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=2238

Kyoto deal loses four big nations

UN May Seek to Extend Kyoto Pact Without Canada, Japan, Russia


----------



## basilio (15 November 2011)

I agree with Smurf and others that the carbon tax as proposed will not be sufficient to quickly and effectively reduce CO2 emissions.  I suppose the trouble with thinking like a big business in the current paradigm is that the desire to  maximise profits and reduce tax seems to be at the top of the tree.  

Too bad of course if that results in unstoppable climate change that wrecks the environment and ends up destroying the trophy homes, yachts and toys that were bought with all that moolah...

*Plan B*

Lets imagine that somehow the penny dropped and a significant number of these big business leaders come to believe that the climate scientists may actually be right. That the IEA, the CIA,  CSIRO  etc are giving a legitimate heads up on a catastrophic situation unless we actually control and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. That the consequences for *them, their families and their wealth* will be just as devastating as a peasant in India.

Maybe they would focus their  financial muscle and industrial capacity on making the mammoth changes required in pure self interest. Forget trying to game the carbon tax. With that change in mindset they/we might do everything in our power to somehow get out of this fix.

They wouldn't even have to be absolutely sure about the science. If they thought that there was say a 30-40% chance that doing nothing was going to result in this outcome would that be enough to change their minds ?

Maybe. Maybe not..


----------



## Julia (15 November 2011)

explod said:


> They are actually killing people.
> 
> And it is interesting that the mainstream press under report this aspect.



As sails has already observed, extreme weather events have always killed people and always will.  This hardly makes any sort of point re so called climate change.



basilio said:


> They wouldn't even have to be absolutely sure about the science. If they thought that there was say a 30-40% chance that doing nothing was going to result in this outcome would that be enough to change their minds ?
> 
> Maybe. Maybe not..



Well, dream on, basilio.  Business is way too sensible to succumb to such romanticised notions as doing anything which has no predictable outcome, and thank god for that.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2011)

> Quote Originally Posted by qldfrog View Post
> I am the first to agree that this carbon tax is a scam, but even if Australia is too small to matter, I still would prefer the world to be given a chance, (however small Australia is, we will pay the same price and probably worse than the average)



frog, this makes no sense.  How is the world being given a chance, as you put it, when you clearly state that Australia is too small to matter????



qldfrog said:


> And once again, please read what I said, this is NOT a thread about the carbon tax.
> I fully agree with you about the existing tax, to be effective, this should apply to all imports, and sorry but it has to hurt to be useful: no extra money for compensation whether you are a brown coal plant or a 4wd driving  pensioner;



4wd pensioners?  Get acquainted with the real world!


----------



## basilio (15 November 2011)

> Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> 
> 
> > They wouldn't even have to be absolutely sure about the science. If they thought that there was say a 30-40% chance that doing nothing was going to result in this outcome would that be enough to change their minds ?
> ...




Not so sure about that Julia. For arguments sake which business would even consider developing a project that had a 30% chance of a catastrophic outcome ? In fact if there was even a 1% chance of a company breaking result simple risk management strategies would come into play.

There are almost no certainties in life.  So business deals in risk management as a matter of course.


----------



## Ruby (15 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Too bad of course* if that results in unstoppable climate change *that wrecks the environment ...............




Basilio, the trouble with all your arguments in this thread and the climate change hysteria thread (where you claimed we would "cook" with temp increases of 5 degrees etc) is that you make some rather large quantum leaps, where there is no basis in fact for doing so.

First, climate change *IS *unstoppable.  No-one denies the climate is changing. The climate on this planet has *always *changed and always will.  In fact, there are periods in the past when it has changed more than it is changing now. * We can't stop it.*

You make the wild assumption that human activity is causing massive climate change (in your case you believe it is increased global warming) but not once in all of your posts have you ever submitted one shred of *observed *evidence to support these claims. You constantly quote the Sceptical Science website (which presents only one side of the argument) but never seem to investigate other sites which present a different view.

You have on numerous occasions claimed that the "Scientific Community" supports your viewpoint, where in fact this is grossly untrue.  Some scientists do, but there are thousands who don't.

Even the warmists have agreed that if Australia completely shut down tomorrow -that is turned the main switch OFF as it were - the difference it would make to our climate would be negligible.

You and the other climate change alarmists talk in the same breath of "climate change" "increased CO2 in the atmosphere" and "pollution".  CO2 is *NOT *a pollutant.  I find it very irritating that whenever there is a television report about the carbon tax or "carbon pollution" they show pictures of cooling towers belching steam! This is not just misleading the ignorant; it is a blatant deception.  Although CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, there is no evidence that this is a cause for concern, or that is it currently driving global warming.   (There is some evidence that it is the other way around - increased temp drives increased CO2 in the atmosphere.)

Yes- pollution of the environment is a serious problem - but this is a different subject.

For goodness sake do some reading and get a more balanced viewpoint of the situation, or present some *observed *evidence to support your claims.

(My bolds)


----------



## qldfrog (15 November 2011)

Julia said:


> frog, this makes no sense.  How is the world being given a chance, as you put it, when you clearly state that Australia is too small to matter????
> 
> 
> 4wd pensioners?  Get acquainted with the real world!



Julia, ->15 to 20y old nissan patrols & cie burning 20l/100km
very common in qld and I believe you live there too...

pensioner does not mean poor for retirees, you are wise enough to know that pension and related benefits are a key component of retirements for many if not most.

But seeing such polarisation; being anti climate change is like a religion here as well;
look at the posts in that thread, reread what you wrote Julia
Especially disappointed as I have followed you for a while in other threads and was often in agreement. a
I will sadly be proven right if I live long enough .
at least I can hope being wrong!That is a positive spin!!


Anyway no point, we will agree to disagree buti would like to go back to this thread subject which IS NOT the carbon tax a la Gilliard
Have all a good night, another so cold night in Brisbane tonight, I might need a blanket


----------



## lurker123 (15 November 2011)

sails said:


> Explod, are you admitting that deception is being used to mislead the people?
> 
> Definition of Propaganda:
> 
> "Information, esp. of a *biased or misleading nature*, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."​




The same can be said about your side of the arguement, the way I see it the anti-climate change propaganda started in the US through sources such as fox news, just as the climate change in your view propaganda started in the US with Al Gore. 

However the scientific establishment with peer reviewed journals backs climate change. 

I find it sad how many people in this forum don't believe in the human contribution to climate change and are following the lead of the US. I am just happy that Australia as a whole thinks much more like Europe than the US.

Being a Pompous Ass I think the US is basically a backward country now, filled with people who are digging their own grave.

All stemming from sources such as fox news which in my view is basically a tool the ultra rich use to control the population. Crap like "Intelligent Design/Creationism" to CFC's not being the cause of the ozone hole.


----------



## sails (15 November 2011)

Great post, Ruby...

In the other thread, there seemed to be some doubt that Flannery said there would be no more dam filling rains.  Have a look at this video below around the 3.25 mark where Flannery can be seen and heard saying, "_Even the rain that falls isn't going to actually fill our dams or our river systems"_.  Obviously this was said some time before and in this article it gives dates of when predictions were made.

Professor Will Steffen is Flannery's fellow climate commissioner and he speaks with Andrew Bolt just after the Flannery statement.  Some of this will make Basilio happy...lol:


----------



## So_Cynical (15 November 2011)

sails said:


> SC - This tax will hopefully exist for not much more than a year as the coalition are committed to repleal it.  See the link to Greg Hunt's article below.
> 
> And I understood that Japan, Russia, Canada are not planning to renew their support for Kyoto.  Link below.




Sails i should know better than to explain something to you ...but here goes.

The Kyoto treaty has all but run its course...reached its use by date, its is after all 15 years old and the first commitment period will be over come the end of 2012, the first commitment period has also proved to be a near total failure as far as targets go.

What ever treaty replaces Kyoto...and make no mistake because it is a 100% certainty that there will be a new treaty, this new treaty will be backwards compatible and honour all Kyoto commitments.

So don't get all carried away with the end of Kyoto...it was always meant to end, to be a beginning and thus has served it purpose, Kyoto established the rules and those rules will go forward..the targets are a goner.


----------



## sails (15 November 2011)

Lurker,

The difference is in the motive.  

AGW is being used as an excuse to extract billions of dollars from our working people and money is clearly the motive.  

Non-AGW has no motive because of the belief that climate change is a perfectly natural event and is not trying to extract billions of dollars from working people.

Why would sky news waste their money on something where there is no return?


----------



## sails (15 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> ...What ever treaty replaces Kyoto...and make no mistake because it is a 100% certainty that there will be a new treaty, this new treaty will be backwards compatible and honour all Kyoto commitments.
> 
> So don't get all carried away with the end of Kyoto...it was always meant to end, to be a beginning and thus has served it purpose, Kyoto established the rules and those rules will go forward..the targets are a goner.




Do you mean like the certaintity that there would be no more dam filling rains?

Time will tell about Kyoto and what is to follow.  It is possible that the paradigm has peaked.  When the majority of Australians don't want this tax, it would also seem quite plausible to think that there is a fair majority world wide who also do not want carbon to be priced.  Governments going for this are likely to be voted out when their elections come.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2011)

qldfrog said:


> Julia, ->15 to 20y old nissan patrols & cie burning 20l/100km
> very common in qld and I believe you live there too...



I know quite a lot of 'pensioners' and they all drive quite old, small cars.  Don't know even one and have never even seen anyone in that age group driving the sort of vehicle you describe.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course.



> pensioner does not mean poor for retirees, you are wise enough to know that pension and related benefits are a key component of retirements for many if not most.



The term "pensioner' usually denotes someone dependent on the government age pension for all or most of their income.  Such people are usually - when compared to the average wage e.g. - considered poor.  I certainly wouldn't like to be living on a government pension in my dotage.



> Anyway no point, we will agree to disagree buti would like to go back to this thread subject which IS NOT the carbon tax a la Gilliard
> Have all a good night, another so cold night in Brisbane tonight, I might need a blanket



Good lord, cold in Brisbane?  It's around 25 degrees here at present only a few hours north.


----------



## lurker123 (15 November 2011)

sails said:


> Lurker,
> 
> The difference is in the motive.
> 
> ...




There is motive on both sides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

"individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, among others—formed lobbying groups to enlist greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research"

"Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article's words, a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom."

"the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration."

"The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[4][37] In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."[38]"

"ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming. A spokesman, Gantt Walton, said that ExxonMobil's funding of research does not mean that it acts to influence the research, and that ExxonMobil supports taking action to curb the output of greenhouse gasses."

"In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, former lobbyist and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute and President George W. Bush's chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."[41] Sharon Begley reported in Newsweek that Cooney "edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as 'lack of understanding' and 'considerable uncertainty.'" Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."[8] Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke,[42] but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil."


----------



## So_Cynical (16 November 2011)

sails said:


> Do you mean like the certaintity that there would be no more dam filling rains?




HUH? 

While im 100% certain dams will be full from time to time...others wont be full, some far from it.

One of Perth's main dams is Serpentine dam...currently at 27.46% capacity...and hasn't been full in over a decade. 

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/dams_storagedetail.cfm?id=11453

Warragamba dam in Sydney at 79% capacity and hasn't been full in more than a decade.

http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams-and-water/weekly-storage-and-supply-reports/2012/10-november-2011

Both Perth and Sydney have desal plants yet the dams still cant fill.


----------



## macca (16 November 2011)

In some areas the population has increased by 200% or more since the last dam was built. Demand has doubled (or more, if industries have been opened) but no new dams built ............... Highly likely that the water is being used quicker than previously IMO



So_Cynical said:


> HUH?
> 
> While im 100% certain dams will be full from time to time...others wont be full, some far from it.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2011)

macca said:


> In some areas the population has increased by 200% or more since the last dam was built. Demand has doubled (or more, if industries have been opened) but no new dams built ............... Highly likely that the water is being used quicker than previously IMO




Yep. When I first moved to Perth the population was about 600,000... now about 1.4 or thereabouts?

Same dams as then.


----------



## noirua (16 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> Yep. When I first moved to Perth the population was about 600,000... now about 1.4 or thereabouts?
> 
> Same dams as then.




Looks like trouble ahead if the mining boom really takes off and ends up there to stay.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2011)

There is a s##tload of underground water however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarragadee_Aquifer


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Good lord, cold in Brisbane?  It's around 25 degrees here at present only a few hours north.




Frog was being sarcastic.


----------



## bellenuit (16 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> There is a s##tload of underground water however.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarragadee_Aquifer





..... and 2 desal plants


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> HUH?
> 
> While im 100% certain dams will be full from time to time...others wont be full, some far from it.
> 
> ...



If the dams reached 100% full with a desal plant running then someone has made a monumental blunder in system operation since that situation should never arise unless due to a major flood event.

Appropriate storage levels will vary between systems, catchments, individual storages, season, maintenance works and so on. There is, of course, nothing wrong with having storages full per se. But if it was achieved by means of running desal (or in the case of power generation by means of running alternative generation) then that's an undeniable operational blunder.

Dam storage levels are a valid measure of rainfall only where:

1. There is little or no alternative to using water in the dams AND
2. System capability is matched to average demand (for either water or energy as appropriate).

Examples that qualify would be pre-desal water storages for Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and pre-Basslink hydro-electric storages in Tasmania. Most other major storages in Australia are either actively managed to specific targets via the use of alternatives, or are seriously mismatched with underlying demand (ie they will trend to either empty or full with average rainfall).


----------



## sptrawler (16 November 2011)

Perth has more reliance on ground water than dams, the topography doesn't lend itself to dams. With a narrow coastal plain and a relatively small escarpment the opportunity to dam is limited.
Fortunately there is a large aquifer that supplies the majority of Perths water. Desalination is the only viable source of renewable water untill low cost pumping can bring water from northern areas.


----------



## basilio (17 November 2011)

> Plan B
> 
> Lets imagine that somehow the penny dropped and a significant number of these big business leaders come to believe that the climate scientists may actually be right. That the IEA, the CIA, CSIRO etc are giving a legitimate heads up on a catastrophic situation unless we actually control and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. That the consequences for them, their families and their wealth will be just as devastating as a peasant in India.
> 
> Maybe they would focus their financial muscle and industrial capacity on making the mammoth changes required in pure self interest. Forget trying to game the carbon tax. With that change in mindset they/we might do everything in our power to somehow get out of this fix.   Basilio




Maybe if you lived in New York you saw the latest analysis of what they are facing with continued cliamte change you might re assess the situation.  (_Perhaps a similar analaysis for other major cities near the sea would also focus the mind)_
*




From Shore to Forest, Projecting Effects of Climate Change

Click to expand...


*


> By LESLIE KAUFMAN
> Published: November 16, 2011
> 
> ....The 600-page report, published on Wednesday, was commissioned by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, a public-benefit corporation, and is a result of three years of work by scientists at state academic institutions, including Columbia and Cornell Universities and the City University of New York.
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/n...t-new-york-state-in-many-ways-study-says.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy (17 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Maybe if you lived in New York you saw the latest analysis of what they are facing with continued cliamte change you might re assess the situation.  (_Perhaps a similar analaysis for other major cities near the sea would also focus the mind)_
> *
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/n...t-new-york-state-in-many-ways-study-says.html*



*

And the relationship of CO2 to Temperatures and sea level rises (in fact a de-accelerating rise) is what exactly? 

You should continue your posts in the other thread on climate hysterics - since there is a better alignment of the title and your posts, in addition to the several unanswered questions you have yet to honestly answer.*


----------



## sptrawler (17 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Maybe if you lived in New York you saw the latest analysis of what they are facing with continued cliamte change you might re assess the situation.  (_Perhaps a similar analaysis for other major cities near the sea would also focus the mind)_
> *
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/n...t-new-york-state-in-many-ways-study-says.html*



*

There is obviously a lack of belief in global warming, by most governments. I don't see a reduction in waterfront developments in any area I have visited.
If the governments believed in the sea level rise scenario they would not be promoting water front developments.
Also steps would be taken to relocate critical infrastructure or at least not add to it and I don't see that happening either.*


----------



## IFocus (17 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> Yep. When I first moved to Perth the population was about 600,000... now about 1.4 or thereabouts?
> 
> Same dams as then.





Sigh......remember this


----------



## wayneL (17 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Sigh......remember this




Yes.

But can you provide a rainfall history chart over the same period?

Dam inflows are affected by others things in addition to rain


----------



## drsmith (17 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> Yes.
> 
> But can you provide a rainfall history chart over the same period?
> 
> Dam inflows are affected by others things in addition to rain



I can only steal someone's thunder.

Something though has been stealing our rain.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 November 2011)

Meanwhile, oil prices have zoomed past $100 per barrel amidst economic doom and gloom that in past times would have seen the price crash.

Worry about CO2 all you like, but the real problem is finding enough fuel to burn in the first place.


----------



## drsmith (17 November 2011)

The EU's carbon price is heading in the opposite direction.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=EUETSSY1:IND


----------



## wayneL (17 November 2011)

Here's the only historical chart I can find - goes up to 2005


----------



## drsmith (17 November 2011)

Below is another for the southwest of WA as a whole.

It only goes back to 1900.


----------



## qldfrog (17 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> Below is another for the southwest of WA as a whole.
> 
> It only goes back to 1900.



if really interested in models and scenario which is not the case by many on the thread, south western australia is one of the only part of country which may benefit from global warming with higher rainfall and not too critical swings
[From memory in the rainmaker and other models I saw in the last few years;]
no such luck in the east where we will end up drier (with wider swings)
And no, I do not believe the carbon tax as is,  is the solution 
Not that this will prevent a reply  implying I am selling babies blood and the australian soul as I believe global warming is man made and actually happening..
Why do I even bother...


----------



## So_Cynical (17 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> There is obviously a lack of belief in global warming, by most governments. I don't see a reduction in waterfront developments in any area I have visited.




As far as i know water front development has been banned in NSW for at least 10 years...and don't confuse a lack of political will with belief, most government are not keen on pushing GW action due to many factors, with lack of political will/courage etc at the top of the list.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 November 2011)

We have had a top of 29C today in Townsville and looking at a low tonight of 23C, much as has been recorded for this time of year since settlement.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 November 2011)

Total rainfall is one thing, but it's the manner in which it falls which determines run-off (along with other things like evaporation, land use etc).

If there was a change in land use or a change in the pattern of rainfall then it's quite possible to have a large change in storage inflows even with zero change in the underlying rainfall totals.

If you've got a decent sized storage to fill then what you want are some high rainfall events which are far more helpful than the same volume falling evenly over an extended period (due to evaporation losses).


----------



## drsmith (17 November 2011)

qldfrog said:


> And no, I do not believe the carbon tax as is,  is the solution



There are too many conflicting objectives with a carbon tax.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 November 2011)

Well those graphs of WA are showing lower rainfall over time and lets face it the global warming effect is only a fraction of where it may get to in 30 years.

I have worked on a few projects where the council with State government money has built new pedestrian/bike paths with higher sea walls to counteract the future rising tide than what was existing.

One example is the St Kilda foreshore. If you live near there then look how high the new path is above the sand.


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2011)

Can the fall in rainfall be scientifically links to emissions?

Is there any evidence of long tern rainfall averages (over centuries)?

We all know climate can change due to natural and other anthropogenic factors (land use etc), but where is the evidence this is exclusively due to GHGs.


----------



## qldfrog (18 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Total rainfall is one thing, but it's the manner in which it falls which determines run-off (along with other things like evaporation, land use etc).
> 
> If there was a change in land use or a change in the pattern of rainfall then it's quite possible to have a large change in storage inflows even with zero change in the underlying rainfall totals.
> 
> If you've got a decent sized storage to fill then what you want are some high rainfall events which are far more helpful than the same volume falling evenly over an extended period (due to evaporation losses).



true and we need to be ready with mitigation strategy: more storm, higher average temperature and so evaporations: need more dams 
Look at the situation here in Brisbane where dams are design for both mitigation AND drinking water storage
DUHHH as Homer Simpson would say; it is not compatible: a mitigation dam should be empty by the start of the rainy season...
Time to use some brain in infrastructure design


----------



## Knobby22 (18 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> 1. Can the fall in rainfall be scientifically links to emissions?
> 
> 2. Is there any evidence of long tern rainfall averages (over centuries)?
> 
> 3. We all know climate can change due to natural and other anthropogenic factors (land use etc), but where is the evidence this is exclusively due to GHGs.




1. No, it is just one of a number of smoking guns. 
2. No.
3. It can't be exclusively to GHGs, but there is a reasonable probability that it is partly caused by GHGs. As stated earlier in the thread, GHGs are still a weak factor in the weather and it is difficult to pull the threads of weather effects apart. We need more time and more studies. I saw a study about there being another "el nino" type oscillation between the Indian Ocean and the WA coast that effects weather over most of Australia. This has been going the wrong way over the last 30 years but is going our way at present. (at least at the time of the article 2 years ago), given time we will understand the weather and thus the climate better.


----------



## spooly74 (18 November 2011)

While one one hand we'll need 20-30 years to tease out the human attribution for extreme weather events, it may take a little less to refute disaster scenarios concerning rapid Sea level rise 100 years from now.



> An important issue for the future is the potential for significant sea level rise due global warming. Sea level rise consists of two parts: a steric contribution (volume increase due to an increase in average ocean temperature, which reduces average seawater density), and a mass contribution (volume increase due mainly to melting of land supported ice… glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets). It has been projected by some (Vermeer & Rahmstorf, and others) that the mass contribution will accelerate rapidly in the next few decades as average surface temperature increases; these projections suggest a rapidly accelerating sea level rise, starting very soon. While the IPCC AR4 projections of sea level rise through 2100 are modest, some more recent projections suggest increases of well over 1 meter by 2100. My guest posts at the Blackboard in July 2011 addressed this issue, and the results of my model suggest future sea level increases in reasonable agreement with the AR4 projections, for a wide range of assumed rates for surface temperature increase.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/estimates-of-mass-and-steric-contributions-to-sea-level-rise/


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> 1. No, it is just one of a number of smoking guns.
> 2. No.
> 3. It can't be exclusively to GHGs, but there is a reasonable probability that it is partly caused by GHGs. As stated earlier in the thread, GHGs are still a weak factor in the weather and it is difficult to pull the threads of weather effects apart. We need more time and more studies. I saw a study about there being another "el nino" type oscillation between the Indian Ocean and the WA coast that effects weather over most of Australia. This has been going the wrong way over the last 30 years but is going our way at present. (at least at the time of the article 2 years ago), given time we will understand the weather and thus the climate better.




IOW, there is a smoking gun that climate changes, but no fingerprints on the gun.

It could be Mother Nature's prints there.

We don't know.


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> 1. No, it is just one of a number of smoking guns.
> 2. No.
> 3. It can't be exclusively to GHGs, but there is a reasonable probability that it is partly caused by GHGs. As stated earlier in the thread, GHGs are still a weak factor in the weather and it is difficult to pull the threads of weather effects apart. We need more time and more studies. I saw a study about there being another "el nino" type oscillation between the Indian Ocean and the WA coast that effects weather over most of Australia. This has been going the wrong way over the last 30 years but is going our way at present. (at least at the time of the article 2 years ago), given time we will understand the weather and thus the climate better.




IOW, there is a smoking gun that climate changes, but no fingerprints on the gun.

It could be Mother Nature's prints there.

We don't know.


----------



## IFocus (18 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> Yes.
> 
> But can you provide a rainfall history chart over the same period?
> 
> Dam inflows are affected by others things in addition to rain




Maybe the inflows are being affected or blocked by all the dead and and nearly dead trees that are now becoming part of the permanent landscape.


----------



## macca (18 November 2011)

Changes in the weather ? Take a drive around the Flinders Ranges, in the 1860-70 era they sold farms all through there. Goyder told them that it was unsustainable, they said but look it is all green and lush, so the government sold them off.

Then the weather cycle changed in the 1890 1900 only those on the creek survived, all the rest just withered and died. 

Perhaps it was all the smoke from the chimneys ?


----------



## bandicoot76 (18 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Maybe the inflows are being affected or blocked by all the dead and and nearly dead trees that are now becoming part of the permanent landscape.




last i checked wood floated... but of course i'm no scientist so i could be wrong


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 November 2011)

qldfrog said:


> true and we need to be ready with mitigation strategy: more storm, higher average temperature and so evaporations: need more dams
> Look at the situation here in Brisbane where dams are design for both mitigation AND drinking water storage
> DUHHH as Homer Simpson would say; it is not compatible: a mitigation dam should be empty by the start of the rainy season...
> Time to use some brain in infrastructure design



I think it would be pretty hard, based on actual data, to argue that SE Qld doesn't need (1) increase in the effective catchment area (think either new on stream dams or alternatively new weirs, canals, flumes etc) and (2) an increase in storage capacity (new dams either on stream or off).

Desal is a compromise at best.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 November 2011)

We have had a top of 30C today in Townsville and looking at a low tonight of 22C, much as has been recorded for this time of year since settlement.

It looks as if it might rain.

gg


----------



## basilio (24 November 2011)

Another paper is being published in Nature journal which documents the the unprecedented loss of sea ice in the Arctic. The most significant point is that the loss of sea ice creates a positive feedback loop that will cause the oceans to absorb more and more heat.



> *Arctic sea ice loss 'unprecedented', study finds*
> November 24, 2011 - 7:30AM
> 
> The loss of sea ice in the Arctic at the end of the 20th Century is “unprecedented” in the past 1,450 years in its duration and magnitude, an indication of human-influenced climate change, a study said.
> ...




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...study-finds-20111124-1nvkl.html#ixzz1eZ1WcCQY

_____________________________________________________________________________-----
Here is a more detailed analysis of  the ongoing changes in sea ice cover 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm


----------



## basilio (24 November 2011)

On a similar  note to my previous post here are some before and after pictures of glacier melts taken over a 2 year period. 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/glacier/before-after


----------



## OzWaveGuy (24 November 2011)

basilio said:


> On a similar  note to my previous post here are some before and after pictures of glacier melts taken over a 2 year period.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/glacier/before-after




Yes Basilio, there is change as we all know. Now, if you can please show us the evidence on how man's 3% CO2 contribution has changed this ice flow within only 2yrs. Or do you plan to dodge the obvious and basic questions yet again?


----------



## prawn_86 (24 November 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> last i checked wood floated... but of course i'm no scientist so i could be wrong




Fallen frees become water logged and often sink


----------



## wayneL (25 November 2011)

So I guess this is the new CC thread?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/



> Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and *(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.*


----------



## basilio (27 November 2011)

Came across a discussion on sea levels rise as global warming takes hold. It's funny because most people would "expect" that water would find its own level around the world and therefore sea levels would rise equally.

Not true.



> *Sea level rise is not level*
> 
> Of the many things about global warming misunderstood by the public at large, the irregular or lumpy distribution of sea level rise must surely be near the top of the list. When sea level rise is mentioned, this typically refers to the global average or mean, but this obscures the fact that not all areas of the ocean  are rising. In a few regions sea level is actually falling, while at others it is rising at a rate much larger than the global average. So even though the total volume of seawater from melting land ice, and thermal expansion from ocean warming are increasing, this isn't being evenly spread around the oceans. See figure 2 below.
> 
> It just so happens that the western Pacific and Tuvalu in particular, are one such region where there is a large rise in sea level, much greater than the global average. See figure 3.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/Whats-Happening-To-Tuvalu-Sea-Level.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy (27 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Came across a discussion on sea levels rise as global warming takes hold. It's funny because most people would "expect" that water would find its own level around the world and therefore sea levels would rise equally.
> 
> Not true.




Yes Basilio, there is sea level change as we all know. Now, if you can please show us the evidence on how man's 3% CO2 contribution influences sea levels. Or do you plan to contiune to dodge these obvious and basic questions? 

Perhaps instead you could start discussing how your "traditional" climate scientists who are so authoritative as you keep asserting, have lied, colluded, misrepresented data amongst others in the latest releases of climategate emails. Maybe this will restore some partial credibility to your online entity.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 November 2011)

Meanwhile back in the real world, COP17 gets under way in Durban tomorrow. 

http://www.cop17-cmp7durban.com/

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

The Deniers will not be well represented.


----------



## sails (27 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> ...The Deniers will not be well represented.





That seems wrong.  Why shouldn't both sides be represented?


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 November 2011)

sails said:


> That seems wrong.  Why shouldn't both sides be represented?



Government 101.

Never ask a question or form a committee without either knowing the outcome or being able to control it.

If both sides were represented then the outcome would not be known before it commences and would be difficult to control.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 November 2011)

Or the selection process is such that "Lord" Monkton can't get in.

They want scientists for some reason, not politicians.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2011)

Its really funny with discussions like this, they polaris people, neither side can prove the other side wrong.
The only winners are the ones that capitalise on the emotions, in doing so they have 50% of the people onside. Therefore they can bring about change before the theory is proven wrong or right. If it is proven right oh well thats good, if its proven wrong oh well suck it up.


----------



## sails (28 November 2011)

Looks like Canada is pulling out of Kyoto... Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month

and yet Gillard is throwing our tax payers funds around seemingly like confetti:



> *Australia’s fast-start package comprises:*
> 
> $248 million to the 'International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative' to support adaptation efforts;
> $146 million to the 'International Forest Carbon Initiative' to assist developing countries reduce emissions from reducing deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, known at REDD+;
> ...




Read more about our international handouts in which the Aussie voters have had no say by way of referendum or election: 
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/international/finance.aspx


----------



## So_Cynical (28 November 2011)

sails said:


> Looks like Canada is pulling out of Kyoto... Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month




Did you actually read the story or was the headline enough for ya?

Kent is the (Conservative Govt) Canadian Environment Minister



> Kent told CP in an interview ahead of the Durban conference that *Canada will play hardball with developing countries to get an agreement* during the climate talks.
> 
> Kent said developing countries should not be allowed to use the emissions records of wealthy nations as an excuse not to agree to lofty emissions-reduction targets.
> 
> He also said that all nations must be prepared to demonstrate their progress on whatever emissions targets are contained in *any new deal*.




So he's pulling of of a now pretty much defunct treaty (because the targets are unachievable) and negotiation a new deal..playing hard ball lol.

-------

Delegates from 190 countries meeting in SA...no deniers, just pollies playing hard ball.


----------



## wayneL (29 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Did you actually read the story or was the headline enough for ya?
> 
> Kent is the (Conservative Govt) Canadian Environment Minister
> 
> ...




That's so they aren't dis-invited from the junket.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> So he's pulling of of a now pretty much defunct treaty (because the targets are unachievable) and negotiation a new deal..playing hard ball lol.



Precisely the point that many have been making. The targets will not be met and there is no point pretending otherwise. 

The next round of targets won't be met either unless by accident.


----------



## sptrawler (29 November 2011)

It is just a joke, other than for so cynical and Knobby, who want to believe us losing jobs, industries and sending electricity prices through the roof. Is some sort of cleansing process we have to go through.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...s-another-nail-into-kyoto-20111128-1o36o.html

The best part is.

_The US, which never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, says it won't agree to a binding accord unless all emitters are included. China and India, which had no commitments under Kyoto, have become two of the world's three top polluters since the pact was approved in 1997_

What is going on there! Obama said, Julia is very Bold introducing the carbon tax. Probably sounds better than saying she is an absolute D!!ck H##d.LOL
It will just be another stuff up in 12 months.
Also quite funny we won't burn coal, but we will sell it to anybody that does want to burn it. What The.
Doesn't sound like we really want to save the planet, no sounds more like we want to tax someone. LOL


----------



## Julia (29 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Did you actually read the story or was the headline enough for ya?
> 
> Kent is the (Conservative Govt) Canadian Environment Minister
> 
> ...



There was a follow up to this on ABC Radio News and PM this evening.
Mr Kent said participating in Kyoto was one of Canada's major blunders.
He went on to say there was no way they would be engaging in anything remotely similar unless it was part of a completely global strategy, especially involving the US, China and India.

Better now, So cynical?


----------



## wayneL (1 December 2011)

More and more the msm is reporting the truth

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/a-climate-of-fraud/



> EDITORIAL: A climate of fraud
> New emails shed light on the global warming racket
> 
> The latest release of 5,000 emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reconfirms what the 2009’s “Climategate” files established: Global warming is more fiction than science.
> ...






> Garbage in, warming out




LOL


----------



## OzWaveGuy (1 December 2011)

Perhaps some of the alarmist in this forum can provide some honest comments on this latest release of climategate emails? 

There have been dozens if not hundreds of postings in this forum by alarmists that have directly referenced some of the climategate authors and their work - which shows corruption, falsifying data, using misleading data  and deleting data to avoid foi requests, to name a few...

Is this disturbing to you? Or do you agree it's ok for the "cause"?

Read for yourself

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-51549
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/breaking-more-emails-released-climategate-ii/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...doesnt_warm_warmists_secretly_work_on_plan_b/

I'm assuming the lack of posts so far by Alarmists indicate it's not disturbing to them. If you are disturbed by this corruption - what is your position on the AGW scare?


----------



## Knobby22 (1 December 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I'm assuming the lack of posts so far by Alarmists indicate it's not disturbing to them. If you are disturbed by this corruption - what is your position on the AGW scare?




The lack of posts is due to the pointless situation of attempting to change your mind. There is a great article on it in New Scientist recently about how people form fixed view points and are unable to see the total picture. Your view is that all scientists are corrupt and the money pushing the opposite is all sweet smelling. There is no point trying to change your views.


----------



## basilio (1 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The lack of posts is due to the pointless situation of attempting to change your mind. There is a great article on it in New Scientist recently about how people form fixed view points and are unable to see the total picture. Your view is that all scientists are corrupt and the money pushing the opposite is all sweet smelling. There is no point trying to change your views.




Amen. Or even attempting the discuss the issue intelligently.


----------



## DB008 (1 December 2011)

How about this?

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism



> "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
> 
> In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
> The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
> ...




Link here....


----------



## Calliope (1 December 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Perhaps some of the alarmist in this forum can provide some honest comments on this latest release of climategate emails?
> 
> ...I'm assuming the lack of posts so far by Alarmists indicate it's not disturbing to them. If you are disturbed by this corruption - what is your position on the AGW scare?




Unlike the alarmist spokesmen on this thread, Tim Flannery now claims he is not an alarmist. His religious zeal is missing.



> ABC News 24 Breakfast yesterday:
> 
> PRESENTER Michael Rowland: Fears about climate change, young people hearing interviews like this, are eventually leading people to freak out ... We're creating a self-perpetuating cycle here, aren't we?
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ofessor-flannery/story-fn72xczz-1226210597814


----------



## basilio (1 December 2011)

DB008 said:


> How about this?
> 
> New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
> 
> ...




Sorry Dannyboy but that is just another lying piece of dribble created by Mr Taylor on behalf of GW deniers Inc.

The true story about the Spencer and Boswell peer reviewed paper ? It was a badly researched paper with some tentative  conclusions that were then  exploded into a grotesque unreality courtesy of the usual suspects.

The paper was so bad the Editor of the Journal resigned over the failure of the peer review process.

But of course you won't hear anything of this from Pielke, Spencer and co. And naturally the other umpteen thousand scientific papers that recognise the effects of extra greenhouse gases and the increased temperatures they are causing are just flamed off the table. We saw another typical example with the article Wayne quoted  again from the lying Mr Taylor.

As Knobby points out discussion on this topic in ASF forums is pointless  given the determination of many members to ignore the vast majority of the scientific communities work on this topic and then accept quite specious  stories  that confirm their desire to think it will all be alright. 

The whole Real Climate  post and comments are worth reading for anyone interested in the truth of the matter. 



> *Resignations, retractions and the process of science*
> Filed under:
> 
> Climate Science
> ...




http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...tions-retractions-and-the-process-of-science/


----------



## OzWaveGuy (1 December 2011)

The responses from Basilio and Knobby imply that they're ok with the corruption from a key select group of so called scientist, and assert the real issue all along is about changing people's minds on AGW, which incidentally isn't an issue after-all and needs  support from corrupt activities and methods to have the gullible alarmists believe it actually is a major issue.

Basilio, Knobby, do you think your deliberate failure to recognize such fundamental problems in the "science" and how the funding has influenced this "climate religion"  is causing others here to question your motives, assertions, content and credibility? Hence it becomes obvious why nobody wants anyone pushing AGW in charge of anything.

If you both honestly think this is a game about changing people's minds, then perhaps take a lesson from MacCracken and think of a backup plan. Your approaches with Plan A are sunk.

MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong


----------



## wayneL (1 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The lack of posts is due to the pointless situation of attempting to change your mind. There is a great article on it in New Scientist recently about how people form fixed view points and are unable to see the total picture. Your view is that all scientists are corrupt and the money pushing the opposite is all sweet smelling. There is no point trying to change your views.




Ohhhh... the irony!


----------



## Knobby22 (2 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> Ohhhh... the irony!




Yea, yea, my eyes have been blinded. All the scientists are in on it in a giant conspiracy and I have lost touch with reality (yawn).


----------



## MACCA350 (2 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Yea, yea, my eyes have been blinded. All the scientists are in on it in a giant conspiracy and I have lost touch with reality (yawn).



Not all, just those left after those that do not conform to "the cause" are ostracized. 

Cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (2 December 2011)

MACCA350 said:


> Not all, just those left after those that do not conform to "the cause" are ostracized.
> 
> Cheers




Point to an instance, then I will give you a Republican senator who was ostracised for having the "wrong" view.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Yea, yea, my eyes have been blinded. All the scientists are in on it in a giant conspiracy and I have lost touch with reality (yawn).




See climategate MK2.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (2 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Yea, yea, my eyes have been blinded. All the scientists are in on it in a giant conspiracy and I have lost touch with reality (yawn).




Unbelievable - How quickly you jump to misrepresent the argument - who is saying all scientists? It's a select few (as the climategate emails demonstrate) with a majority pushing the AGW bandwagon being from political parties and NGOs (and of course online entities such as yourself). 

You and Basilio have continued to deflect and misrepresent through many of these discussions and wonder why trying to "educate" folks on hysterical climate change isn't working.

Another example...When the facts and models don't agree - hide the facts...
You can put your dark sunglasses back on now knobby - nothing to see here.


----------



## IFocus (2 December 2011)

We have had to wear our sun glasses a lot more in Perth this year just had the hottest 11 months on record.


Native trees still dying like flies.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (2 December 2011)

IFocus said:


> We have had to wear our sun glasses a lot more in Perth this year just had the hottest 11 months on record.
> 
> 
> Native trees still dying like flies.




And yet another misrepresentation that implies man has made this asserted heat record in a very specific location.

Yes IFocus, we all know the climate changes, now please show us how man's 3% co2 contribution has made this the "hottest record ever" or can't your sunglasses see that far?


----------



## macca (2 December 2011)

This is why thinking people delve past the hysteria of AGW, from the Sydney Telegraph today, why isn't this on the front page ? (Note the very clever placement of the paid advertisement prior to the text, unfortunately you and I are paying for that)

SENIOR bureaucrats in the state government's environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal government's claims of sea level rises threatening Australia's coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday. 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...abor-bureaucrats/story-e6freuzi-1226211748047


----------



## Knobby22 (5 December 2011)

Scientists shocked by record rise in carbon emissions
AM By environment reporter Conor Duffy
Updated December 05, 2011 11:22:22 


New research has found global carbon emissions surged by a record amount in 2010 after falling during the international financial crisis.

The Global Carbon Project published its yearly analysis of carbon dioxide emissions in the journal Nature Climate Change today.

It found global carbon dioxide emissions increased by a record 5.9 per cent in 2010.

The report says the overall atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now at its highest level in 800,000 years.

Mike Raupach from the CSIRO helped write this year's report and says he and other scientists were shocked by the findings.

"This was a very large number, an unexpectedly high increase, much greater than the average increase through the decade of the 2000s which has been about 3 per cent, and it cancels out a downturn in emissions the year before."


----------



## Chasero (5 December 2011)

Well, I can imagine 100 yrs from now what the world population is going to be like.

I wonder what the world population would be 500 yrs from now?

All the global warming sceptics are in for a rude shock if they haven't seen the exponential population growth bar over the past 100 years.

Billions and billions of humans not causing any damage at all? All those factories etc?

Nope, we don't do anything to the environment


----------



## prawn_86 (5 December 2011)

Coldest start to summer in NSW for 50 years. Personally (not having lived in NSW all my life) i can't EVER remember a day in December with a max temp of 19 degrees.

Perhaps we're over the warming and global cooling has already started...


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2011)

Chasero said:


> Well, I can imagine 100 yrs from now what the world population is going to be like.
> 
> I wonder what the world population would be 500 yrs from now?
> 
> ...



One of the big problems is that fixing CO2 emissions comes with its own huge impact on the environment which, apart from CO2 itself, is arguably a greater impact than coal or oil. You would want to be pretty sure it was necessary before going about that extent of non-CO2 environmental destruction I would think...


----------



## drsmith (5 December 2011)

500 years from now, one would hope we've extended our civilisation well beyond the cradle.


----------



## ghotib (6 December 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> One of the big problems is that fixing CO2 emissions comes with its own huge impact on the environment which, apart from CO2 itself, is arguably a greater impact than coal or oil. You would want to be pretty sure it was necessary before going about that extent of non-CO2 environmental destruction I would think...



From previous posts I expect you're thinking of dams and their impacts. What other impacts do you mean? 

At the risk of pre-empting your answer, do you see distributed power generation as changing the potential environmental impacts of renewable energy. I'm thinking particularly about regional generation, which seems to be building momentum in several centres such as the Victorian goldfields and the NSW New England. Hard to see a downside to this for anyone except the wholesale distributors? 

Thanks,

Ghoti


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 December 2011)

ALL power pollutes in some way. ALL of it.

If you exclude CO2 as an issue then nobody in their right mind would even consider building more uranium reactors given their inherent dangers (something I pointed out on this forum long before most had heard of Fukushima - there will always be some mode of failure that hasn't been foreseen, and accidents WILL happen).

Dams flood the wilderness. That debate has been done to death in the broader community 30 years ago so I won't revive it here other than to say that if the same debate were being held today then the pro-dams argument would be a LOT stronger on account of the CO2 issue that is for sure. 

Wind turbines kill the birds, including engangered wedge tailed eagles and the like.

Solar panels require charcoal, which comes from native forests, in their manufacture...

Tidal is basically just a dam built on the coast.

Wood has a pretty big envrionmental impact and logging has had plenty of debate over the past 30 years so no need to repeat it here.

Geothermal causes earthquakes and/or land subsidence.

Against that backdrop the enormous amounts of power produced at Loy Yang (for example) make brown coal look like a pretty "green" option if you exclude CO2 as an issue. A hole in the ground and some steam certainly, but nothing much else in terms of major impacts and certainly no species wiped out, no scenic valleys flooded, nowhere evacuated because something went wrong, nothing that needs to be stored for the next 10,000 years and so on. Just a hole in the ground and a power station sitting next to it with steam and very little smoke coming out. 

As for distributed generation it comes back to the same issue - waht is the primary energy source being used? In most cases all you end up doing is spreading the effects of generation over a wider area (versus a large power station) but burning gas or farming wind is burning gas or farming wind no matter where you do it.


----------



## So_Cynical (11 December 2011)

The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action  

COP17 has delivered a great outcome, an outcome above the minimum that was hoped for, a deal to do a deal that is legally binding on all party's starting in 2015 and binding by 2020...America, India, China, Brazil, Great Britain the EU all on board. 

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE7BA00220111211?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

And the deniers said it would never happen.
~


----------



## Julia (11 December 2011)

I'm not sure what you're celebrating, SC.  The following is from your link:



> "It's certainly not the deal the planet needs -- such a deal would have delivered much greater ambition on both emissions reductions and finance," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
> 
> "Producing a new treaty by 2015 that is both ambitious and fair will take a mix tough bargaining and a more collaborative spirit than we saw in the Durban conference centre these past two weeks."




Perhaps you could spell out in detail exactly what you believe has been achieved by the talk fest in Durban?


----------



## ghotib (11 December 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ALL power pollutes in some way. ALL of it.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> As for distributed generation it comes back to the same issue - waht is the primary energy source being used? In most cases all you end up doing is spreading the effects of generation over a wider area (versus a large power station) but burning gas or farming wind is burning gas or farming wind no matter where you do it.




So it comes back to tradeoffs and optimisation, and it seems to me that spreading the effects of generation over a wider area can reduce those effects.  Solar panels are an obvious example. A million solar panels on a million roofs that already exist or are going to be built anyway must mean a significant reduction in the need for single purpose generators such as a solar thermal installation. 

I delayed answering your post because I knew that that the proceedings of a workshop on clean energy generation for the Southern Highlands area of NSW were due for publication. This page has a link to the proceedings, which include reports of regional renewable power generation projects at various stages of planning and execution. 

I'm heartened to find that so much is going on, and that we're actually further along the road to renewable power than it might seem. We were lucky that we had so much fossil fuel when that was the best and cheapest generation method available. We're even luckier that we don't need it any more. 

Cheers, 

Ghoti


----------



## Julia (11 December 2011)

ghotib said:


> I'm heartened to find that so much is going on, and that we're actually further along the road to renewable power than it might seem. We were lucky that we had so much fossil fuel when that was the best and cheapest generation method available. We're even luckier that we don't need it any more.



Are you actually asserting that we no longer need any fossil fuel?


----------



## So_Cynical (11 December 2011)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure what you're celebrating, SC.  The following is from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could spell out in detail exactly what you believe has been achieved by the talk fest in Durban?




Read on Julia...lets start with page one.



> DURBAN (Reuters) - Climate negotiators agreed a pact on Sunday that would for the first time force all the biggest polluters to take action on greenhouse gas emissions






> The package of accords extended the Kyoto Protocol, the only global pact that enforces carbon cuts, agreed the format of a fund to help poor countries tackle climate change and mapped out a path to a legally binding agreement on emissions reductions.




Its a deal to do a legally binding deal...The USA, China, Brazil, Britain, Europe Aust and India....a deal for the fist time ever....the world just got a lot dimmer for the deniers.


----------



## ghotib (11 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Are you actually asserting that we no longer need any fossil fuel?



Not quite. 

1.  I was only talking about stationary power generation. I've read very little about the status of renewable power for transport, especially heavy freight.

2.  Obviously there has to be a transition period.

But with those qualifications, I do indeed assert that we don't need fossil fuel, on the basis of reports such as the Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan prepared by Beyond Zero. The technology exists and is affordable. 

Good news, isn't it. 

Ghoti.


----------



## bellenuit (11 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Perhaps you could spell out in detail exactly what you believe has been achieved by the talk fest in Durban?




ABC News hailed the agreement too, so I was wondering what the big breakthrough was.

Apparently all parties have entered into an agreement............. to start negotiating. Isn't that what they were doing in Durban in the first place - negotiating - and they failed to come to a conclusion to the negotiations, but just agreed to continue negotiating.

This is just a bs outcome so that the environment ministers of the various countries can go home claiming some sort of success, when in reality it was just a failure, same as Copenhagen.


----------



## So_Cynical (11 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> ABC News hailed the agreement too, so I was wondering what the big breakthrough was.
> 
> Apparently all parties have entered into an agreement............. to start negotiating. Isn't that what they were doing in Durban in the first place - negotiating - and they failed to come to a conclusion to the negotiations, but just agreed to continue negotiating.
> 
> This is just a bs outcome so that the environment ministers of the various countries can go home claiming some sort of success, when in reality it was just a failure, same as Copenhagen.




LOL same as Copenhagen   its an agreement to negotiate a LEGALLY BINDING agreement...its the deniers worst nightmare come true.

I don't know how some of you guys can make money in the market...with such stead fast denial of not just inevitability, but probability....amazing.


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL same as Copenhagen   its an agreement to negotiate a LEGALLY BINDING agreement...its the deniers worst nightmare come true.




That is so amusing. If you think that legally binding is so important in the context of this agreement, then why isn't the agreement to negotiate a legally binding agreement legally binding in itself? The agreement just signed is not legally binding, so there is no legal obligation or penalties that can be applied if they do not come up with a legally binding agreement. 

And if they do come up with a legally binding agreement, then it will only be an agreement if all parties agree to the Ts & Cs. This will only be achieved if they agree to the lowest common denominator in regards to action. 

And how would they possible monitor any agreement when China, the biggest polluter, will not allow any independent monitoring.



> I don't know how some of you guys can make money in the market...with such stead fast denial of not just inevitability, but probability....amazing.




I am not a denier that global warming is for real and is most likely anthropogenic. I just don't believe the carbon tax will do anything to solve the issue and even less likely believe that any international agreement will have any effect, considering most agreements to date are ignored by parties that don't think they are in their own interests.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL same as Copenhagen   its an agreement to negotiate a LEGALLY BINDING agreement...its the deniers worst nightmare come true.
> 
> I don't know how some of you guys can make money in the market...with such stead fast denial of not just inevitability, but probability....amazing.




So it's effectively an agreement to cede sovereignty to the UN. 

Mate, we all knew that was coming in some form.  Gradualism at work comrade.


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> The agreement just signed is not legally binding, so *there is no legal obligation or penalties that can be applied if they do not come up with a legally binding agreement. *
> 
> And if they do come up with a legally binding agreement, then it will only be an agreement if all parties agree to the Ts & Cs. This will only be achieved if they agree to the lowest common denominator in regards to action.
> 
> And how would they possible monitor any agreement when China, the biggest polluter, will not allow any independent monitoring.




Indeed. A non-legally binding agreement to agree to "something" REALLY doesn't amount to much. Especially since in the intervening nine years there is the very distinct possibility of lets say, 

(a) significant global unrest & wars
(b) economically crippling financial crises
(c) burgeoning natural disasters
(d) oil/diesel shortages & consequences

.... all throwing a mighty big spanner in the "agreement" to "agree" works!

If you think one day is a long time in politics, _nine lo-o-o-o-ng years will seem like an eternity...._

BTW, there will be an additional 530,000,000 or so mouths on the planet to feed by 2020.

Good luck with the "agreement" then... I wonder how long before the Green Euphoria dies?


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Its a deal to do a legally binding deal...The USA, China, Brazil, Britain, Europe Aust and India....a deal for the fist time ever....the world just got a lot dimmer for the deniers.




Durban...*fail,* *fail,* *fail.* A positive win for the deniers. The alarmists like you are grasping at straws, with this Clayton's agreement.


----------



## Julia (12 December 2011)

ghotib said:


> Not quite.


----------



## ghotib (12 December 2011)

Julia said:


>



Is that supposed to mean something?


----------



## So_Cynical (12 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> And how would they possible monitor any agreement when China, the biggest polluter, will not allow any independent monitoring.




I'm guessing you don't count the UN or its agency's as "independent" 

http://www.nti.org/db/china/iaeaorg.htm 

The IAEA has been working with China for decades, monitoring and mentoring the Chinese nuclear industry...how bizarre that you could possibly think the Chinese Govt wouldn't allow monitoring or international auditing of GHG's.

GHG isn't exactly a state secret.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 December 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> (d) oil/diesel shortages & consequences



aka the real elephant banging on the door right now whilst we argue about things which may happen in 50 years time.


----------



## sptrawler (12 December 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> aka the real elephant banging on the door right now whilst we argue about things which may happen in 50 years time.




Yes don't know how we are going to cope with rising oil fuel costs being driven by offshore pressures. While we are also having to cope with self inflicted coal fuel cost increases.
Hope it all works out well for us, apparently everybody else is going to watch us whip ourselves to death.
After the outcomes of the Durban change the world meeting, lets leave it till 2020. Looking forward to So Cynicals take on it.
Also when all the overseas companies have bought our coal mines(because we don't want them) and the gas is running out. What is plan B if technology hasn't come up with an alternative.
Guess it just boils back to minority government, representing the minority, with marginal ideoligy that the majority has to subsidise.


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2011)

This is what So_Cynical got so fired up about. He is too gullible to claim to be cynical.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (13 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> This is what So_Cynical got so fired up about. He is too gullible to claim to be cynical.




That's always been the case with the alarmists here, they will always argue and create spin rather than participate in a balanced discussion with facts and maybe, just maybe concede that the "scientific", political and NGO alarmists haven't been playing a straight game.

Oops, I think i've stepped over the mark, I shouldn't have used a harsh term like "concede" - Let me hand over to Basilio, Knobby et al to set everyone "straight" with the honest AGW facts....(and while you're doing that, place some "facts" in the hysterical thread, I believe there's still a list of basic questions on corruption and the science that need answering)


----------



## Knobby22 (13 December 2011)

Empty vessals make the most sound.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (13 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Empty vessals make the most sound.




So it seems....although I think the momentum is waning 






Any other impressive facts you can share Knobby? Or is the AGW bowl of spin empty?


----------



## basilio (13 December 2011)

There is is really no point in referring to actual science research on this forum  is there ? Those you can read and understand what is happening just get more depressed while the remainder won't/cant read a scientific analysis of what is happening to save their life. 

And of course it would just be too depressing wouldn't it ?  Best to stay cheerfully ignorant I reckon.

For the former Skeptical science has a neat little analysis of the connection between rising CO2 levels and the  rise and fall of previous ice ages. Given the current  extraordinary and increasing levels of CO2 the outlook is very warm.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ppm451.html

You know I would love to include at least some of the story but somehow I just can't seem to upload it. I wonder why ?


----------



## basilio (13 December 2011)

And just to add a little more to my previous post there is another paper which quantifies the dominant role human greenhouse gas emissions have played in global warming .



> *Huber and Knutti Quantify Man-Made Global Warming*
> Posted on 10 December 2011 by dana1981
> 
> Huber and Knutti (2011) have published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance.  They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget to determine  and quantify the various contributions to the observed global warming since 1850 and 1950.  Over both timeframes, the authors find that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of global warming



.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html


----------



## wayneL (14 December 2011)

basilio said:


> There is is really no point in referring to actual science research on this forum  is there ? Those you can read and understand what is happening just get more depressed while the remainder won't/cant read a scientific analysis of what is happening to save their life.
> 
> And of course it would just be too depressing wouldn't it ?  Best to stay cheerfully ignorant I reckon.
> 
> ...




I lost count of the logical fallacies in your post basilio.

It is also evident that your goal is to irritate folks, because your style will certainly ensure polarization of the debate. You're not the only one doing this, but it is you who is demanding action (even though you admitted not taking any action yourself).

Your puppet masters will not be pleased.


----------



## basilio (14 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> I lost count of the logical fallacies in your post basilio.
> 
> It is also evident that your goal is to irritate folks, because your style will certainly ensure polarization of the debate. You're not the only one doing this, but it is you who is demanding action (even though you admitted not taking any action yourself).
> 
> Your puppet masters will not be pleased.




It's because you just can't count Wayne and also because you havn't the faintest clue about logical fallacies, honest science and respectful on forum behaviour. They are just big words you use to sound as if you actually know something.

As far as irritating people ? Well what could be more irritating than those who relentlessly ask the same questions and when given clear answers refuse to accept them because they don't like them and keep repeating the same inane line?

And you can take your repeated personal jibes and stick them up your xxxx. No imagination required.

Back to the point. Would anyway actually like to comment on the 2 papers I referred to ?


----------



## wayneL (14 December 2011)

LOL

Anger is always laughable from a position of gross hypocrisy basilio.

As far as "irritating", Have I not already pointed out it is multilateral?  However, the other folk are not demanding any action from anyone, just evidence.

As you know, (but aren't willing to acknowledge) I sit somewhere in the middle on this issue. 

But thanks to your ceaseless, unbalanced, one eyed proselytizing on an issue you apparently do not have the courage of your own convictions over, I might just become an outright "denier"... just for the sport. :


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Back to the point. Would anyway actually like to comment on the 2 papers I referred to ?




I don't think sceptics read your stuff anymore. It's a matter of credibility. Your "science" is deeply flawed.



> *In this scientific debate, one side is gagged while the other side has a government-funded media campaign.*
> *$30 Billion makes for Monopolistic Science
> A trial without a defense is a sham
> Business without competition is a monopoly
> ...




http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf


----------



## ghotib (14 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> I don't think sceptics read your stuff anymore. It's a matter of credibility. Your "science" is deeply flawed.



Skeptics read stuff and check it before they form a judgement. 

For instance, from the document you cited:



> The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests.




That assumes that someone or ones went in search of such a connection. The whole document, and IMO most of the self-described skeptic argument, rests on that assumption. From the conclusion:



> If George Bush was uncomfortable signing the United States of America up to global plans to reduce carbon emissions, possibly his greatest mistake was in not funding an Institute of Natural Climate Change with the responsibility of assessing the evidence for natural influences on the climate...




But that's exactly what the tree ring studies, along with the ice core studies and now many more, were about. They looked into the past to learn how the climate has changed before in historical and pre-historical times and why. That human caused carbon emissions are the primary cause of current global warming is one RESULT of studying natural climate processes. 

How do I know this? Because Wayne started me investigating the so called climate debate when he posted a link to the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I had seen An Inconvenient Truth and found it unsettling. I watched the Great Global Warming Swindle and hoped it was right. But I starting checking the references and soon discovered that it was riddled with errors. 

That movie was the first example I found of a pattern that became clear in sources that are routinely cited on ASF, such as JoNova, Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts, Andrew Bolt, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Heartland Institute, etc.  They misrepresent the scientific material they cite, and they repeat their false statements even after the scientists who wrote the papers have told them that the work does not mean what they say it does. 

It didn't take a scientific background to discover this. It took an open mind and a lot of time. In another context you could call it due diligence. 

Ghoti


----------



## OzWaveGuy (14 December 2011)

ghotib said:


> How do I know this? Because Wayne started me investigating the so called climate debate when he posted a link to the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I had seen An Inconvenient Truth and found it unsettling. I watched the Great Global Warming Swindle and hoped it was right. But I starting checking the references and soon discovered that it was riddled with errors.




Oh damn, you found all those errors by yourself from reliable sources huh? And did you at the same time look for errors in AL Gore's hollywood movie like a UK court had done and found over 9 errors and assertions that were wrong or simply not true.

Hypocrisy at it's best.


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2011)

ghotib said:


> It didn't take a scientific background to discover this. It took an open mind and a lot of time. In another context you could call it due diligence.




No it took a gullible mind easily indoctrinated by "the science."


----------



## explod (14 December 2011)

> That movie was the first example I found of a pattern that became clear in sources that are routinely cited on ASF, such as JoNova, Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts, Andrew Bolt, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Heartland Institute, etc. They misrepresent the scientific material they cite, and they repeat their false statements even after the scientists who wrote the papers have told them that the work does not mean what they say it does.




Well said ghotib.

How can anyone be scepticle even if there is a remote possibility.

I need no convincing that we have a serious problem and one wonders why the sceptics are so vehement.  Such denial indicates they cannot and will not accept what may be true.


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2011)

explod said:


> ... and one wonders why the sceptics are so vehement.




One wonders why the alarmists are so gullible.


----------



## bellenuit (15 December 2011)

*Methane discovery stokes new global warming fears Shock as retreat of Arctic releases greenhouse gas*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...f-arctic-releases-greenhouse-gas-6276278.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy (15 December 2011)

explod said:


> Well said ghotib.
> 
> How can anyone be scepticle even if there is a remote possibility.
> 
> I need no convincing that we have a serious problem




Er, quick, everyone to the North Pole to dump soot to alleviate the coming ice age....

Dang! Sorry folks, for a moment there I had a flashback to the 70's ice age scare....

What I should have said, everyone paint whatever you see with white - now we're saved once again. 

The AGW Bowl is still being lapped up by a remaining few, and it tastes sooo good.


----------



## wayneL (15 December 2011)

explod said:


> Well said ghotib.
> 
> How can anyone be scepticle even if there is a remote possibility.
> 
> I need no convincing that we have a serious problem and one wonders why the sceptics are so vehement.  Such denial indicates they cannot and will not accept what may be true.




The disingenuousness of the Church of MMCC knows no bounds.

Lots of things MAY be true Mr Plod. One thing that is incontrovertibly true is that the continued categorization of climate moderates as "deniers" is offensive, childish, inaccurate and  polarizing.

If there is vehemence, it is because of the at least equal vehemence of alarmists. Alarmists routinely call for gaoling, killing and torture of climate moderates. Need I remind you of some of the truly offensive campaigns and remarks of totalitarian nutters like 10;10 and David Suzuki.

Please Mr Plod, if you must hoist yourself with your own petard, try not to be so utterly hypocritical that moderates don't have to even use their brain at all to see how you've blown up your own argument.


----------



## basilio (15 December 2011)

_A wife returns home suddenly to find her husband deep in bed with another woman. Unfazed, the husband looks up from the sheets at her and, with great indignation, demands: "I have never been unfaithful ! Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?" _

Well we are certainly getting to the pointy end of this discussion. Ghoti put the finger on the whole discussion with the observation that when  one examines the  criticism of GW by  Monckton. Plime, Bolt, Watts and co you quickly discover how dishonest they are. The misrepresent graphs, make up figures, deliberately cut and paste other scientists work and so forth. 

These deceptions have been painstakingly, repeatedly exposed pointing out how and where the mistakes and deceptions have occurred.( _When the denial industry attempts to point out mistakes in climate science it just doesn't stick - but it still gets  trotted out ad nausem. ie the hockey stick crap. the alleged problems with  badly located weather stations)_

The response from deniers has been along the lines of the joke I started with. Outraged denial with the belief that if you can brazen it out long enough and loud enough you can wear the other person down despite the deception.

In another context the BS denial of the above joke would be given short shrift and a long rope. A cattle rustler caught with hot branding irons and newly branded cattle could protest his innocence for at least 5 minutes before dancing in the breeze.

Understanding the reality behind how humans are affecting  climate through release of CO2 is a *fact based science exercise*. The problem comes when we realise that solving the problem will require truly enormous changes in how we run our societies.

When that reality is placed on the table the processes of denying or obscuring the facts to protect financial interest and our current stake in the world as we know it  comes into play. That was the birth of the campaigns to discredit the science, the scientists,  the politicians/citizens  who argued  the case (ie Al Gore, Tim Flannery, ABC, The Guardian and all climate scientists who appear to support the evidence). The challenge to our current lifestyle also underpins the reluctance of politicians and most people to stand up to the FUD campaigns of the denial industry (FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)  

This has happened plenty of times. I pointed out how the Tobacco industry was the forerunner of lying through its teeth to discredit the evidence behind the effects of smoking and its addictive nature. (see movie .) Ditto asbestos. Ditto agricultural poisons. 

So 25 years after  recognising the  GW problem but refusing to take it seriously it is now more comforting to deny and close your eyes. 

If you are the deceived partner you might hang on to the comforts of home and a relationship of some sort for a little longer.

If your the cattle rustler you may not feel a thing until you start the final dance. (_But then you could comfort yourself by thinking it was all a mistake or someone else fault or we all have to die anyway.)_


_Thank you for smoking _ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/


----------



## basilio (15 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> *Methane discovery stokes new global warming fears Shock as retreat of Arctic releases greenhouse gas*
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...f-arctic-releases-greenhouse-gas-6276278.html







> Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
> 
> The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
> 
> ...




Hairy story Bellenuit. We don't have much time left do we ?


----------



## Happy (15 December 2011)

I kind of like this (repeated quite often as a smart/a.. comment):

Imagine how cold would it be if we didn’t have global warming.

(Sydney start to 2011 summer was/is the coldest in over 50 years…)


----------



## Happy (15 December 2011)

basilio said:


> ...
> Understanding the reality behind how humans are affecting climate through release of CO2 is a fact based science exercise. The problem comes when we realise that solving the problem will require truly enormous changes in how we run our societies.
> ...




Controlled breeding for starters, so we don't need as many resources.

Here China was right, just 1 child for 50 to 100 years and see how we go after that.


----------



## Calliope (15 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Hairy story Bellenuit. We don't have much time left do we ?




We don't have much time left to do *what?* *There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate. *The huge and growing AGW industry is the biggest and most expensive hoax ever perpetrated on the human race, and you are a willing participant in an obvious shakedown.:shake:


----------



## Knobby22 (15 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> We don't have much time left to do *what?* *There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate. *The huge and growing AGW industry is the biggest and most expensive hoax ever perpetrated on the human race, and you are a willing participant in an obvious shakedown.:shake:




Do you think the Russian scientists are lying?


----------



## basilio (15 December 2011)

> We don't have much time left to do what? There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate. The huge and growing AGW industry is the biggest and most expensive hoax ever perpetrated on the human race, and you are a willing participant in an obvious shakedown.






> Do you think the Russian scientists are lying?



 Knobby

Lets clear up any misunderstandings about the Calliope three strikes rule Knobby

1) They are *Russians  *
2) They are *scientists who are investigating climate science issues*
3) They are *reporting some scary xxxx on climate change*

Liars, liars and liars. Three strikes and your out.


----------



## Calliope (15 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Knobby
> 
> Lets clear up any misunderstandings about the Calliope three strikes rule Knobby
> 
> ...




My statement was *"their absolutely nothing we can do about climate change"*.  And there is nothing Russian scientists,  IPCC scientists, nor carbon taxes, nor sneering smart-alec comments from you and Knobby can do about. it.


----------



## wayneL (15 December 2011)

:sleeping:

When basilio is an old woman, she will still be waiting for the apocalypse.

It's the old "end is nigh" in different clothes.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 December 2011)

What gets at me is that some of the comments re: essentially denial.

There is a climate change industry.
There is an anti-climate change industry.

Each use their influence, sometimes badly, not everyone on each side is honest.
And they are represented generally by non scientists (economists, industry, lobbyists). I personally believe the non climate change industry is more dishonest as they are more corrupted by money but there is not a lot of innocence on either side.

The scientists involved generally are not part of this. They believe in scientific principles and do what they do with pride. They are not paid that well compared to the "industry" people. Their is always a couple of bad apples, whom when caught lose their livelihood, but they are rare.

I really dislike the scapegoating of all scientists as being corrupt and therefore all their evidence should be ignored because the industry (both climate and non climate) have their agendas to fill. I dislike how some of the media have taken sides and don't argue the essence of the debate but some ineffectual side issue like whether a Democrat politician uses jets.

I also disagree with Calliope that nothing can be done. We can do things but it will take the world to act as one in the common interest. We are however a long way away from this at present but if the cliomate change is bad enough, we will have to do something, even if that means poisoning our atmsphere with Sulphur compounds.

I'm not perfect but lets debate this rationally. Some are, some are just being annoying for fun.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (15 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> ...
> 
> I really dislike the scapegoating of all scientists as being corrupt and therefore all their evidence should be ignored because the industry (both climate and non climate) have their agendas to fill. I dislike how some of the media have taken sides and don't argue the essence of the debate but some ineffectual side issue like whether a Democrat politician uses jets.




It's a terrible thing to have debate isn't it Knobby? It would so much better if all the media were pushing the same AGW message. Then climate disruptions like climategate I and II, Carbon Trading scams, observed climate facts to name a few could be forever swept under the carpet.

I see you've re-asserted the "all scientists as being corrupt" fallacy once again - and once again - for the record - just some.

I thought communism was a fading fad, apparently i'm wrong.


----------



## bellenuit (15 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Hairy story Bellenuit. We don't have much time left do we ?




Yes, if the scenario pans out like the scientists are expecting, we don't have much time. So we certainly shouldn't be wasting what little time there is left on imposing an ineffective carbon tax that will only stifle our economy. We shouldn't be wasting time trotting around the world from one UN summit to the next when we know that the UN will never achieve anything other than proposals to hold a subsequent summit. We shouldn't be throwing away our monetary resources to 3rd world countries whose leaders will siphon off the majority of our contribution for their own self aggrandisement.

It is certainly difficult to know what to do. I support some form of direct action, particularly when we apply actions that produce the greatest CO2 reduction per dollar spent. If it looks like it is too late to act or that it is only us that is acting thus having a negligeable impact, then we should be looking at mitigating the effects of warming on the Australian populace. We should be discouraging establishing infrastructure and settlement in areas in which it will be unliveable due to warming. Some areas will be more liveable with global warming, so we should look at encouraging industry and people to move to those areas over time. Spending on infrastructure should include protections against environmental factors that will be more likely in a warmer climate than at present. 

We certainly should be developing a policy now to deal with the effects of the warming (which is probably inevitable if we take the scientific predictions at face value).


----------



## Calliope (15 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:
> 
> When basilio is an old woman, she will still be waiting for the apocalypse.
> 
> It's the old "end is nigh" in different clothes.




She will be a grumpy old womam in ugg boots complaining about the long winters.


----------



## Julia (15 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> What gets at me is that some of the comments re: essentially denial.
> 
> There is a climate change industry.
> There is an anti-climate change industry.
> ...



Of course you do.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Of course you do.




And you think the opposite!

So argue the case rather than the man!


----------



## Knobby22 (15 December 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I thought communism was a fading fad, apparently i'm wrong.




Talk about the straw man argument.


----------



## sptrawler (15 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> And you think the opposite!
> 
> So argue the case rather than the man!




The case Knobby will be self resolving, if global warming has become unstoppable, well then kick back and enjoy the show.
The facts are as they stand at the moment, as proven by Durban, is we are the only ones doing anything of significance and we really aren't anyway..
However if you read this article, you will realise as has been said on other posts, that the technology isn't available at this point in time. To make a radical change to what we are currently doing, that is unless we go nuclear.
The government has now back flipped on clean power stations.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...abor-greens-rift/story-e6frg6xf-1226221345966

_Energy Minister Martin Ferguson used the white paper to reveal that the government had scrapped plans to mandate clean power stations, ditching the Prime Minister's election promise to require new coal-fired electricity generators to adhere to tough carbon pollution standards or be ready for carbon capture and storage technology._
So arguing about something, that at this point in time nobody is going to be able to fix is crazy.
 All the carbon tax is going to do is increase electricity costs which in turn will reduce peoples consumption. The same as taxing them more would make them have to cut back because they wouldn't have the money to pay the bill.
Hang on isn't that the same thing.


----------



## Calliope (15 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> We certainly should be developing a policy now to deal with the effects of the warming (which is probably inevitable if we take the scientific predictions at face value).





The only policy that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to put the brakes on the development of a middle class in developing countries. We have no moral right to insist on this and these countries are not going to do it voluntarily.



> If it's a choice for India between creating a middle-class society and greenhouse abatement, the middle class will win hands down. That may be a good thing or not, but it's as safe a bet as you could find in global politics.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-are-set-to-soar/story-e6frg76f-1226222298108


----------



## bellenuit (15 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> The only policy that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to put the brakes on the development of a middle class in developing countries. We have no moral right to insist on this and these countries are not going to do it voluntarily.




What I said was:

_We certainly should be developing a policy now to deal with *the effects* of the warming (which is probably inevitable if we take the scientific predictions at face value)_

If we can't stop warming then we should put in place policies that will mitigate the effects of the warming, just as we would do for any other natural event that we are fairly certain might happen and where it might happen.


----------



## basilio (15 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> What I said was:
> 
> _We certainly should be developing a policy now to deal with *the effects* of the warming (which is probably inevitable if we take the scientific predictions at face value)_
> 
> If we can't stop warming then we should put in place policies that will mitigate the effects of the warming, just as we would do for any other natural event that we are fairly certain might happen and where it might happen.




Bellenuit *IF * global warming was just going to be 2 degrees C there could be a case for taking some meaningful adapative action. But if you have been following the science and accept the broad conclusions of climate scientists you would be aware we are facing much higher temperature increases.

That article you referenced on the methane gas escaping  the Arctic sea floor was possibly the last straw in terms of tipping points.


----------



## sptrawler (15 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> What I said was:
> 
> _We certainly should be developing a policy now to deal with *the effects* of the warming (which is probably inevitable if we take the scientific predictions at face value)_
> 
> If we can't stop warming then we should put in place policies that will mitigate the effects of the warming, just as we would do for any other natural event that we are fairly certain might happen and where it might happen.




I'm with you on this one, get megamoves in and move Perth up onto the Darling Scarp, pronto.


----------



## ghotib (15 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> ...
> However if you read this article, you will realise as has been said on other posts, that the technology isn't available at this point in time. To make a radical change to what we are currently doing, that is unless we go nuclear.
> The government has now back flipped on clean power stations....



Regardless of government policy flips, backflips, or triple somersaults, clean energy technology is available now, as report after report has found this year. [url = "http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/think-small-and-kick-out-coal"]Climate Spectator[/url] has an article today about another one, this time from UTS. An exerpt:


> ...a serious challenge to the network operators who plan to spend $45 billion on network upgrades in the current five year period, and will likely do the same in the next.
> 
> The report, Think Small: The Australian Decentralised Energy Roadmap, says one third of this expenditure – $15 billion in the current period – could be avoided if Australia adopted decentralised energy technologies, such as efficient use of energy, peak load management and distributed generation, which means generating plants of 30MW or below, such as small wind farms, biomass plants, solar farms, rooftop PV, small hydro, fuel cells, cogeneration and trigeneration. The study, completed in collaboration with the CSIRO and four other universities, says these are the quickest and cheapest options to reducing emissions and meeting peak demand.



The plummeting cost of setting up renewable energy generation, and its scalability and suitability for distributed generation, means that the developing world can get through a high carbon phase much, much faster than the "First World" did.  A hopeful fact IMO. 

Also hopeful is that clean energy, light, and heating can be and is being introduced more or less independently of government policies or international treaties through various appropriate technology programmes. One of my favourites is a "solar light bulb" invented by some genius in the Philippines http://www.pinoybisnes.com/business-ideas/how-to-make-solar-bottle-light-bulb/ . It doesn't provide light at night and it's no replacement for electric light, but it's cheap as chips and it's a huge step up in living conditions over no light at all. Another is the solar oven, which works by focussing sunlight. These simple technologies can replace a heck of a lot of burning fuels, which reduces particulate pollution (lung gunk) as well as carbon emissions until more sophisticated clean energy systems are available. And who knows, portability might be an advantage as the effects of the warming globe become more apparent.

ghoti


----------



## Julia (15 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> And you think the opposite!



No.  I make no claim about any 'side' being right or wrong.  I am simply sick of all the hysteria and disgusted that Australia, in a move purely designed to appease the Greens politically, is going to engage in a tax which will significantly disadvantage our economy whilst making no difference to the environment.



> So argue the case rather than the man!



Why should you feel you can tell me what to argue or not?
I have no compunction in repeating that you will automatically believe what your 'own side' says.  Confirmation bias etc.

I have no interest in pursuing what has become a circular  argument where there are:

1.  those who passionately believe we are doomed to extinction because of anthropogenic GW. 

2.  those who dismiss such a notion absolutely.

3.  those who simply do not know, are prepared to acknowledge such agnosticism, but who despise hypocritical political moves designed not to alter the climate at all, but merely to ensure the political survival of those instigating such self serving nonsense.




basilio said:


> Bellenuit *IF * global warming was just going to be 2 degrees C there could be a case for taking some meaningful adapative action. But if you have been following the science and accept the broad conclusions of climate scientists you would be aware we are facing much higher temperature increases.
> (



So there might even be some hope I could return to live in NZ and not freeze to death?
No such signs so far.


----------



## sptrawler (15 December 2011)

ghotib said:


> Regardless of government policy flips, backflips, or triple somersaults, clean energy technology is available now, as report after report has found this year. [url = "http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/think-small-and-kick-out-coal"]Climate Spectator[/url] has an article today about another one, this time from UTS. An exerpt:
> 
> The plummeting cost of setting up renewable energy generation, and its scalability and suitability for distributed generation, means that the developing world can get through a high carbon phase much, much faster than the "First World" did.  A hopeful fact IMO.
> 
> ...




Yes ghoti, the genius light bulb is a 2litre plastic cool drink bottle with liquid in it shoved through the roof, so it is used as a diffuser for sunlight into the room.
Basically a skylight, actually we have improved on that and use reflective tube from a u.v stabilised dome on the roof, You might not have seen them they have only been around for 20 years or so. I have one lighting my kitchen.
Maybe you could send Peter Garrett an email, he might jump on the idea.


----------



## ghotib (15 December 2011)

That's right spt. It's people who have less than no hope of buying a sky tube or a special-purpose piece of plastic making use of what's available. The less you have, the bigger the difference something very small can make. 

I didn't suggest this would ever be a big seller in Australia (though it would have improved some country dunnies I've known). I mentioned it because it's an example of how people who are now desperately poor can improve their living standards through methods (in this case by re-using plastic rubbish) that weren't available in earlier times. The solar light bulb is a long way short of a middle class lifestyle, but it's one indicator that the path from poverty to the middle class doesn't have to depend on burning fossil fuel.


----------



## sptrawler (15 December 2011)

ghotib said:


> That's right spt. It's people who have less than no hope of buying a sky tube or a special-purpose piece of plastic making use of what's available. The less you have, the bigger the difference something very small can make.
> 
> I didn't suggest this would ever be a big seller in Australia (though it would have improved some country dunnies I've known). I mentioned it because it's an example of how people who are now desperately poor can improve their living standards through methods (in this case by re-using plastic rubbish) that weren't available in earlier times. The solar light bulb is a long way short of a middle class lifestyle, but it's one indicator that the path from poverty to the middle class doesn't have to depend on burning fossil fuel.




Jeez mate get a grip of yourself, if you feel that passionate about it all, take the fuses out of your meter box, shove some empty coke bottles through your roof and feel happy.
Most third world countries are trying to live like us and you want to live like them.
That's really easy, you can afford it, just buy a bush block and a tin shed, then start saving the world.
By the way do you live in a building with electricity,H.W.S, T.V, stove, fridge,ipod,laptop,b.b.q,car in the drive, etc.
No of course not you wouldn't be such a hypocrite, heaven forbid such a thought.


----------



## bellenuit (15 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Bellenuit *IF * global warming was just going to be 2 degrees C there could be a case for taking some meaningful adapative action. But if you have been following the science and accept the broad conclusions of climate scientists you would be aware we are facing much higher temperature increases.
> 
> That article you referenced on the methane gas escaping  the Arctic sea floor was possibly the last straw in terms of tipping points.




Well if we have reached the tipping point and if both preventative and adaptive action is pointless, then lets stop wasting any more resources on the issue and use our wealth to make our remaining time as humans enjoyable.


----------



## ghotib (16 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Jeez mate get a grip of yourself, if you feel that passionate about it all, take the fuses out of your meter box, shove some empty coke bottles through your roof and feel happy.
> Most third world countries are trying to live like us and you want to live like them.
> That's really easy, you can afford it, just buy a bush block and a tin shed, then start saving the world.
> By the way do you live in a building with electricity,H.W.S, T.V, stove, fridge,ipod,laptop,b.b.q,car in the drive, etc.
> No of course not you wouldn't be such a hypocrite, heaven forbid such a thought.



Where did I say I want to live in a shanty-town on a rubbish dump in Manila? Who would? 

The point I'm trying to make is that the developing world does not have to depend on burning fossil fuels to achieve a middle class lifestyle. 

Maybe I need to point out that a middle class lifestyle isn't a fixed thing. It's less than a century since the Australian middle class could expect an electricity supply, less than 60 years (i.e. a baby-boomer lifetime) since the middle class had TV, less than 20 years since anyone had a laptop. 

You'd need to combine a feeble imagination and a very bad memory to think that middle class life in Australia in 2025 will be the same as middle class life here and now.


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2011)

ghotib said:


> Where did I say I want to live in a shanty-town on a rubbish dump in Manila? Who would?
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is that the developing world does not have to depend on burning fossil fuels to achieve a middle class lifestyle.
> 
> ...




Refer back to post 243, there is no viable alternative to fossil or nuclear fuel at this time. Jeez.

Make a zillion dollars come up with an alternative, or think about what you are saying. 
I really don't want to say stop talking cr@p, because that wouldn't be nice, and you sound like a caring person.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (16 December 2011)

I would like to say Merry Xmas to all the climate fans in this forum - it's been a brilliantly entertaining year. I must also extend gratitude to Basilio, Knobby et al, for without your presence in these threads I believe far fewer people would be questioning the AGW mantra and researching the facts to uncover the truth of the Global Warming scam.

Only a few years ago, most didn't question the AGW "science", now, a much greater proportion do question what is being fed to them. In essence, the warmists/alarmists here are indirectly helping to uncover the truth by forcing people to research the facts for themselves - the way it should be for any topic or political position.

Oz


----------



## Knobby22 (16 December 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I would like to say Merry Xmas to all the climate fans in this forum - it's been a brilliantly entertaining year. I must also extend gratitude to Basilio, Knobby et al, for without your presence in these threads I believe far fewer people would be questioning the AGW mantra and researching the facts to uncover the truth of the Global Warming scam.
> 
> Only a few years ago, most didn't question the AGW "science", now, a much greater proportion do question what is being fed to them. In essence, the warmists/alarmists here are indirectly helping to uncover the truth by forcing people to research the facts for themselves - the way it should be for any topic or political position.
> 
> Oz




And I agree with your sentiments Ozwaveguy.

I have learnt a lot about people and how they can believe anything no matter what facts are presented and now understand how Nazi Germany occurred.  Keep up the good work and Merry Christmas also.


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I have learnt a lot about people and how they can believe anything no matter what facts are presented and now understand how Nazi Germany occurred.




So you "understand" this, but still want to be a part of it?


----------



## Knobby22 (16 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> So you "understand" this, but still want to be a part of it?




I don't think you should reread what I wrote but it is good you have this understanding also. A successful thread all round.


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I don't think you should reread what I wrote but it is good you have this understanding also. A successful thread all round.




Yes, I did reread what you wrote and I think you used a fitting analogy. The Nazis were the alarmists and the sceptics were the resistance fighters.

 Spreading fear of Jews, socialists, communists and neighbouring countries was the Nazis stock in trade. Their success at this led them to being democratically elected and eventually to the holocaust.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 December 2011)

I correlate it to spreading lies , misinformation and propaganda with an alliance with business to achieve aims not related to the good of the ordinary people.  

Viva la difference.


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I correlate it to spreading lies , misinformation and propaganda with an alliance with business to achieve aims not related to the good of the ordinary people.




I agree. That AGW alarmism in a nutshell.


----------



## Julia (16 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> I agree. That AGW alarmism in a nutshell.



 +1.  With thanks, Knobby, for supplying such an excellent definition.


----------



## basilio (16 December 2011)

Just reading a review on Skeptical Science website of a recent paper that examines how the Antarctic went from a mild climate with woodlands and animals to its current status as a frozen wasteland. Quite fascinating



> *The End of the Hothouse*
> Posted on 16 December 2011 by John Mason
> 
> A new study links major atmospheric CO2 drop to the onset of Antarctic glaciation, 33.7 million years ago
> ...



.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/end-of-the-hothouse.html

I suppose what is really interesting is the lengths these damn scientists go to justify their alarmists views. And there are hundreds of these damn studies. Persistent pests arn't they !


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Just reading a review on Skeptical Science website of a recent paper that examines how the Antarctic went from a mild climate with woodlands and animals to its current status as a frozen wasteland. Quite fascinating
> 
> .
> 
> ...




Well basillio, read post 243, unless we go nuclear there is sod all can be done about global warming. 
Get over it, pay your tax and enjoy the warm weather.


----------



## Julia (16 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well basillio, read post 243, unless we go nuclear there is sod all can be done about global warming.
> Get over it, pay your tax and enjoy the warm weather.



No warm weather to be enjoyed here in SE Qld.  No wonder they changed the title from Global Warming.  Unbelievably cold for December.


----------



## derty (17 December 2011)

Here are a few thoughts from my favourite comic xkcd. 
The text below the comic is the caption as it appears when you hover over the image on the site.




There are so many well meaning conservatives around here who just assume global warming is only presented as a moral issue for political reasons.
http://xkcd.com/164/



I mean, what's more likely -- that I have discovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work.
http://xkcd.com/675/



scientists are also sexy, let's not forget that.
http://xkcd.com/154/


----------



## basilio (17 December 2011)

Nice work Derty. Thanx


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2011)

Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:

All pro AGW views entail correct science.
All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
All conservatives are anti-science.

None of the above is actually anywhere close to the truth.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Nice work Derty. Thanx




I know you have been hard at work (or is it labour of love?) for over three years trying to ramp up AGW hysteria on this forum. It must be gratifying to know that you have a few disciples. But I don't think you can claim any conversions...which is the true measure of an effective preacher.


----------



## ghotib (17 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:
> 
> All pro AGW views entail correct science.
> All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
> ...



You might see things more clearly if you could get your rolling eyes under control Wayne.


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2011)

ghotib said:


> You might see things more clearly if you could get your rolling eyes under control Wayne.




Only you ladies can help me with that.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2011)

Russian scientists (who basilio says are liars) say that polar bears are not endangered, but are thriving.



> LEADING Russian scientists have rejected claims by their counterparts in the US that the polar bear is endangered by climate change.
> 
> The Russians have accused the Americans of skewing data to support claims that polar bears are drowning because of melting ice, and of treating bears cruelly during research.
> 
> The polar bear has emerged as a powerful symbol during the debate on global warming, with environmentalists warning that reduced Arctic ice due to climate change threatens the survival of the world's largest land predator.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...olar-bear-trauma/story-e6frgcjx-1226224432321


----------



## derty (17 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:
> 
> All pro AGW views entail correct science.
> All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
> ...




It's interesting how our biases warp our logical interpretations and extrapolations.

I don't quite get the same message. And don't really know where the truth lies. I just know it is not at the extremes.

The main points I see when I read these are:

Regardless of the debate, politics and vitriol the underlying phenomena keeps rolling along. The science will be unambiguously apparent with time.
Experts in the field are the ones that will usually have the best understanding of that field. 
Armchair scientists will unlikely reach correct conclusions due to limited and/or incorrect understanding of the science. 

As carbon emissions will not be reigned in we will definitely have the question answered, at least in my lifetime. 

Anyone wish to place a wager on none of the next 5 years being the highest on record?


----------



## explod (17 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> Of course basilio would love it, and don her cheerleaders outfit, because it contains fallacious logic:
> 
> All pro AGW views entail correct science.
> All non-pro AGW are non-scientific and entail non-scientific belief or incorrect science.
> ...




It is the truth, *in fact*.

Jeremy Leggett's (Oxford Scholar) book "Half Gone, Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis" 2005 in fact explains very clearly how the big side of town, oil, has worked at trying to discredit the science.  And they cannot, but they do get through to blockheads, and in that I mean plural, so take no offence.

You need some real facts there wayneL not just cunning bluster and hot air.


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2011)

derty said:


> Anyone wish to place a wager on none of the next 5 years being the highest on record?




Real or adjusted?


----------



## orr (18 December 2011)

sails said:


> And when people are stuck with their head in the sand thinking that Australia can do something about this without the major polluters, they are in even worse denial than they think of those with more common sense.
> 
> Australia emits 1.3% of global co2 emissions.  Our target (at great expense) is 5% of our tiny 1.3% slice of the pie - that's 0.65%.
> 
> ...




Exactly right And when you've got plonker's like this Gates clown saying things like: 


Mr Gates, the founder of Microsoft who's holidaying in Sydney with his family, said someone had to lead on tough global issues and it had to be hoped that by setting a good example, others would follow.

"I wish the world at large found it easier to get together on this because a carbon tax is a very important tool to encourage the invention of low-cost energy technologies that don't emit carbon," he told ABC Television.

"To help that happen, a carbon tax really is a key piece."

What is this Microsoft thingy anyway? Typical ABC commie pinko twaddle.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 December 2011)

orr said:


> What is this Microsoft thingy anyway? Typical ABC commie pinko twaddle.




Yea! Developed by by people who hold Lesbian Puppet Workshops!!


----------



## Knobby22 (18 December 2011)

orr said:


> What is this Microsoft thingy anyway? Typical ABC commie pinko twaddle.




Yea! I'm sure it was developed by by people who hold lesbian puppet workshops developing plays critiquing the consumerism of modern Russia!!

And Mr Gates gives to charity, bloody pinko!


----------



## basilio (18 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> Russian scientists (who basilio says are liars) say that polar bears are not endangered, but are thriving.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...olar-bear-trauma/story-e6frgcjx-1226224432321




Calliope just a few points.

1) I never said Russian scientists were lying. Knobby asked you if you thought they were after you dismissed an earlier post I wrote that highlighted the  huge increase in methane emissions from the melting arctic zone.  I was taking the xxxx out of you by suggesting that because they were Russians and taking about climate change etc they automatically had to be liars. *So be clear-  I never said the Russian scientist talking about the emissions of methane were liars* . Okay ?

2)  For your own sake can you at least re quote yourself accurately ?  Your Post 231 says *"There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate."*  Your Post 234 tries to requote your earlier statement but says "*their absolutely nothing we can do about climate change".*  They have quite different meanings.

Regarding The Australian story.  Amazing bit of spin trying to somehow paint a rosy picture of the polar bear world.

For a bit more about the facts behind the polar bears check out http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/will-polar-bears-survive

You'll even find your Russian researcher is on the scientific staff studying the  polar bear population.

There was another Polar bear website (this time Russian based) which offered its own discussion on the subject. I have quoted one of the more relevant sections because it illustrates how some media can distort the threat to the polar bear population for its own ends.


> *
> So, what do we see on Wrangel Island? What conclusions can be drawn from observations there?*
> 
> Ice conditions in the vicinity of the island began to change drastically in 1990. Melting ice floes deprive polar bears of an optimal habitat. Consequently, polar bears have to spend several months ashore each year. They come ashore during the last stages of an ice floe’s disintegration. The animals reach land in the coastal areas nearest to their respective ice floes, on which they have hunted during that period. Most polar bears in the north-eastern Russian Arctic come ashore on Wrangel Island. The rest wade onto the Chukotka coast and north-western Alaska. Some bears remain on the edge of pack ice drifting towards circumpolar areas. Consequently, the polar bear population is divided into four seasonally isolated populations each year. The proportion of animals going ashore in various areas depends on the ice movement during the ice disintegration process.
> ...




http://premier.gov.ru/patron/en/bear/news/17267


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Calliope just a few points.
> 
> 1) I never said Russian scientists were lying. Knobby asked you if you thought they were after you dismissed an earlier post I wrote that highlighted the  huge increase in methane emissions from the melting arctic zone.  I was taking the xxxx out of you by suggesting that because they were Russians and taking about climate change etc they automatically had to be liars. *So be clear-  I never said the Russian scientist talking about the emissions of methane were liars*




You are so keen to take the xxx(?) out of people that you resort to stupid assumptions. Grow up!



> For your own sake can you at least re quote yourself accurately ? Your Post 231 says "There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate." Your Post 234 tries to requote your earlier statement but says "their absolutely nothing we can do about climate change". They have quite different meanings.




Rubbish.




> You'll even find your Russian researcher is on the scientific staff studying the polar bear population.
> 
> There was another Polar bear website (this time Russian based) which offered its own discussion on the subject. I have quoted one of the more relevant sections because it illustrates how some media can distort the threat to the polar bear population for its own ends.




From your link:



> Polar bears have not lost the skills inherited from their brown bear ancestors during the ‘settling’ of the Arctic sea ice cover. On the contrary, they have improved these skills and acquired new ones. I*n response to the question of whether the polar bear has a future in the face of global warming, we can answer in the affirmative. Due to the above qualities, the polar bear can survive lengthy warming periods and ice disintegration by relocating to coastal ecosystems*


----------



## basilio (18 December 2011)

Calliope you really are bizzare.  

Can we get it clear.  When anyone wants to requote them-self or some else else we also expect to see "the same words used" . That is what quoting means. And there is quite a difference between your two statements.

With regard to global warming and polar bears. It is possible that some polar bears will survive a complete meltdown of the Arctic sea ice. How many ? In what form ? Where ? Who knows. But it won't be pretty.

*The  main point of the research is that there is extremely rapid warming in the Arctic which is seriously affecting polar bears as well as everything else that lives there. That of course was completely ignored by The Australian and it seems many other forum members.*

And relatively soon of course all this melting ice is going to start impacting on the rest of the globe. The fact that the melting to date is also starting to release billions of tons of  ice bound methane (as was reported earlier) just makes the situation even more precarious.


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Calliope you really are bizzare.
> 
> Can we get it clear.  When anyone wants to requote them-self or some else else we also expect to see "the same words used" . That is what quoting means. And there is quite a difference between your two statements.




I am not much interested in what you expect. You have resorted to nit picking.




> And relatively soon of course all this melting ice is going to start impacting on the rest of the globe. The fact that the melting to date is also starting to release billions of tons of ice bound methane (as was reported earlier) just makes the situation even more precarious.




It's happened before. Species adapt.


----------



## explod (18 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> I am not much interested in what you expect. You have resorted to nit picking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But never at the current pace, have you read the "Sixth Extinction" specifically goes into the last five.

When you have been informed by such scientific analyses you can then speak with authority.


----------



## basilio (18 December 2011)

Interesting Calliope. In just a few words you appear to be accepting that there is rapid warming happening in the Arctic and that it will cause some big changes.

But you seem to think species will adapt as they always have.

As Explod suggests you might like to expand your understanding of the effects of the temperature increases that will happen if we continue on our current course. (Mind you we are already committed to at least 1.5 degrees of warming with the current levels of Greenhouse gases)

Elizabeth Colbert wrote an excellent book on this topic in 2006. An overview and the first chapter are featured in the New York Times.



> *"Field notes from a catastrophe"*
> 
> Ms. Kolbert, a former reporter for The New York Times, doesn't doubt that human-induced global warming is real and will likely have dire consequences; the title of her book includes the word "catastrophe." The pages are replete with bad news: perennial sea ice, which 25 years ago covered an area of the Arctic the size of the continental United States, has since lost an area "the size of New York, Georgia and Texas combined." Carbon dioxide levels, if emissions go unchecked, could reach three times pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.
> 
> ...




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/books/16gosn.html

There is an interview with Elizabeth which explores how she felt as she researched and wrote the book. 
http://www.grist.org/article/roberts9
Cheers


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2011)

basilio said:


> Interesting Calliope. In just a few words you appear to be accepting that there is rapid warming happening in the Arctic and that it will cause some big changes.




There you go again. You have a bad habit of trying to put words in peoples' mouths.



> As Explod suggests you might like to expand your understanding of the effects of the temperature increases that will happen if we continue on our current course.




So now you are accepting Mr Plod as a disciple.. I think you should get over it and accept the fact that there is nothing we can do do to alter climate change. Chill out . Take up knitting. It soothes the nerves I'm told.


----------



## derty (19 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> Real or adjusted?



Absolute and corrected


----------



## Knobby22 (29 December 2011)

This year has been the worst year ever in the USA - by far- for natural weather disasters. They have got worse because there is more heat in the atmosphere. From PBS Newshour.

JEFF MASTERS: I mean, we talk about the Dust Bowl summer of 1936. Well, this summer pretty much matched that for temperature, almost the hottest summer in U.S. history. We also talk about the great 1974 tornado outbreak. Well, we had an outbreak that more than doubled the total of tornadoes we had during that iconic outbreak. And, also, we talk about the great 1927 flood on the Mississippi River. Well, the flood heights were even higher than that flood this year.

So, it just boggles my mind that we had three extreme weather events that matched those events in U.S. history.

HARI SREENIVASAN: So, Jeff, how do we tie this in with any particular cause? We can't say that a temperature warming or a global temperature increase causes a tornado or this hurricane. But what can we say? What does the data show us?

JEFF MASTERS: That weather has natural extremes.

We all know that you can have extreme years and not very extreme years. Certainly, this year was a very naturally extreme year. But I argue that when you have a naturally extreme year occurring within the context of global warming, okay, now you've put more heat in the atmosphere. That means you have more energy to power stronger storms and more energy also to give you more intense heat waves and droughts.

So, in particular, we look at heat waves, droughts, and flooding events. They all tend to get increased when you have this extra energy in the atmosphere. I call it being on steroids kind of for the atmosphere.

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec11/weather_12-28.html

Australia gets a mention too as well as many other extreme weather events around the world.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (29 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> This year has been the worst year ever in the USA - by far- for natural weather disasters. They have got worse because there is more heat in the atmosphere. From PBS Newshour.




Gosh, I didn't realize that Global Warming has taken the back seat of the bus to make way for weather.

Next up: The Barrier Reef (again) right? Then more pictures of scary steam from exhaust vents and grey skies from carbon pollution?

The Tax will save us all - I feel better already!


----------



## IFocus (29 December 2011)

All good here in WA just weather.....


2011 to be Perth's hottest year ever on record



> METEOROLOGISTS say 2011 will be Perth's hottest year in history - our third consecutive hottest year since records began.






> Perth's mean daily maximum temperature from January to November was 25.3C, topping the 2010 record of 24.9C, according to the WA Bureau of Meteorology.
> 
> "When we factor in the seven-day forecast, for us not to break the record we would have to have average temperatures of less than 20.7C (this month) and we really don't think that is going to happen," bureau weather services manager Neil Bennett said.
> 
> "The interesting thing is we have 114 years of records of temperatures for the Perth metro area and when you take all the maximum temperatures over a year and you average them out, to get 25C or more, that has only happened on four occasions in that whole 114 years.




http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/spe...ottest-year-ever/story-e6frg19l-1226224717115


----------



## sptrawler (29 December 2011)

IFocus said:


> All good here in WA just weather.....
> 
> 
> 2011 to be Perth's hottest year ever on record
> ...




Yes Ifocus, it should give us a great starting point for debate in the new year.
Hope you had a great christmas.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2011)

IFocus said:


> All good here in WA just weather.....
> 
> 
> 2011 to be Perth's hottest year ever on record
> ...




A few questions:

1/ That appears to reflect daily maximums rather than daily means. On the face of it that is data mining, what is the average mean and how does that sit with the last 114 years of records (A very short period of time BTW)?

2/ Is it just Perth with this record, or other areas of WA as well?

3/ Perth is a rapidly growing metropolis with much new development and very little established tree coverage. How much of the record can be attributed to urban heat island effect?

IF, these and other questions must be answered and analyzed before any importance is assigned to that statistic.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2011)

Re recent methane alarmism, it seems the alarmist press and their acolytes have lept to delusions once again before properly analyzing.

Anthony Watts has the scoop http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/quote-of-the-week-the-climbdown-on-methane-and-climate-change/

This quote from Semiletov and Shakhova themselves:



> We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.
> 
> In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.


----------



## spooly74 (30 December 2011)

The Worst NYT Story on Climate Ever


----------



## johenmo (30 December 2011)

Ag people talk about heat units, which uses max and min temps.  Anyone got any data on this for global warming?  It may be better than maximum. May try to calculate it myself if I get time...


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> T
> JEFF MASTERS: I mean, we talk about the Dust Bowl summer of 1936. Well, this summer pretty much matched that for temperature, almost the hottest summer in U.S. history. We also talk about the great 1974 tornado outbreak. Well, we had an outbreak that more than doubled the total of tornadoes we had during that iconic outbreak. And, also, we talk about the great 1927 flood on the Mississippi River. Well, the flood heights were even higher than that flood this year.
> 
> So, it just boggles my mind that we had three extreme weather events that matched those events in U.S. history.



Heat - note that it was "almost" the hottest summer since records began. But then consider the huge amount of heat added by non-greenhouse gas sources. Fuel combustion, nuclear energy, land use change, hydro-electricity and wind energy are all adding plenty of heat directly to the atmosphere regardless of any CO2 they may emit. This alone would cause some warming, with or without the CO2 issue. Heat emission from these sources in the US are very much higher now than they were in 1936 when the use of coal, oil and hydro plus heat effects of land use change was very much lower whilst nuclear energy and electricity from wind power didn't exist at all (old style wind mills pumping water aren't really adding heat so far as I can work out).

Tornados - I'm no expert on them but there was a weather expert on Financial Sense Newshour a few years ago who predicted this based on some natural cycle that is already well understood.

Floods - Land use change since 1927 in the US has been on a massive scale and I don't think anyone would dispute that. Such changes have major impacts on runoff and that is something you can witness even outside your own home (assuming you have asphalt roads or concrete etc). No doubt there have been other changes too - dams, diversions, works along the river banks, water extraction etc which also impact flows. As such, measuring the flow is essentially meaningless unless your purpose relates directly to the flow in the river, water supply, navigation etc. It tells you nothing about the climate or rainfall due to the sheer number of changes upstream in the catchment.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 December 2011)

IFocus said:


> All good here in WA just weather.....
> 
> 
> 2011 to be Perth's hottest year ever on record



I would certainly agree that from a scientific perspective (as distinct from climate change which is essentially a non-scientific political issue in practice) there is something which needs proper investigation regarding Perth's weather / climate.

There's clear evidence of things like a reduction in run-off and, I'm assured by those who live there, humidity is increasing also. Also notable is that essentially the same effects (though less severe), at the same time, have been observed in Tasmania which is only a bit further south.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 December 2011)

johenmo said:


> Ag people talk about heat units, which uses max and min temps.  Anyone got any data on this for global warming?  It may be better than maximum. May try to calculate it myself if I get time...



The gas and electricity utilities use a similar measure known as "degree days". 

Essentially, it's a measure used to translate weather forecasts into likely usage of heating and cooling systems which in many areas are a key driver of gas and electricity use (most extreme is South Australia where on a hot afternoon literally 60% of all electricity in SA is used for air-conditioning - hence the obvious benefit in being able to forecast usage with reasonable accuracy).


----------



## macca (30 December 2011)

On the other side of the nation ..............

<<IT'S a good thing December is almost over - it's been the coldest for more than 50 years. >>

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-our-summer-gone/story-e6freuzi-1226232958121


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2011)

macca said:


> On the other side of the nation ..............
> 
> <<IT'S a good thing December is almost over - it's been the coldest for more than 50 years. >>
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-our-summer-gone/story-e6freuzi-1226232958121





Yeah but that's just weather, Perth is climate change... 

(Extra rolleyes especially for Ms Ghoti  )


----------



## Knobby22 (30 December 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Heat - note that it was "almost" the hottest summer since records began. But then consider the huge amount of heat added by non-greenhouse gas sources. Fuel combustion, nuclear energy, land use change, hydro-electricity and wind energy are all adding plenty of heat directly to the atmosphere regardless of any CO2 they may emit. This alone would cause some warming, with or without the CO2 issue. Heat emission from these sources in the US are very much higher now than they were in 1936 when the use of coal, oil and hydro plus heat effects of land use change was very much lower whilst nuclear energy and electricity from wind power didn't exist at all (old style wind mills pumping water aren't really adding heat so far as I can work out).
> 
> Tornados - I'm no expert on them but there was a weather expert on Financial Sense Newshour a few years ago who predicted this based on some natural cycle that is already well understood.
> 
> Floods - Land use change since 1927 in the US has been on a massive scale and I don't think anyone would dispute that. Such changes have major impacts on runoff and that is something you can witness even outside your own home (assuming you have asphalt roads or concrete etc). No doubt there have been other changes too - dams, diversions, works along the river banks, water extraction etc which also impact flows. As such, measuring the flow is essentially meaningless unless your purpose relates directly to the flow in the river, water supply, navigation etc. It tells you nothing about the climate or rainfall due to the sheer number of changes upstream in the catchment.




True, tornados come in cycles but they were the worst ever, the flooding is also effected by all the concret culverts but again it was the worst ever, this combined with the worst Texans drought ever in the same year! Pretty amazing.

Warming of the atmosphere would be expected to increase the severity of weather extremes and we have a lot more warming to come. 

Channel 7 news said the weirdness and severity of the storms that hit Melbourne on Christmas day were caused due to the red centre hitting a new 47 degree record.  Interesting times ahead in my opinion as we have a lot more warming to come over the next 30 years.


----------



## qldfrog (30 December 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Heat - note that it was "almost" the hottest summer since records began. But then consider the huge amount of heat added by non-greenhouse gas sources. Fuel combustion, nuclear energy, land use change, hydro-electricity and wind energy are all adding plenty of heat directly to the atmosphere regardless of any CO2 they may emit. This alone would cause some warming, with or without the CO2 issue. Heat emission from these sources in the US are very much higher now than they were in 1936 when the use of coal, oil and hydro plus heat effects of land use change was very much lower whilst nuclear energy and electricity from wind power didn't exist at all (old style wind mills pumping water aren't really adding heat so far as I can work out).



you hit an interesting point here.
I do believe there is a man made global warming happening (and so i am automatically put in the category of dum ass, carbon tax fanatics by many on this thread). This is just based on natural observations of first flowering for fruit trees, progression of tropical pests /vegetation and regression of other in the area I live (Brisbane), disappearance of frost etc.

I actually did the computation a few years ago as i was unconvinced of the CO2 cause;
basically every energy source (oil /coal extracted, uranium burned, etc ends up in heat);
I did bypass the oil used in plastic as i had no figure at the time;
The end result of this release of heat on a close system in equilibrium (if not , we would have been frozen or cooked for million years)-> more or less the exact increase matching the temp curves from Al Gore and Cie since the industrial revolution;
Out of this , I can either 
- discard the CO2  and claim that all is right; but I am kidding myself and do not prepare Australia to peak oil [which will hurt, I am sure of that]
- see the fact and realise that only solar and wind are heat neutral and can be used safely which is impossible in our economy. And then consider that the CO2 story is not a bad one to follow as it overall will mitigate the problem.
I chose the later as the less er of the evil

Up to you if you want to take your pen and redo the computation, sadly in this case, even the nuclear lobby will not sponsor you so good luck if you are a professional scientist as no one will want to hear your results .
I am genuinely keen to see if any one can find faults there (with some numbers please)

Have all a great new probably warmer overall year
Oliver


----------



## So_Cynical (30 December 2011)

qldfrog said:


> you hit an interesting point here.
> I do believe there is a man made global warming happening (and so i am automatically put in the category of dum ass, carbon tax fanatics by many on this thread)




Welcome to the dum ass, carbon tax fanatics club  its not a bad club to be in, certainly better than the deny everything, change nothing, Dumb Ass club.


----------



## Calliope (30 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Welcome to the dum ass, carbon tax fanatics club




Also known as the Al Gore fan club.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Welcome to the dum ass, carbon tax fanatics club  its not a bad club to be in, certainly better than the deny everything, change nothing, Dumb Ass club.




Well AGW or not, what is really the most dumb ass thing of all, is believing a carbon tax will change anything. 

A lowering of emissions can only be achieved by individuals collectively doing something and even the most vociferous alarmists do nothing... in fact some have enormous carbon footprints.

Do something with your own lifestyles you hypocrites, lead by example.


----------



## qldfrog (31 December 2011)

wayneL said:


> Well AGW or not, what is really the most dumb ass thing of all, is believing a carbon tax will change anything.
> 
> A lowering of emissions can only be achieved by individuals collectively doing something and even the most vociferous alarmists do nothing... in fact some have enormous carbon footprints.
> 
> Do something with your own lifestyles you hypocrites, lead by example.




Wayne,
I do not disagree with you on the carbon tax ability to change anything, and i do my best without the need for taxes there. Sadly, more than often, the tax issue  is blurred with AGW deniers: of course the carbon tax is a tax, what does anyone expect with this government;
to be effective a carbon tax should be just that: no compensation, applying on imports etc; as is, it is another wealth redistribution package. I did not vote Gilliard (nor did the majority of Australians BTW and yet there was no street protest.. This country will never cease to amaze me...) so do not blame me !
Cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (31 December 2011)

The tax isn't the way forward and just because you acknowledge global warming is occurring doesn't automatically mean you agree with it. There are better ways.

Secondly I have never seen that Al Gore film and I bet many others in this thread haven't either. It seems to me that the fact Al Gore is a Democrat that most upsets the more vitriolic skeptics as it keeps being brought up ad nauseom as a pathetic call to arms.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 December 2011)

qldfrog said:


> you hit an interesting point here.
> I do believe there is a man made global warming happening (and so i am automatically put in the category of dum ass, carbon tax fanatics by many on this thread). This is just based on natural observations of first flowering for fruit trees, progression of tropical pests /vegetation and regression of other in the area I live (Brisbane), disappearance of frost etc.
> 
> I actually did the computation a few years ago as i was unconvinced of the CO2 cause;
> ...



I haven't done the calculations myself on the impact, but once you realise just how much oil, coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and wind energy we turn into heat every hear then it must surely be having some impact on the planet's temperature.

Even in a place like Tasmania, the impact of direct heat emissions is measurable if you go looking for it. Go to somewhere like Melbourne and it's easy to spot. Now think about Europe, USA, China etc with their massive releases of heat which far exceed anything we do in Australia - it must be doing something to the planet surely, and the logical assumption is that it would increase temperature.

My own opinion is that the climate is changing based on my own observations and those collected more formally. I am not convinced that CO2 is the cause, but I have an open mind to the possibility. CO2 certainly does trap heat at high concentrations if you do a lab experiment - but whether anything happens at very much lower concentrations for the planet as a whole is another matter. I'd say it's plausible though.

But the deal breaker between the mainstream climate change movement and me is this:

1. Failure to acknowledge the oil supply problem. How anyone can advocate that we use gas, the only thing even approaching an oil alternative that we have, to generate baseload electricity is beyond me. That's just not a rational use of resources and it's not even clear that it actually does reduce greenhouse gas emissions anyway (methane leakage is the gas industry's big secret...).

2. The notion that relocating emissions from Australia to China is in some way helping. This is nothing other than wealth redistribution which, through furthering the development of a lesser developed country and thus increasing their consumption of goods and services, serves to actually increase emissions in the long term. 

I've always had economical cars. I've always been keen on energy saving technologies and systems. I've spent a lot of my life to date arguing the case for renewable energy. But I'm not in the "carbon is evil" camp simply because they don't have a credible plan to actually deal with the problem. All they have amounts to nothing more than a casino backed by promises.

What are we going to do about liquid fuels for transport in the years ahead? What really is the plan there? Our own production is falling, and we're being slowly but surely locked out of world markets for imports. What's our plan? And why are we exporting all our gas at bargain basement prices thus leaving nothing for tomorrow?

I'd argue that's the number 1 resource issue facing this country going forward, and yet nobody wants to deal with it. All we hear about is carbon (which assumes we're going to have fuel to burn in the first place) and water (which always was a problem of poor management rather than actual scarcity).


----------



## sptrawler (31 December 2011)

Funnily enough smurph, I don't think the average punter realises the severity of the problem. Also the resultant impost on their lifestyles, it's ok sitting back saying the greens and labor are saving the world.
However when it comes home to roost in the next year or two, it will be terrific to read the enthusiasm of some of the pro government posters.
As is always said, be carefull what you wish for, the next period of time post carbon tax will be interesting.
Poor retired sparkies like me are going to struggle, lucky I've been there done that.


----------



## ghotib (2 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> I haven't done the calculations myself on the impact, but once you realise just how much oil, coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and wind energy we turn into heat every hear then it must surely be having some impact on the planet's temperature.
> 
> Even in a place like Tasmania, the impact of direct heat emissions is measurable if you go looking for it. Go to somewhere like Melbourne and it's easy to spot. Now think about Europe, USA, China etc with their massive releases of heat which far exceed anything we do in Australia - it must be doing something to the planet surely, and the logical assumption is that it would increase temperature.



As a starting point, this page http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/ has links to data they used to calculate 2005 anthropogenic heat flux as 0.028 W/m2.  This one http://www.esri.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ has information about the calculation of total radiative forcing, which for 2005 gave a result of 2.81 W/m2. I find the terminology gets confusing, but that's a mighty big difference. It seems clear that the effect of direct heat emissions is far outweighed by the effect of greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere.  



> But the deal breaker between the mainstream climate change movement and me is this:
> 
> 1. Failure to acknowledge the oil supply problem. How anyone can advocate that we use gas, the only thing even approaching an oil alternative that we have, to generate baseload electricity is beyond me. That's just not a rational use of resources and it's not even clear that it actually does reduce greenhouse gas emissions anyway (methane leakage is the gas industry's big secret...).



Not sure what you mean by the "mainstream climate change movement", but FWIW I personally think there are at least three major reasons to reject gas as a fuel for power generation. One is, as you say, that it's at least as serious a carbon emission source as coal. The second is that its development diverts resources from renewable generation, which has to be the eventual future. The third is that gas mining is a direct threat to water resources and in many places a direct competitor with food production. 



> 2. The notion that relocating emissions from Australia to China is in some way helping. This is nothing other than wealth redistribution which, through furthering the development of a lesser developed country and thus increasing their consumption of goods and services, serves to actually increase emissions in the long term.
> 
> I've always had economical cars. I've always been keen on energy saving technologies and systems. I've spent a lot of my life to date arguing the case for renewable energy. But I'm not in the "carbon is evil" camp simply because they don't have a credible plan to actually deal with the problem. All they have amounts to nothing more than a casino backed by promises.



I can understand this, but not having a plan to deal with the problem doesn't make the problem go away. My view is that while governments are failing people can and will act, and in western countries many actions that reduce carbon emissions are worth doing for other reasons as well. That's pretty close to my only reason not to despair.



> What are we going to do about liquid fuels for transport in the years ahead? What really is the plan there? Our own production is falling, and we're being slowly but surely locked out of world markets for imports. What's our plan? And why are we exporting all our gas at bargain basement prices thus leaving nothing for tomorrow?
> 
> I'd argue that's the number 1 resource issue facing this country going forward, and yet nobody wants to deal with it. All we hear about is carbon (which assumes we're going to have fuel to burn in the first place) and water (which always was a problem of poor management rather than actual scarcity).



Have you read Paul Gilding's book "The Great Disruption". He suggests that humanity is facing several crises which are all coming to a head in the next few decades and which each individually require big changes to how the dominant culture functions. Peak oil is one of them. Global warming is another. I'd argue that the desperate need is to find solutions to any of them that also contribute solutions to the others. 

Ghoti


----------



## medicowallet (2 January 2012)

qldfrog said:


> The end result of this release of heat on a close system in equilibrium (if not , we would have been frozen or cooked for million years)-> more or less the exact increase matching the temp curves from Al Gore and Cie since the industrial revolution;




In my school I covered Newton's law of cooling, obviously yours did not.

I think that the govnuts are selling it poorly, but hey, I do not believe we can do anything to stop natural + human warming (and believe that the human contribution is minimal - which is probably why nobody has ever proven it)

BUT

Sell me environment benefits, resource preservation such as peak oil etc, and sure, I'm interested.

MW

(one of the climate change realists)


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 January 2012)

ghotib said:


> Not sure what you mean by the "mainstream climate change movement"



I mean the common view held by the likes of mainstream environmental groups and some political parties. The one that says if we just close a couple of brown coal power stations in Victoria, force people to use public transport and pay a tax on carbon then that will fix the problem. 

It's misleading at best and comes with a host of other problems. For a start, there are various studies which show pretty clearly that some forms of public transport, including the "light rail" (trams) favoured by the mainstream green movement, are actually more polluting than private cars. That's problem number 1. Next is that the carbon tax largely relocates emissions instead of reducing them, and the other is that at least brown coal doesn't come with huge methane emissions or other major side effects - it does have its' environmental good points.

I see a lot of that as little more than socialism dressed up as environmental protection. A lot of "force" people to do this, "force" them to do that but not a lot of actual benefit to the environment to show for it.



> can understand this, but not having a plan to deal with the problem doesn't make the problem go away. My view is that while governments are failing people can and will act, and in western countries many actions that reduce carbon emissions are worth doing for other reasons as well.




Agreed. But isn't the only real "failing" of government that they have "failed" to force individuals to make their own changes? Other than forcing individuals (by whatever means) government can't really do that much - they don't even own the power stations, gas works or coal mines in most cases these days so it's not as though government can directly cut emissions of its own accord.



> Have you read Paul Gilding's book "The Great Disruption". He suggests that humanity is facing several crises which are all coming to a head in the next few decades and which each individually require big changes to how the dominant culture functions. Peak oil is one of them. Global warming is another. I'd argue that the desperate need is to find solutions to any of them that also contribute solutions to the others.




Haven't read the book but I agree with what you are saying. We really need to look at all the problems collectively. There's no point burning more high grade hydrocarbons (oil / gas) as a means of cutting CO2 for example, since we've got another problem with scarcity of those resources. We need to fix one (CO2) without making the other worse.

That's actually one of the big issues I have with things like the call to close Hazelwood power station (Vic). Then what happens? If we close it anytime within the next decade then all we'll end up with is a 30+ year commitment to a new baseload gas-fired plant that will in itself burn through a substantial portion of Vic's remaining natural gas. Either that or we build a new brown coal plant that still pollutes and commit to running it for decades to come. 

To me, it would make more sense to keep Hazelwood and Yallourn running and gradually build up non-coal / non-gas alternatives that are actually sustainable. If that means Hazelwood and Yallourn are there for another 20 years then so be it. That's got to be better than wasting the gas on a solution that's half baked.


----------



## sptrawler (2 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> To me, it would make more sense to keep Hazelwood and Yallourn running and gradually build up non-coal / non-gas alternatives that are actually sustainable. If that means Hazelwood and Yallourn are there for another 20 years then so be it. That's got to be better than wasting the gas on a solution that's half baked.




Now the carbon tax is in, I would be suprised if Hazelwood and Yallourn are shutdown. The more they run, the more tax the government gets, the more people are charged for electricity.
Why would the government want it shut down?
They know, other than nuclear, there is no viable alternative to coal. 
So it really is just another consumption tax, however unlike the g.s.t where you can decide whether you buy something or not.
Electricity is something you have to use, it really is a nasty tax, there's no avoiding it. 
Wow maybe Tony's right, maybe he wasn't just being negative.LOL 

Also smurph, it might explain the push for privatisation of generation, hard to tax yourself.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> So it really is just another consumption tax, however unlike the g.s.t where you can decide whether you buy something or not.



Now there's a thought... I assume there will be GST on the carbon tax? A tax on a tax? Given the way it is to be imposed, this would seem hard to avoid.

As for Yallourn and Hazelwood, for those reading this who aren't aware - these two plants between them generate almost half the electricity in Victoria and have been there for ages. 

The current Yallourn plant has been operating since 1973 (full capacity since the early 1980's), but the previous smaller power plants at Yallourn (A, B, C, D and E power stations) were commissioned between 1924 and 1962, with progressive closure from the about 1968 to 1989. 

Yes, it took 21 years to close the old plants at Yallourn, combined capacity of which was only 42% of the much larger plant that is there today. And of course when those old plants were closed, we just built a big new coal-fired one to replace them. (For the record, closure of A and B stations was because they were basically worn out, closure of C, D and especially E station had a lot more to do with asbestos than anything else since E station in particular was quite modern in design and efficient apart from the asbestos issues) . 

Hazelwood has produced electricity since 1964 (full capacity since 1971) and the associated much smaller Morwell plant since 1958 (full capacity since 1962). Hazelwood is slightly larger than the present operations at Yallourn, with Morwell being a much smaller plant primarily built as a briquette works with electricity as a sideline.

Yes they are old, lack of investment in the industry is something I've mentioned previously. But so far as electricity in Vic is concerned, they have "always been there" and it's going to be no small task to replace them - at least unless we just build another huge coal plant nearby or a nuclear plant.


----------



## sptrawler (3 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now there's a thought... I assume there will be GST on the carbon tax? A tax on a tax? Given the way it is to be imposed, this would seem hard to avoid.
> 
> As for Yallourn and Hazelwood, for those reading this who aren't aware - these two plants between them generate almost half the electricity in Victoria and have been there for ages.
> 
> ...




Well if you extrapolate it out, they get taxed more untill the consumer screams enough. Then they turn around and say you pay a zillion dollars for solar or we have a nuclear solution for $0.15c per kw.
It's a no brainer we get nuclear, India and China get our cheap coal.
Do you ever feel, we are a test tube for the rest of the world?


----------



## qldfrog (3 January 2012)

medicowallet said:


> In my school I covered Newton's law of cooling, obviously yours did not.
> )



reread your school book; 
 Newton's law of cooling has nothing to do with this problem
in an insulated system (ie earth in space)
once a balance is reached :
Loss Heat radiated in space =Gain heat from sun and planet inner core
any added heat will slowly but surely increase the atmosphere temperature until a new balance is reached but do not expect much in extra increased loss  for a planet suspended in vacuum

For any person interested I did these computations a few years ago: see attached and do believe this is a significant factor if not the key factor in global warming.
I am interested in any serious feedback and would be keen if someone can redo the computations and maybe even get more recent data


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 January 2012)

Comments as follows (noting that I haven't attempted to verify the math).

1. Solar does indeed add heat in some ways. For example, land use change and the construction of asphalt roads converts sunlight to heat that would otherwise be reflected back into space. Likewise any other activity that darkens the earth as viewed from space.

2. The energy supply graphs can be somewhat misleading depending on interpretation. It is technically correct in terms of primary energy that is true. But consider that nuclear and hydro both produce similar amounts of useful energy (electricity) worldwide, it's just that the inherent high efficiency of a hydro turbine versus the very much lower efficiency of a nuclear fuelled steam cycle (which is even less efficient than if coal is used as the heat source) is such that nuclear involves a much greater amount of primary energy in order to produce about the same useful output as hydro. Similar distortions exist with other energy sources, although nuclear and hydro represent the two extremes. This doesn't affect the math you are doing, but it does overstate the relative importance of nuclear energy and understate the relative importance of hydro in terms of the broader issues of energy, political debate etc. To a lesser extent, the higher efficiency of natural gas use versus oil and especially coal creates a distortion there too.

3. Whether or not hydro adds heat is a complex one that I'm not really too sure of. Obviously in a direct sense there's heat from the electricity produced but as you say there's no net energy being added. However, energy lost via a natural river to some extent results in evaporation of water to the air whereas this does not occur in a hydro scheme apart from the tailrace, which is short compared to a natural river. The climate effects of this are probably not as straightforward as it may seem - adding heat via evaporation (natural) versus hot air (from electricity) may well have consequences of some sort even though there is no net energy being added. I'm thinking in terms of heat radiated into space from the air versus the effects of water vapour. 

4. Other sources of heat may also have differing impacts depending on the method of release. For example, direct addition of water vapour to the atmosphere from the cooling towers of a coal (or any other fuel) power station may well have different overall impacts to simply releasing the heat by burning the same coal in a fireplace. That is, water vapour itself is a greenhouse gas that we are adding large amounts of due to fossil fuel combustion and other activities, whilst preventing the release of some through hydro schemes etc. This is no doubt a complex issue in itself and a third part of the climate science - CO2, CH4 and other gases, water vapour as a distinctly different one due to it's very short atmospheric lifespan, and direct heat emissions.

5. Harnessing energy from wind may also have some consequences we haven't thought of if done on a large enough scale (especially if concentrated into a small geographic region). I suspect that nobody has really researched this well enough to know, but I don't think it is wise to say there's no impact. We're disrupting a natural process and, if done on a large enough scale, there probably would be some consequences from doing that. 

6. Geothermal isn't directly adding heat that is true, but it is accelerating the release of it. Nuclear fission is much the same - rapid release via a nuclear power station versus slow natural decay over an extended period. In the short term (few thousand yeras), both could be considered a heat source just like coal and oil.

7. The use of fossil fuels, particularly low grade coal, directly releases "locked up" water in the same manner as it releases locked up heat and CO2. Another complication.


----------



## qldfrog (4 January 2012)

Thanks Smurf for taking the time to read these
Agree with all of your points.
pt 6 indeed: geothermal in the heat balance is similar to nuclear but on a shorter timeframe.
pt 2 : indeed the energy might not reflect the efficiency in production,missed that one
( but in that case, this would mean here again more heat released than I have computed and more H2O vapor)

And the point about vapor production is indeed a very good one but that does even worsen the case as vapor has a a green house "gas" effect (but also reflect the sun ib the upper atmosphere as clouds)
these napkin computations i have done just quickly make you realise that CO2 is not the whole story, that the GW vs CO2 correlation might be a consequence and not a cause [the never ending dilemma in science] and I have never seen thsi hypothesis scientifically validated/invalidated 
IMHO, this is because if this effect is substantial, we have only one way out: reduction of overall activity, not to name it: reduction of the earth overall population.
Very unpalatable and not leaving much hope...


----------



## Knobby22 (16 February 2012)

AS I have said before *Follow the money!!!* 

Look at all these climate change deniers that are given a good wage to rant.
Look at all the money given by companies to slow change and confuse the public.

_Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government interference.

"The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address," the Heartland Institute said in a statement this morning.

Among the documents that Heartland does not claim to be faked, is a budget showing payments to selected scientists.

One of the recipients of funding is Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, a geologist and marine researcher who spoke at the "convoys of no confidence" protests against the carbon price last year alongside the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and writes columns for News Ltd newspapers.

The documents show Professor Carter receives a "monthly payment" of $US1667 ($1550) as part of a program to pay "high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message".

Professor Carter did not deny he was being paid by The Heartland Institute, but would not confirm the amount, or if the think tank expected anything in return for its money.

"That suggestion is silly and offensive - a kindergarten level argument," Professor Carter told The Age.

"Institutions or organisations simply pay for services rendered - in the same way that an architect is paid for their work, so are scientists," he said. "What they may make any payment to me for, I'm not discussing with anybody outside of my family."

Altogether, more than $US20 million had been spent funding and co-ordinating the activities of climate sceptics and bloggers since 2007, the documents suggest.

Other cash recipients include Anthony Watts, the leading US climate sceptic blogger, who is to receive $US90,000 for his work this year. Programs slated for funding include new curriculum modules that teach science from a climate-sceptic perspective, to be sent to US schools._
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...for-climate-20120215-1t7ho.html#ixzz1mUxkQJBa

Gina better hurry over controlling the Age otherwise the public might get to know the hidden agenda.


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2012)

PMSL Knobby.

Now that it is out in the open, let's compare funding:

Go to http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/lo...-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/

Follow the money?

Yes indeed.

As Judith Curry pointed out - "In terms of moral equivalence, what Heartland is doing is not surprising; seems to be no different than what other advocacy groups do."

Additionally, does this change our understanding of the science? Has something been tweeked or hidden as was exposed in the climategate emails?

The answer is no. Alarmists are clutching at straws and in the fullness of time, you will understand there is nothing to see here.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 February 2012)

Bob Carter kept it quiet till now.
I'd like someone to ask him who else is giving him money?

We know for instance he wrotes a column for News Limited. 
What does News get out of it?

News doesn't give any of the climate change scientists, the vast majority of scientists, a column.


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Bob Carter kept it quiet till now.
> I'd like someone to ask him who else is giving him money?
> 
> We know for instance he wrotes a column for News Limited.
> ...




Knobby

You believe it is ok for "scientists" with a pro-AGW hypothesis to get funding, but not those with a sceptical hypothesis?


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2012)

By the way, the leaked documents seem to have been faked.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 February 2012)

wayneL said:


> By the way, the leaked documents seem to have been faked.




Yea, that's why he didn't deny it but instead attacked the reporter for asking and said it was funds  for work.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 February 2012)

wayneL said:


> Knobby
> 
> You believe it is ok for "scientists" with a pro-AGW hypothesis to get funding, but not those with a sceptical hypothesis?




Scientists should get funded for doing science, not spouting propaganda.
If a newspaper wants someone spouting propaganda, then they have a duty of care to be fair about it and give an alternate view.


----------



## ghotib (16 February 2012)

wayneL said:


> By the way, the leaked documents seem to have been faked.



Still got those uncontrollable eyes Wayne? Even Heartland only claims that one of the documents is a fake; they just say the others *may* have been altered.  http://heartland.org/press-releases...-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

I think their paragraph about the allegedly fake document is interesting: 


> One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.




So, whoever wrote the document, if it accurately describes the Heartland Institute's actual goals, plans or tactics, I guess they've just disowned themselves. Enough to make anyone's eyes roll. 

BTW, does anyone know who funds JoNova? 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Scientists should get funded for doing science, not spouting propaganda.




Well that counts out about 90% of pro warmist funding then doesn't it.

Look, AGW is a reasonable hypothesis, it should be studied. But funding should be geared towards arriving at a reasonable position. We know that government funding is only available for pro-warmist hypotheses. 

That is not science. Sans funding for reasonable counterpoint or proper scientific process, it is propaganda masquerading as science.

Libertarians recognize the imbalance their and have devised alternative means of funding balancing study and in addition to scientific exploration of data are forced into a position of counter-propaganda.



> If a newspaper wants someone spouting propaganda, then they have a duty of care to be fair about it and give an alternate view.




Indeed and hoist by your own petard.


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2012)

ghotib said:


> Still got those uncontrollable eyes Wayne? Even Heartland only claims that one of the documents is a fake; they just say the others *may* have been altered.  http://heartland.org/press-releases...-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents
> 
> I think their paragraph about the allegedly fake document is interesting:
> 
> ...




As I pointed out before, only your cabal of alarmists can help me with my eye control. 

Ms Fish, who funds who is a question that could go on ad infinitum on both sides of the divide. But it is a red herring, a distraction from the true debate... unless of course you feel you are losing the intellectual battle and must resort to smear, innuendo and mock to take the debate off on an entirely different tack.

Increasingly, this seems to be the default tactic of the the warmist cabal... eg rolly eye quips. 

I will await to see what comes out of the wash re fake/altered docs.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 February 2012)

wayneL said:


> Look, AGW is a reasonable hypothesis, it should be studied. But funding should be geared towards arriving at a reasonable position. We know that government funding is only available for pro-warmist hypotheses.
> 
> That is not science. Sans funding for reasonable counterpoint or proper scientific process, it is propaganda masquerading as science.
> 
> Libertarians recognize the imbalance their and have devised alternative means of funding balancing study and in addition to scientific exploration of data are forced into a position of counter-propaganda.



You've hit the nail on the head there.

Personally, I suspect there probably is some truth in the argument that CO2 would alter the climate if we emit enough of it. But we need to do proper unbiased research into the subject in order to arrive at meaningful conclusions as a basis for action (or otherwise if no problem is found to exist).


----------



## Knobby22 (16 February 2012)

wayneL said:


> Libertarians recognize the imbalance their and have devised alternative means of funding balancing study and in addition to scientific exploration of data are forced into a position of counter-propaganda.




Didn't realise Exxon and the other big businesses were libertarians acting for the good of us all


----------



## wayneL (17 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Didn't realise Exxon and the other big businesses were libertarians acting for the good of us all




Libertarians are individualists not collectivists. Libertarians seeks to create an environment where the individual is free to create their own niche in the world and be self responsible, rather than forcing some "for the good of all" totalitarian ideal on every person.

If climate realists are accepting money from Exxon et al, is it any worse than alarmists accepting money from purportedly "green" energy companies and government agencies? Funding has to come from somewhere.

Knobby you are trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds in a monumental hypocrisy. By attempting to smear realists with the funding nonsense, you in fact condemn yourselves 100 fold, such is the disproportion of funding.

I wonder why Ms Fish only attacks my use of rolleye emoticons and not your's or basilio's. I guess when you get used to selective use of data it pervades everything.


----------



## Logique (17 February 2012)

*Age horrified! Sceptic paid 10 per cent of Flannery’s salary*
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._sceptic_paid_10_per_cent_of_flannerys_salary
_ENVIRONMENTAL activist Tim Flannery has pledged to take the climate change message to the regions after being appointed to head Julia Gillard’s Climate Commission in a three-day-a-week role that will pay *$180,000* a year. 

Care factor at the warmist Age? Zero. 

Warmist Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg asked by Greenpeace to research: 
*Greenpeace commissioned* one of the world’s leading reef biologists to find out what caused the dramatic coral decay. The report ...predicts many of the world’s reefs won’t survive the next century if current trends in global warming continue.

Care factor at the warmist Age? Zero. 

Warmist Professor James Hansen compensated handsomely: 
NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately *$1.6 million* in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to ”” and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for ”” his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.  This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests.

Care factor at the warmist Age? Zero. 

Sceptic Professor Bob Carter paid peanuts. Care factor at the warmist Age? Extreme: 

A PROMINENT Australian scientist has rejected as offensive any suggestion he is doing the bidding of a US climate sceptic think tank that is paying him a monthly fee. 
Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science… Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, ... receives a ‘*’monthly payment’’ of $US1667 *($A1550), as part of a program to pay ‘’high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist message’’._


----------



## basilio (28 November 2012)

Interesting to see the latest research on the effects of permafrost meltdown in the Arctic regions.

The video attached to the story is compelling as is the remainder of the article 




> *Where even the earth is melting*
> 
> EXCLUSIVE
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...-is-melting-20121127-2a5tp.html#ixzz2DUis0vQG


----------



## white_goodman (28 November 2012)

basilio said:


> Interesting to see the latest research on the effects of permafrost meltdown in the Arctic regions.
> 
> The video attached to the story is compelling as is the remainder of the article
> 
> ...





tipping point, crucial decade etc etc


----------



## basilio (29 November 2012)

What the New Scientist is reporting on the latest resaerch on Perma frost meltadon.



> [QUOTE*]We may be closer to a major climate tipping point than we knew. Earth's permafrost – frozen soil that covers nearly a quarter of the northern hemisphere and traps vast amounts of carbon – may be melting faster than thought and releasing more potent greenhouse gasses.
> 
> The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a report yesterday reviewing the most up-to-date research on Arctic permafrost. It claims temperature projections due in 2014 from the International Panel on Climate Change are "likely to be biased on the low side" because the IPCC does not take into account the positive feedback cycle of permafrost melting and releasing greenhouse gases.*
> 
> ...



[/QUOTE]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22549-arctic-permafrost-is-melting-faster-than-predicted.html


----------



## Knobby22 (29 November 2012)

It will be interesting to see what the data contains next week.


----------



## noco (3 December 2012)

Ban-Ki-Moon is a rusted on GREENIE and he will only take notice of rusted on ALARMIST[/COLOR]


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/panicky_ban_ki_gets_climate_spanking/


----------



## Knobby22 (3 December 2012)

"Emissions are growing in line with the most extreme scenario".

 "We cannot be that stupid as a species" 

Some of the memorable quotes for the UN climate negotiations in Doha yesterday when "Nature" the foremost scientific journal published the Global Carbon project report which found that emmissions had increased 54 per cent since 1990.


----------



## MrBurns (3 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> "Emissions are growing in line with the most extreme scenario".
> 
> "We cannot be that stupid as a species"
> 
> Some of the memorable quotes for the UN climate negotiations in Doha yesterday when "Nature" the foremost scientific journal published the Global Carbon project report which found that emmissions had increased 54 per cent since 1990.




Even if humans are to blame, and I doubt it, it's too late now what will be will be.
There is too much evidence on both sides for and against humans being responsible. lots of vested interest "experts" out there.
Thats why we cant really say we know the truth about it all.


----------



## noco (3 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> "Emissions are growing in line with the most extreme scenario".
> 
> "We cannot be that stupid as a species"
> 
> Some of the memorable quotes for the UN climate negotiations in Doha yesterday when "Nature" the foremost scientific journal published the Global Carbon project report which found that emmissions had increased 54 per cent since 1990.




But according 125 scientists, emmissions have only increased by 9% over 16 years and represents only 0.039% of the atmosphere.

It is a matter of who is right, who is wrong and which one do you want to beleive.

The UN is full of GREEN LIES and what their agenda is I am not sure. One thing I am sure of is they leading the world in the wrong direction with their unfounded propaganda.


----------



## boofhead (3 December 2012)

With the overall percentage in the atmosphere being reasonably low (compared to the dominant substances like nitrogen) it can be a little misleading. Consider having a bucket of water in a white bucket. It takes a relatively small (as a percentage) to have a noticeable effect.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 December 2012)

noco said:


> But according 125 scientists, emmissions have only increased by 9% over 16 years and represents only 0.039% of the atmosphere.
> 
> It is a matter of who is right, who is wrong and which one do you want to beleive.
> 
> The UN is full of GREEN LIES and what their agenda is I am not sure. One thing I am sure of is they leading the world in the wrong direction with their unfounded propaganda.




Provide evidence noco.
Give me a link.

Nature is the premier scientific journal in the world. Publisher of practically all the major scientific discoveries. Hardly propaganda.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 December 2012)

boofhead said:


> With the overall percentage in the atmosphere being reasonably low (compared to the dominant substances like nitrogen) it can be a little misleading. Consider having a bucket of water in a white bucket. It takes a relatively small (as a percentage) to have a noticeable effect.




True, it only takes a small amount of ammonia to make it undrinkable.


----------



## explod (3 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> "Emissions are growing in line with the most extreme scenario".
> 
> "We cannot be that stupid as a species"
> 
> Some of the memorable quotes for the UN climate negotiations in Doha yesterday when "Nature" the foremost scientific journal published the Global Carbon project report which found that emmissions had increased 54 per cent since 1990.




Of course, the number of cars since then has increased 400% and world population has doubled since 2000.

As for the United Nations, the US have a veto over it, (motions to be carried require more than an 85% vote as the US excercise 16%) so you can be sure that even those figures will be on the conservative side.

We are going to need solar powered air conditioned caves.  

Opps, as most of you seem to live in caves anyway.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (3 December 2012)

explod said:


> Of course, the number of cars since then has increased 400% and world population has doubled since 2000.
> 
> As for the United Nations, the US have a veto over it, (motions to be carried require more than an 85% vote as the US excercise 16%) so you can be sure that even those figures will be on the conservative side.
> 
> ...




Just so everyone is on the same page, perhaps plod can throw up a chart showing the doubling of the population since 2000?  And the unstoppable temp with the actual evidence that  co2 drives temps and not the reverse.?

And exactly how much reduction of co2 the so called "green" folks here have been able to avert? And the temp arrested by such actions?

We're all ready to follow the chicken little like knobby and basilio, of course first, some basic answers and once the hard evidence is in and how my reduction will stop the world from the unstoppable temperatures. I wonder what chicken little was saying in the 1970s - the accuracy must have been impeccable then too.


----------



## white_goodman (3 December 2012)

how can you be wrong when we are in the crucial decade and at a tipping point into perpetuity..

its quite alarming seeing the emotive diatribe being sent out over the media... desperation seems to be kicking in, better wheel out the expert mammologist from his waterfront hideaway


----------



## basilio (3 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> how can you be wrong when we are in the crucial decade and at a tipping point into perpetuity..
> 
> its quite alarming seeing the emotive diatribe being sent out over the media... desperation seems to be kicking in, better wheel out the expert mammologist from his waterfront hideaway




Nah white. There is no "crucial decade " or "tipping point": Everyone who actually reads and understands the evidence for what is happening privately agrees we are past the point of no return.  It is now a question of how bad it gets and how quickly that happens.

Of course it is not a good look to express such views publicly. We all have to keep up a brave face and pretend that there is some rough chance this can all be turned around somehow, someway.  

Looking for miracles I suppose - but basically just ignoring it.

But keep your head in the sand mate.  Deliberate ignorance is just as valid a way of handing the situation as anything else.

Or you can come up with a range of stupid, illogical comments that are meaningless but throw some pixie dust into the air. 




> *Climate change: you can't ignore it*
> 
> Anne Karpf is not a climate-change sceptic, she's a climate-change ignorer. She knows it's happening – the floods, Arctic ice melt, Hurricane Sandy – but after a flash of fear, helplessness takes over and she 'tunes out'. Read her confessions



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/30/climate-change-you-cant-ignore-it


----------



## white_goodman (3 December 2012)

basilio said:


> Nah white. There is no "crucial decade " or "tipping point": Everyone who actually reads and understands the evidence for what is happening privately agrees we are past the point of no return.  It is now a question of how bad it gets and how quickly that happens.
> 
> Of course it is not a good look to express such views publicly. We all have to keep up a brave face and pretend that there is some rough chance this can all be turned around somehow, someway.
> 
> ...




so the article you quoted last week as proof for the coming armageddon is wrong?

"THE world is on the cusp of a "tipping point" into dangerous climate change"

I wont insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe what you just said.


----------



## basilio (3 December 2012)

> Nah white. There is no "crucial decade " or "tipping point": Everyone who actually reads and understands the evidence for what is happening privately agrees we are past the point of no return. It is now a question of how bad it gets and how quickly that happens.
> 
> *Of course it is not a good look to express such views publicly. We all have to keep up a brave face and pretend that there is some rough chance this can all be turned around somehow, someway*.




Wasn't that clear enough ? When you go through the details of how quickly CO2 levels are rising and what is required in terms of mammoth reductions of CO2 levels to have even a reasonable chance of stopping the process one understands  why the game is almost certainly  over. The article in todays Age points this out quite clearly.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...f-the-world-as-we-know-it-20121202-2ap4l.html


----------



## CanOz (3 December 2012)

basilio said:


> Wasn't that clear enough ? When you go through the details of how quickly CO2 levels are rising and what is required in terms of mammoth reductions of CO2 levels to have even a reasonable chance of stopping the process one understands  why the game is almost certainly  over. The article in todays Age points this out quite clearly.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...f-the-world-as-we-know-it-20121202-2ap4l.html





Isn't this just evolution? As our population increases the climate must eventually change more rapidly than if there were no inhabitants or flat growth, yeah? 

If it means the extinction of our species, is that not part of that evolution? 

Do we really think we are that sophisticated to actually alter the course of this evolution of the climate?

CanOz


----------



## white_goodman (4 December 2012)

basilio said:


> Wasn't that clear enough ? When you go through the details of how quickly CO2 levels are rising and what is required in terms of mammoth reductions of CO2 levels to have even a reasonable chance of stopping the process one understands  why the game is almost certainly  over. The article in todays Age points this out quite clearly.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...f-the-world-as-we-know-it-20121202-2ap4l.html




oh no what a disaster, but if people like you are doomed where am I going to get my coffee from in the morning?


----------



## noco (4 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Provide evidence noco.
> Give me a link.
> 
> Nature is the premier scientific journal in the world. Publisher of practically all the major scientific discoveries. Hardly propaganda.




I have given you the link through Andrew Bolt. What more do you want?

Do your own research to prove it right or wrong. 

If Ban-Ki-Mon backs it, it will be proapganda because that is how the Greenies work and it is always far from the truth.


----------



## Logique (4 December 2012)

If the first scare campaign doesn't work, just wind it up into an even bigger scare.  The effrontery is breathtaking, but this is how they work.

Quick, start shutting down industries and paying more tax immediately. It's the only way.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2012)

It's not the only way.
But pretending it isn't happening is not a solution.


----------



## Calliope (4 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> It's not the only way.
> But pretending it isn't happening is not a solution.




Global warming certainly is unstoppable.

Global cooling is also unstoppable.

Cataclysmic warnings of the end of civilisation as we know it, are unstoppable.

As King Cnut illustrated, it is futile for rulers to pretend that they can circumvent the laws of nature.



> Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws


----------



## orr (4 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> As King Cnut illustrated, it is futile for rulers to pretend that they can circumvent the laws of nature.




Don't go much with your analogy ... a better one would be to hold a brick over high your foot then let go and allow the laws of nature to take their course. So that leaves us now with the intellectual calibre of the metaphorical foot owner. I've moved my foot...  but it Looks like your off to Hospital Cal. 

The metaphorical movement of my foot is by imagining a future rather than being sold one by the industrial state, and you tilt at that windmill every time you fix something or buy quality or grow food to eat and attempt a greater understanding. It's fun but It's not an aspiration that's  heavily sold, like say a shopping trip to Hong Kong or what ever other way you wish to paint up your self aggrandisement; as so deftly dictated to you.


----------



## Calliope (4 December 2012)

orr said:


> Don't go much with your analogy ... a better one would be to hold a brick over high your foot then let go and allow the laws of nature to take their course. So that leaves us now with the intellectual calibre of the metaphorical foot owner. I've moved my foot...  but it Looks like your off to Hospital Cal.
> 
> The metaphorical movement of my foot is by imagining a future rather than being sold one by the industrial state, and you tilt at that windmill every time you fix something or buy quality or grow food to eat and attempt a greater understanding. It's fun but It's not an aspiration that's  heavily sold, like say a shopping trip to Hong Kong or what ever other way you wish to paint up your self aggrandisement; as so deftly dictated to you.




??? :screwy:


----------



## spooly74 (4 December 2012)

basilio said:


> Everyone who actually reads and understands the evidence for what is happening privately agrees we are past the point of no return.  It is now a question of how bad it gets and how quickly that happens.




Time to close your own thread then?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (4 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> It's not the only way.
> But pretending it isn't happening is not a solution.




Pretending? That's a new one. How about answering the basic questions many have posted only to see non-responses from the AGW lap dogs here?

Start with answering this - Where is observed evidence that shows man's 3% of CO2 is driving "calamity" supported by ALL climate scientists? Or is that stretching your propaganda beliefs a little too far?


----------



## IFocus (4 December 2012)

orr said:


> Don't go much with your analogy ... a better one would be to hold a brick over high your foot then let go and allow the laws of nature to take their course. So that leaves us now with the intellectual calibre of the metaphorical foot owner. I've moved my foot...  but it Looks like your off to Hospital Cal.
> 
> The metaphorical movement of my foot is by imagining a future rather than being sold one by the industrial state, and you tilt at that windmill every time you fix something or buy quality or grow food to eat and attempt a greater understanding. It's fun but It's not an aspiration that's  heavily sold, like say a shopping trip to Hong Kong or what ever other way you wish to paint up your self aggrandisement; as so deftly dictated to you.




Good post Orr


----------



## Calliope (4 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Good post Orr




:screwy:


----------



## noco (4 December 2012)

I don't know how old some of you fellows are but from what I gather on some of your posts, not very old at all.

I have been through 8 decades of climate change and there is nothing new today that did not happen in my younger days in Brisbane.

Electrical storms that brought strong gusts of wind that ripped off corrugated iron roofs like a can opener and hail stones as big as cricket balls. Hail still 6 inches deep in the yard the next morning. Tiled roofs shattered from hail.

Heat waves in the high 30's for several days until the storms cooled it down.

Erosion on Palm beach from adverse weather leaving sand cliffs 8 and 9 feet high along the sand dunes and 6 months later the sand dunes had recovered with dry sand blown up the beach which was 100 yards wide. Look at it today when houses were built on those sand dunes, rock walls had to be built to stop the houses falling into the sea resulting in the loss of a great beach.

My late mother tells me of the horrific cyclone she went through in Port Dougals in 1911, She, her mother and three sisters all shelterd under the heavy kitchen table while the whole house collapsed on top of them. The table saved them. There were no catagories of strength to compare in those days but what she explained to me it could have been in the 4 or even 5 range.

As  a plumber working on sheep stations in the early 50's and having been marooned on one station by flood waters for two weeks. No helicopters to drop food supplies as the owners had been through all before and always stocked up before such events took place. No sealed flood proof roads in those days. Drought so bad the dams dried up and even some of the bore drains dried up. In those days the average sheep cocky grew 400 or 500 acres of silage, buried it with 2 feet of earth cover and was good fodder for a decade after to feed the sheep until the rains came.

All the coastal towns north of Brisbane suffered at one time or another with severe floods no different to what they do today.

There were always bush fires no matter where you lived. Acres and acres of scorched farm lands and soon after green shoots appeared and even without rain. Bush fires burn more fossil fuel in one week than all the power stations in one year and what about the gases  erupting from volcanos. These anomalies are never mentioned; only the man made crap that ALARMISTS keep harping on about and if they persist with their propaganda long enough the naive believe it

So please don't bore me with this global warming crap, sorry it is now climate change as there has been no increase in the average tempeature for 16 years, as being something new.

It is the biggest con job that has ever taken place in the last 100 years.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 December 2012)

A super storm (cat 5) has just gone through the southern Philippines so far south as to be a 1 in 20 year event, a super storm went through NY state 2 months ago another 1 in 20 year event, as was Katrina a 1 in 50 year event and the Brisbane storm of 2 years ago a 1 in 50 year event.

All super storms of unusually large size (more than 200 kms across) all supposedly rare events, all in different parts of the world with 2 storm at the extremes of latitude....as predicted by the Global warming models.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 December 2012)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Pretending? That's a new one. How about answering the basic questions many have posted only to see non-responses from the AGW lap dogs here?
> 
> Start with answering this - Where is observed evidence that shows man's 3% of CO2 is driving "calamity" supported by ALL climate scientists? Or is that stretching your propaganda beliefs a little too far?




You've seen the graphs, you've seen the Arctic and Antarctic melting. You've read about the permafrost melting.
You've seen all the major scientific societies are in agreement. You've seen evidence that the very few scientists in disagreement and they aren't climate scientists. You've seen there is an organisation that specialises in propaganda to stop action on this issue. You've seen that a certain right wing society is putting money into stopping climate change even as they espouse it doesn't exist. Sure, there is that retired guy they trot out and that English "Lord", both extremely credible (not). I can't see how I can further influence your 'reality" by repeating it all again. 

The earth is warming. Long way to go yet, its just started and it will take 100 years to take full effect.
Heard of the 3 wise monkeys?


----------



## Calliope (5 December 2012)

Sorry, basilio and Knobby - your propaganda is not working.

*Young Australians more concerned about the economy than climate*



> *FORGET the environment, it's the economy, stupid*. Young Australians have dumped the environment from the top of their concerns and replaced it with the economy.
> 
> Mission Australia's national Youth Survey found concern about the environment _ considered to be the leading issue for the previous two years (37 per cent last year and 38 per cent in 2010) _ fell to 17.5 per cent.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...omy-than-climate/story-e6frg926-1226530049092


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> A super storm (cat 5) has just gone through the southern Philippines so far south as to be a 1 in 20 year event, a super storm went through NY state 2 months ago another 1 in 20 year event, as was Katrina a 1 in 50 year event and the Brisbane storm of 2 years ago a 1 in 50 year event.
> 
> All super storms of unusually large size (more than 200 kms across) all supposedly rare events, all in different parts of the world with 2 storm at the extremes of latitude....as predicted by the Global warming models.




1 in 20 year event, 1 in 50 year event? - are you saying the models predicted that we would see storms that occur every 20 or 50 years? I guess if such storms have happened in the past, then they'll probably happen again - thanks but no need for models or armchair analysis by hysterics.

Perhaps some real analysis is called for -  can you put up a chart that shows the storm frequency over the last 100yrs or so, the quotes (and dates) that the models precisely predicted such storms and the hard evidence that man's 3% of total CO2 emissions are fully to blame.


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 December 2012)

Snowing in the VIC alps in December again.

Wilsons' Prom weather gauge recorded freezing cold winds gusting up to 159kph and chill factor down to -13 or so from 4am this morning.

Must be that global warming causing it, I suppose...


----------



## noco (5 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> You've seen the graphs, you've seen the Arctic and Antarctic melting. You've read about the permafrost melting.
> You've seen all the major scientific societies are in agreement. You've seen evidence that the very few scientists in disagreement and they aren't climate scientists. You've seen there is an organisation that specialises in propaganda to stop action on this issue. You've seen that a certain right wing society is putting money into stopping climate change even as they espouse it doesn't exist. Sure, there is that retired guy they trot out and that English "Lord", both extremely credible (not). I can't see how I can further influence your 'reality" by repeating it all again.
> 
> The earth is warming. Long way to go yet, its just started and it will take 100 years to take full effect.
> Heard of the 3 wise monkeys?




Ha Knobby, I have just come back from a cruise up the Alaskan coast and went into Glacier Bay.

The glaciers are moving all the time and are some a 2 mile deep. I saw big chunks of ice as big as a bus fall into the sea and this is where the Alarmist take their photos. Ah, they will say look at how the galciers are melting. What a load of crap you believe.

The tour guide says it has been happening for centuries.

It is a big con job. Go up to Alaska and check it out for yourself next year, you might learn something.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 December 2012)

Read this noco and tell me its a con job.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/29/pol-ice-sheets-melting-greenland.html


----------



## Knobby22 (5 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Sorry, basilio and Knobby - your propaganda is not working.
> 
> *Young Australians more concerned about the economy than climate*
> 
> ...




I agree, I am too. It's human nature - long term threat vs short term threat.
*The truth is the environmental movement has failed miserably. *

"If the civil rights movement had been as unsuccessful, Rosa park's Grand-daughter would still be in the back of the bus." Nick Feik The Age 

We are going to see the world temperature rise at least 3 degrees before I die and I am resigned to it. I am even investing in gas projects because nothing will change. I think the youth have given up also. The powerful people control the world and try to control thinking. As long as you can fool some of the people all the time they are assured that their finances aren't hurt. 

I'm not going to suffer. I will probably be dead by 2050 as I will be in my mid '80s by then. the world will be in a horrible dystopia getting continually worse due to climate change and pollution and overpopulation unless humanity can somehow achieve major cultural change. History says we won't and so the world will not be a very nice place by then for humanity. As for tigers and other wildlife, this will be an extinction event like no other. Humanity hasn't evolved enough.

It didn't help that the environmental movement has been co-opted by the socialists. You could see Bob Brown secretly fighting them in his own party. Socialism is a failed concept that is unattractive to many people and having them aligned with the environmentalists does no favours.

I am continually amazed that many people can't see what is happening. If you want to be a successful investor you need to catch long term trends. As I said, humanity isn't sufficiently evolved. I would love to be frozen and wake up in 200 years and see what happened.


----------



## white_goodman (5 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I will probably be dead by 2050 as I will be in my mid '80s by then. the world will be in a horrible dystopia getting continually worse due to climate change and pollution and overpopulation unless humanity can somehow achieve major cultural change.




I thought all the Malthusians had died, how quaint..

id only be worrying about overpopulation if I lived in India or Nigeria, apart from that dont fret


----------



## noco (5 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Read this noco and tell me its a con job.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/29/pol-ice-sheets-melting-greenland.html




Knobby, this happened a thousand yeras ago when Greenland lost all of it's ice coverage. The Vikings went to Greenland because it was GREEN and they grew crops and grazed sheep and cattle and then 500 yeras later the ice came back and there was no more grazing or growing crops.

Go to google and search it out. It is still a con job and these so called scientist are well paid to spread their propaganda to the naive.

What is happeneing in Greenland now may allow farmers to go back and grow crops and graze like they did 1000yeras ago.

Those photos on the U-Tube were typical of what I observed in Glacier Bay Alaska.


----------



## bellenuit (5 December 2012)

*Sea levels on the rise in Perth*

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/15550905/sea-levels-on-the-rise-in-perth/

Can anyone explain why sea levels in Perth would rise higher than the global average?  I can only assume that the sun's gravitational pull makes sea levels rise more the closer you are to the equator. Or perhaps the earth's spin causes the earth's surface water to bulge upwards the closer you are to the equator (because it is spinning faster the closer to the equator you are), drawing water from the polar regions? It's disappointing the article didn't offer an explanation.


----------



## noco (5 December 2012)

bellenuit said:


> *Sea levels on the rise in Perth*
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/15550905/sea-levels-on-the-rise-in-perth/
> 
> Can anyone explain why sea levels in Perth would rise higher than the global average?  I can only assume that the sun's gravitational pull makes sea levels rise more the closer you are to the equator. Or perhaps the earth's spin causes the earth's surface water to bulge upwards the closer you are to the equator (because it is spinning faster the closer to the equator you are), drawing water from the polar regions? It's disappointing the article didn't offer an explanation.




From what I learnt at school 75 years ago, the moon has the influence on the tides and the consequential hieght and not the sun.


----------



## So_Cynical (5 December 2012)

OzWaveGuy said:


> 1 in 20 year event, 1 in 50 year event?




You are not familiar with the term 1 in 50 year weather event... don't know what it means?

Seriously


----------



## Julia (5 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> You are not familiar with the term 1 in 50 year weather event... don't know what it means?
> 
> Seriously



Seriously, I've heard many different interpretations of this expression, including on the ABC's Science Report where they seem unable to agree.

So I look forward to your enlightening all of us as to the exact meaning.


----------



## So_Cynical (5 December 2012)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Perhaps some real analysis is called for -  can you put up a chart that shows the storm frequency over the last 100yrs or so, the quotes (and dates)




I banged up a quick 20 year chart for you...notice the trend? 

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp?MR=1
~


----------



## So_Cynical (5 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Seriously, I've heard many different interpretations of this expression, including on the ABC's Science Report where they seem unable to agree.
> 
> So I look forward to your enlightening all of us as to the exact meaning.




Of the top of my head...i always believed it meant that a 1 in 50 year event was meant to happen on average about once in 50 years..cant see any other way to see it.

Now averages being what they are when it comes to weather...it means that its not that uncommon to get a 1 in 50 year event 20 years apart or at the other extreme not uncommon to have those events 80 years apart.

However its not common at all to get multiple 1 in 50 year events at smaller and smaller intervals...the Hurricane in the Philippines of a few days ago was a rare event because of the Latitude of origin and travel...it started at 4 ° North and travelled pretty much due west for a week.

That's unheard of and a 1 in 50 or 100 year event...Hurricanes do not develop at latitudes under 5 °  North or South but this one did...as an Aussie reference point Darwin sits at 12.4 ° S and Darwin doesn't get many Cyclones because its considered to far north.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/wp201226.asp
~


----------



## Julia (5 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Of the top of my head...i always believed it meant that a 1 in 50 year event was meant to happen on average about once in 50 years..cant see any other way to see it.



That's how most people imagine it.
But this is what I have heard strongly contested in science programs.
So perhaps don't be so supercilious to other posters when you're not sure yourself.


----------



## chiff (6 December 2012)

Greenland...why is it named thus.
My information is because it was ancient land scam.Erik the Red after being banned from Iceland took some followers to a new land that he named Greenland.He did this in order to entice new settlers there,not because it was a verdant paradise.
The same would apply if real estate people were trying to entice people to the Simpson desert by naming it Simpson Waters.


----------



## spooly74 (6 December 2012)

Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls 2012



> Here are some updated factoids summarized from the data:
> Over 1970 to 2012 the globe averaged about 15 TC landfalls per year (Category 1-5)
> Of those 15, about 5 are intense (Category 3, 4 or 5)
> 1971 had the most global landfalls with 30, far exceeding the second place, 25 in 1996
> ...


----------



## white_goodman (6 December 2012)

spooly74 said:


> Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls 2012




umm Hurricane Sandy was not long ago and I remember that, I dont remember any of those other ones, therefore it is getting worse!!!


----------



## Calliope (6 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> umm Hurricane Sandy was not long ago and I remember that, I dont remember any of those other ones, therefore it is getting worse!!!




We'll never know, because the Mayan/basilio calendar predicts the world will come to an end on 21 December. They haven't told us the mechanism, but my guess is that the Earth will be gobbled up by a black hole.

It's time to crack a case of Grange Hermitage 1985. (buy it on credit card at $9597 a dozen.)


----------



## white_goodman (6 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> We'll never know, because the Mayan/basilio calendar predicts the world will come to an end on 21 December. They haven't told us the mechanism, but my guess is that the Earth will be gobbled up by a black hole.
> 
> It's time to crack a case of Grange Hermitage 1985. (buy it on credit card at $9597 a dozen.)




ill have a bottle if its end of the world


----------



## basilio (6 December 2012)

You can also  check out the PM's end of the world message as you quaff your last Grange. 

I'm sure it will offer an extra does of surrealism to the picture.


----------



## noco (6 December 2012)

chiff said:


> Greenland...why is it named thus.
> My information is because it was ancient land scam.Erik the Red after being banned from Iceland took some followers to a new land that he named Greenland.He did this in order to entice new settlers there,not because it was a verdant paradise.
> The same would apply if real estate people were trying to entice people to the Simpson desert by naming it Simpson Waters.




As I mentioned in a previous post, Greenland went through a period of warmer conditions around 1000 AD and then 500 years later it went into a mini ICE AGE. During the 1000AD era pine trees grew and there were some 1200 farms with sheep and goats.

It would appear Greenland is now going into that wamer period again similar to that of the 1000AD era which history proves it was not man made but a normal phenomenal which takes palce every so often. It might take another 500 years to go back to mini ice age again.

So yes, Global warming is unstoppable if in fact it does occur and there has been no sign of it in the past 16 years.

As we all know the distance between the Sun and Earth does very and extreme Sun spots can also have an affect on the Earth's weather conditions.

These are just some of the things the so called scientific alarmist don't want you to know because it would blow them right out of the water. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland#Norse_settlement


----------



## noco (6 December 2012)

It is only Global warming when the media reports extreme temperatures and the alarmist jump on the band wagon.

It was 0.3 c in Canberra this morning and not a word mentioned by the Alarmist. I wonder why?



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ldsun/comments/its_only_climate_when_its_hot/


----------



## chiff (7 December 2012)

I can see how the concept of a round world was so hard to promulgate.It still looks flat to me.


----------



## Ijustnewit (7 December 2012)

noco said:


> It is only Global warming when the media reports extreme temperatures and the alarmist jump on the band wagon.
> 
> It was 0.3 c in Canberra this morning and not a word mentioned by the Alarmist. I wonder why?
> 
> ...




Yes the Alarmist are very selective. A good example was last week in Tassie we had bushfires and 35 degrees,and the Climate change gang where out in force saying this is the way of the future.
This week week we had snow down to 900 meters and they were no where to be seen.
The silly part of this is that we expect bushfires and heat it's summer after all , how come they didn't come out during our summer snow storm and say we are due for the next ice age ?


----------



## basilio (7 December 2012)

There was an excellent series on the BBC called The Climate Wars. I just had a look at the final episode which examines the evidence for rapid climate change through investigations of ice cores, changes in Arctic  sea ice, and the history of climate models.

Its a rewarding and informative hour.  It's particularly good value in terms of showing how science comes to understand what has happened and what faces us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT_Ek8hSG5g


----------



## basilio (7 December 2012)

The second episode in the Climate Wars looks at the role of climate change skeptics in challenging the work of cliamte scientists. 

Amazingly it finishes with Professor Michaels acknowledging that the world has warmed in the 20th Century and that humans are partially responsible. !!

Again worth a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_1wAQJi_YU


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2012)

chiff said:


> I can see how the concept of a round world was so hard to promulgate.It still looks flat to me.




http://flatearthersnz.blogspot.com.au/


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2012)

basilio said:


> The second episode in the Climate Wars looks at the role of climate change skeptics in challenging the work of cliamte scientists.
> 
> Amazingly it finishes with Professor Michaels acknowledging that the world has warmed in the 20th Century and that humans are partially responsible. !!
> 
> ...




I didn't watch it.

But I don't think you will find it difficult to find a serious skeptic that will will deny a/ climate change or b/ human's role in it, at least on a regional level.

The argument ([SIGH] once again), is whether human's influence will be catastrophic, and once again, the data does not match the oh so fecking shrill rhetoric of the alarmists.....

...which I note they have stepped up in a quantum way lately.

Politics > Science.


----------



## burglar (8 December 2012)

wayneL said:


> ... The argument ([SIGH] once again), is whether human's influence will be catastrophic ...




Or more exactly .... will human influence make it catastrophic.


----------



## Calliope (8 December 2012)

burglar said:


> Or more exactly .... will human influence make it catastrophic.




What with basilio's and Knobby's dire warnings, followed by Gillard's end of the World broadcast, i have become a nervous wreck. My grandchildren have tried to console me by saying "at least, Grandpop, we will go together."


----------



## Knobby22 (21 May 2013)

This woman is furious.

http://wonkette.com/517057/good-new...t-the-normal-kind-not-the-global-warming-kind


----------



## sydboy007 (21 May 2013)

who cares.

if the world isn't ending then we go on the way we have been.

if not, we degrade the planet to the point where 4-5 billion of us die out and the left overs can eek out a subsistence life.

i'm just glad I don't have to face the second option should it be the path we're heading down as I should have fallen off me perch by then.


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> This woman is furious.
> 
> http://wonkette.com/517057/good-new...t-the-normal-kind-not-the-global-warming-kind




She is also a moron.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 May 2013)

It was a killer. 
"The tornado has been upgraded to an EF5 - the highest classification for tornadoes." Quite rare. 
The statement is not quite true  - the US weather bureau has instigated a new cat 6 rating in expectation of larger tornadoes.

Of course, they will be less able to measure them as their funding has just been cut. 
See no evil, Hear no evil, Say no evil.

Sarah Palin's comment that it is snowing in Alaska, so much for global warming was quite funny. who would have thought that it might snow in Alaska?

I enjoyed the religious comment too. Summarising , "Its God's will, stop complaining".

Also:

_Oklahoma's lieutenant-governor Todd Lamb says the children who sought safety in the basement of Plaza Towers Elementary School drowned.

"Quite frankly, I don't mean to be graphic but that's why some of the children drowned. Because they were in the basement area," he said.

Emergency management official Albert Ashwood said the school did not have a safe room.
"With the help of federal emergency agency we funded school saferooms. Unfortunately the two schools that were hit were not funded," he said.
_

The blog really shows the frustration of the disenfranchised.


----------



## MrBurns (22 May 2013)

The whole global warming issue won't be tackled properly, if at all, because it's been politicised.

Every bludging nut case is claiming it's man made and wants a piece of the action, so we just argue about who's fault it is and that stops anything actually being done.

What can be done ? Well don't try to fix it with a tax for starters, clean up our rivers and environment as that needs to be done anyway, urgently explore safe ways of implementing nuclear power.

Arrest the entire Greens and Labor parties and put them behind bars (that process has started) and just accept that the climate may be changing so lets clean up our act.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 May 2013)

We haven't got good records for tornadoes over time because they couldn't measure them accurately. Previous scales introduced in the 70s often made them higher rating incorrectly so a new scale was introduced in 2006 which made it harder to rate a tornado at the catastrophic level. 

So we can't compare if they are getting larger or not. We will just have to wait.

However EF5 tornadoes are considered rare and are only supposed to occur every 3 years on average.
Since 1999 they have occurred as follows (in USA and Canada):

1999   - 1
2000   - 0
2001   - 0
2002   - 0
2003   - 0
2004   - 0
2005   - 0
2006   - 0
2007  - 8
2008  - 4
2009  - 0
2010  - 0
2011   -1  (the amazing Joplin tornado)
2012   -0
2013   -1 (so far)

The data set is at present too small, so it is really just weather.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 June 2013)

From the "Australian"

Humans contributed to 'Australia's angry hot summer', says study  

From:  AAP  
 June 27, 2013 12:38PM 


MAN-MADE climate change is likely to have played a role in the "angry" summer Australians endured this year, researchers say.  

These types of extreme summers will become even more frequent and severe, the study led by the University of Melbourne shows.

It concluded global warming increased the chances of more "angry" Australian summers by more than five times.

Study co-author David Karoly said the chance of Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide eventually experiencing 50 degree Celsius days "are quite high" due to ongoing climate change.

The study showed with more than 90 per cent confidence that human influences on the atmosphere dramatically increased the likelihood of the extreme 2013 summer.

"This extreme summer is not only remarkable for its record-breaking nature but also because it occurred at a time of weak La Nina to neutral conditions, which generally produces cooler summers," Professor Karoly said.

Dubbed "Australia's angry hot summer" by the Climate Commission, parts of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia experienced their highest temperatures on record in 2013 and much of the country sweltered through temperatures very much above average, Professor Karoly said.

It was the hottest on observational record.

Lead study author Sophie Lewis said the angry summer had come at a time when cooler summers were most likely to occur.

"These types of extreme summers will become even more frequent and more severe in the future," Dr Lewis said.

The next hottest summer on record occurred in 1998.

Dr Lewis said for the period of 2006 to 2020, modelling showed summers like 1998 would occur once every 16 years when only natural climate forces were at play.

However, when human influences such as greenhouse gases were introduced, they happened almost one every two years.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ummer-says-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226670816033


----------



## basilio (1 July 2013)

The Military perspective on the risks posed by Climate Change



> *Climate change poses grave threat to security, says UK envoy*
> 
> *Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, special representative to foreign secretary, says governments can't afford to wait for 100% certainty*
> 
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/30/climate-change-security-threat-envoy


----------



## basilio (17 July 2013)

You don't want to make claims on single events but the weather in Melbourne  has now broken all records since the 1850's. 



> *Melbourne has its warmest start to a year ever with above-average temperatures for each month so far in 2013*
> 
> Tom Minear
> Herald Sun
> ...



http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...h-so-far-in-2013/story-fnii5smq-1226680706158


----------



## basilio (25 July 2013)

Scientists have always been aware of billions of tons of methane locked into the frozen tundra of the Arctic. In the last few years as the Artic has rapidly melted  a few of them have started to ask how likely is it that this rapid warming of the Artic will massively destabilize the methane and basically cause an uncontrollable increase in global temperatures. (methane  traps  20 times more energy  as a greenhouse gas than CO2).

Latest research is not encouraging. Some excellent Q and A responses in the story.




> *Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist*
> 
> *Professor Peter Wadhams, co-author of new Nature paper on costs of Arctic warming, explains the danger of inaction*
> 
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...4/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe


----------



## Knobby22 (25 July 2013)

When was the article released? I can't see a date.

That is the worse case scenario, most scientists think it won't happen that quickly, unfortunately they have been too conservative before. If it gets released in one decade - look out world.


----------



## basilio (25 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> When was the article released? I can't see a date.
> 
> That is the worse case scenario, most scientists think it won't happen that quickly, unfortunately they have been too conservative before. If it gets released in one decade - look out world.




Actually this has just been released in a paper in Nature.

The scientists who specialize  in the study of methane in the frozen tundra  and as frozen methane hydrates have been extremely concerned about the risk of these escaping as a giant burp. If this does happen as a result of warming we will see an extremely rapid rise in global temperatures.

Other climate scientists have downgraded this risk but the reality is they don't seem to have as much understanding of the issue as the particular specialists.

But hey .. who really wants to be told we are on the edge of a irrevocable catastrophe ?

It did happen in the past. 

http://www.livescience.com/15168-embargoed-methane-burst-cleared-dinos.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate


----------



## burglar (25 July 2013)

basilio said:


> ... But hey .. who really wants to be told we are on the edge of a irrevocable catastrophe ?
> 
> It did happen in the past. ...




If it happened in the past, how is it irrevocable?


Irrevocable=
"Unable to cancel or recall; that which is 
 unalterable or irreversible."


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

basilio said:


> But hey .. who really wants to be told we are on the edge of a irrevocable catastrophe ?




Im afraid your irrevocable catastrophe will be made redundant by the *SUPERBUG.*



> Antibiotic-resistant superbugs are now being found in food and, in some countries, drinking water, while doctors are warning that we're approaching the time when even the most toxic of antibiotics won't be able to kill some bugs.




Not Bold...but your ABC and even your favourite newspaper The Guardian

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3810324.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/11/superbugs-antibiotics-bacterial-diseases-infections


----------



## basilio (25 July 2013)

Well it happened alright. Global Temperatures shot up and there were mass extinctions of life .  But of course after a couple of millon years things settled down and new species evolved.

As for us. It shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Don't think it will affect the footy.


> *
> Methane clathrates and climate change*
> Main article: Clathrate gun hypothesis
> 
> ...


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Well it happened alright. Global Temperatures shot up and there were mass extinctions of life .  But of course after a couple of millon years things settled down and new species evolved.




At least it will bring an end to the debate.


----------



## basilio (25 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Im afraid your irrevocable catastrophe will be made redundant by the *SUPERBUG.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well actually the "silver lining" in this possible human catastrophe is that the decimation of billions of people could  help reverse global warming. 

This seems to have occurred in Medieval Europe after the Black Death reduced the population by a third. Whole regions ended up as forests again because of the wiping out of many rural populations. This seemed to be part of a change in climate that pulled CO2 from the atmosphere and reduce temperatures.

But wouldn't be the best way of achieving a CO2 reduction would it ?

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

basilio said:


> But wouldn't be the best way of achieving a CO2 reduction would it ?




No... not a patch on taxing emissions.


----------



## medicowallet (25 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Well actually the "silver lining" in this possible human catastrophe is that the decimation of billions of people could  help reverse global warming.
> 
> This seems to have occurred in Medieval Europe after the Black Death reduced the population by a third. Whole regions ended up as forests again because of the wiping out of many rural populations. This seemed to be part of a change in climate that pulled CO2 from the atmosphere and reduce temperatures.
> 
> ...




I almost choked on my Chocolate Truffle, I laughed so hard at this.

Seriously this is the funniest quote I have ever read on ASF.

I sincerely thank you for this, can I have permission to use it?

MW


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2013)

I love it too medico.

The green nutters long for mass reduction in population.... just so long as it's not them eh?


----------



## sails (26 July 2013)

This was in the Guardian in 2009 - and yet I don't believe we have warmed much, if anything, in the last four years.  Scaremongering as an excuse to tax the people?






http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...comments/scientists_talking_about_no_warming/


----------



## basilio (29 July 2013)

medicowallet said:


> I almost choked on my Chocolate Truffle, I laughed so hard at this.
> 
> Seriously this is the funniest quote I have ever read on ASF.
> 
> ...




That was a very dark comment wasn't it.  Perhaps that's why the "silver lining" was in quotation marks maybe ?

But as we all know on ASF nothing that bad could ever happen to us could it. We are just too smart, too rich and too important to be seriously hurt.


----------



## basilio (29 July 2013)

It's interesting to observe the reactions of  some posters to my comments about what happened  to the climate as a result of the Black Death.

The  mass return of forests in many parts of Europe did result in a reduction of CO2 and was part of the reason for the downturn in temperatures. I thought there were enough clues in my comments to make it clear I didn't think that mass human deaths was any way to reverse global warming but ... apparently not.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 July 2013)

basilio said:


> It's interesting to observe the reactions of  some posters to my comments about what happened  to the climate as a result of the Black Death.
> 
> The  mass return of forests in many parts of Europe did result in a reduction of CO2 and was part of the reason for the downturn in temperatures. I thought there were enough clues in my comments to make it clear I didn't think that mass human deaths was any way to reverse global warming but ... apparently not.




Don't let the science get in the way of belief 

I believe there was a drop in rice production in Asia at roughly the same time - historians seem to think the black plague started in central Asia / China and made it's way to Europe and the middle east.  It wiped out roughly 20% of the worlds population.  it took Europe 150 years to rebuild their populations.

So I don't find it too hard to believe that the major reduction in farming - known to release a lot of CO2, with rice farming releasing a lot of methane - and reforestation would cause a rapid drop in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Go read about the Anasazi Indians and how they turned a fertile landscape into a huge dessert within a few hundred years, leading to the collapse of their society.  A number of early human civilisations degraded and change their environments so much that their societies collapsed.


----------



## Calliope (29 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Go read about the Anasazi Indians and how they turned a fertile landscape into a huge dessert




A huge pudding...yummy.


----------



## burglar (29 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> A huge pudding...yummy.




Hahaha!

_One of your best pick ups!!_


----------



## noco (10 August 2013)

According to Danish Science, global temperatures which have been static for 15 years, we could be shaping up for a mini ICE AGE.

Much to do with the activities of the SUN


http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/...ge-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/


----------



## sydboy007 (10 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> A huge pudding...yummy.




Oh Calliope.  You always provide such incitement and learned postings.

It's like seeing a double rainbow with unicorns frolicking beneath.


----------



## Zedd (11 August 2013)

Off-topic in the Rudd thread:


medicowallet]The underlying greenhouse effect is acknowledged by "deniers" and "zealots" alike.

...

You are making an assumption that there is a rubber band said:


> Of course the fact that there is no evidence that there is any warming over the past 16-17 years doesn't matter to you, because your faith doesn't think it matters.




The reason I don't care about the debate over whether we've found evidence or not so far is because whether we have that evidence or not does nothing to alter the original concept which is that if we significantly alter the ratio of greenhouse gases in a closed atmosphere the amount of heat retained will be altered.


----------



## medicowallet (12 August 2013)

I know your quoted post was off topic in the Rudd thread.  It was a response to your off topic post in the Rudd thread.




Zedd said:


> Do you not see the contradiction in this?
> 
> If you accept the greenhouse effect and you accept that climate is affected by atmospheric heat, then there must be a threshold at which a change in the ratio of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would change our climate from the "norm".
> 
> ...




Sure.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.   

How certain are the IPCC that the magnitude of their positive feedbacks are accurate considering they cannot explain the past 16 years? or that none of their graphs match reality from the first few incarnations?

So yes, CO2 contributes to warming, but no, there may not be a point where it tips out of control, as which may be evidenced by history where CO2 was much higher than it is today.

Oh, so evidence is not necessary, is that because it disproves the theory that man made CO2 contributes to dangerous global warming, because that is starting to sound like religious fervour to me.

We are NOT a closed system. We are not theoretically limited by the limited IPCC models, which so far have been hopelessly inaccurate. However if you wish to subscribe to their erroneous assumptions without any scepticism, so be it, I cannot change your faith.

Sure, be my guest to help support policies that cripple medium term growth, lifestyles, lifespans and opportunities for those less fortunate than us. You have the right to make that choice by supporting a topic that you seem to acknowledge might be BS, but I will not condemn others to that, and they should not accept us doing so.   

On the contrary, as soon as the science is settled, and accurate, if it proves that CO2 drives dangerous global warming, I will do my best to do my part, and will happily support a competent government position to tackle this currently theoretical (and implausable) problem.

MW


----------



## Zedd (12 August 2013)

medicowallet said:


> I know your quoted post was off topic in the Rudd thread.  It was a response to your off topic post in the Rudd thread.



 Not a dig at you. Simply thought we'd moved from any reference to Rudd at all, so time to move.



medicowallet said:


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.
> ...
> So yes, CO2 contributes to warming, but no, there may not be a point where it tips out of control, as which may be evidenced by history where CO2 was much higher than it is today. .




I understand that the climate was significantly different in the past when the CO2 levels have been higher.

You acknowledge that the greenhouse effect is valid, and therefore that CO2 contributes to warming. So what part of the theory do you disagree with? Do you agree that an increase in greenhouse gases within the atmosphere will lead to proportional warming, which will lead to changes in the climate?  

If the answer is "yes", then you're where I'm at theoretically. 

Are you then saying that from what you've read the science suggests that no possible level of emissions by man would be significant enough to cause a measurable difference in the temperature or climate? I haven't read that, and my gut feeling is that there must be a threshold which is bearable given our current lifestyles world-wide.



medicowallet said:


> We are NOT a closed system.



Can you explain how treating the earth as a closed mass system where only heat exchange occurs is incorrect? I think I made that call myself when studying thermodynamics so am not sure if that's the accepted model or not.



medicowallet said:


> Oh, so evidence is not necessary, is that because it disproves the theory that man made CO2 contributes to dangerous global warming, because that is starting to sound like religious fervour to me




A lack of evidence showing recent warming is irrelevant to a theory that states that given time warming will occur.

I believe in a simple theory that suggests potential catastrophe.  When I have the time I fully intend to dive into the nitty gritty but for now, nothing I've read so far has changed in my mind on the validity of the simple theory. 

As I mentioned in the Rudd thread, I find it disturbing how many people appear to be ardent believers or non-believers in the potential for man to cause climate change along party lines. Every time a party changes its story/terminology/policy I then suddenly hear that everyone around Australia has suddenly aligned to these positions. That is disturbing on so many levels.



medicowallet said:


> Sure, be my guest to help support policies that cripple medium term growth, lifestyles, lifespans and opportunities for those less fortunate than us.




As I said before:



			
				zed said:
			
		

> Costs of living are a serious concern and shouldn't be increased lightly. I think it is entirely valid to debate whether Australia's actions will amount to anything, I think it is entirely valid to discuss which policies if any will be the most effective, or fairest.


----------



## medicowallet (12 August 2013)

Zedd said:


> Not a dig at you. Simply thought we'd moved from any reference to Rudd at all, so time to move.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Once the positive feedback magnitude proposed by the IPCC is validated in the real world, then I will agree with it.  This also requires a time for the models to look like what is happening in the real world which is not happening.

Oh yes, CO2 causes warming. However how much?  well there is decent scientific agreement on the direct effects of CO2, just no such agreement as to the positive feedback contributions (and although I have stated almost the same thing above, it needed to be said again)

No I do not believe that increases in CO2 will lead to proportional warming, in that it will certainly not be linear.  This is not supported by the logarithmic behaviour of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and definitely not reasonable with nobody in the world understanding positive and negative feedback mechanisms.   In reality I have no idea.  What I do know is that the IPCC has it wrong.

No, I do believe that CO2 released by man can make measurable differences in climate. It is the magnitude that makes a difference (see feedbacks above).

There is some almost religious fanaticism around where people are so naive that they actually believe that the coal underground will not be utilised.  

MW


----------



## basilio (11 August 2017)

The latest Senate inquiry into the consequences of global warming  for Australia are highlighting the realities we are carefully ignoring. 

*Australia faces potentially disastrous consequences of climate change, inquiry told *
Former defence force chief decries Australia’s response to climate challenge as a ‘manifest failure of leadership’

Climate scientists warn security threats posed by climate change have been underestimated and Australia has been ‘walking away’ from research that would help the country prepare. 

*Shares*
2017
 
* Comments*
 631 
Ben Doherty and Michael Slezak

Friday 11 August 2017 04.00 AEST   Last modified on Friday 11 August 2017 12.02 AEST

Military and climate experts, including a former chief of the defence force, have warned that Australia faces potential “disastrous consequences” from climate change, including “revolving” natural disasters and the forced migration of tens of millions of people across the region, overwhelming security forces and government.

Former defence force chief Adm Chris Barrie, now adjunct professor at the strategic and defence studies centre at the Australian National University, said in a submission to a Senate inquiry that Australia’s ability to mitigate and respond to the impacts of climate change had been corrupted by political timidity: “Australia’s climate change credentials have suffered from a serious lack of political leadership”.


The inquiry into the security ramifications of climate change also heard from some of the country’s leading climate scientists, who warned the security threats posed by climate change had been underestimated, and complained Australia had been “walking away” from exactly the type of research that would help the country prepare.

Other experts, however, counselled against “alarmist” predictions and said the focus of climate change response should be on those people most acutely affected by it, rather than the security concerns of developed countries most able to respond.

Barrie said the security threat of climate change was comparable to that posed by nuclear war, and said the Australian continent would be most affected by changing climate.

“We will suffer great effects from these changes, such as new weather patterns; droughts, sea-level rises and storm surges, because we have substantial urban infrastructure built on the coastal fringe; ravages of more intense and more frequent heatwaves and tropical revolving storms.”

But he said the existential impacts of climate change were likely to be first, and most severely, felt across Australia’s region, the Asia-Pacific rim, the most populous region in the world, and one that will be home to seven billion people by 2050. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-consequences-of-climate-change-inquiry-told


----------



## SirRumpole (11 August 2017)

basilio said:


> and complained Australia had been “walking away” from exactly the type of research that would help the country prepare.




Another reason not to vote for the science haters in the LNP.


----------



## wayneL (11 August 2017)

Oh brother!


----------



## orr (11 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> Oh brother!




look forward to hearing the other side of the argument from Malcomb Roberts and your goodself...


----------



## wayneL (12 August 2017)

Orr,

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.


----------



## Logique (12 August 2017)

Read it and weep my friends, as you open your next electricity bill. Dr Michael Crawford is none too happy with Finky, reckons (by indirect inference), he's a crook!   It's a great article, especially see the historical kWh prices on page 4:







> June 23rd 2017 - Dr Alan Finkel AO June 23rd 2017
> Chief Scientist, GPO Box 2013, CANBERRA ACT 2601
> *Open letter re your Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market*
> http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/open-letter-to-dr-alan-finkel.pdf
> ...


----------



## basilio (13 August 2017)

Maybe the Antartic Ice shelf is even more unstable than we  think ? It's worth reading the whole story. The sting is in the tale.

* Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet *
This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change



Unnamed peaks on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula tower over the harsh Antarctic coast. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo


*Shares*
257

Robin McKie

Sunday 13 August 2017 08.11 AEST   Last modified on Sunday 13 August 2017 10.08 AEST

Scientists have uncovered the largest volcanic region on Earth – two kilometres below the surface of the vast ice sheet that covers west Antarctica.

The project, by Edinburgh University researchers, has revealed almost 100 volcanoes – with the highest as tall as the Eiger, which stands at almost 4,000 metres in Switzerland.

Geologists say this huge region is likely to dwarf that of east Africa’s volcanic ridge, currently rated the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica


----------



## noirua (13 August 2017)

Global warming will be stopped. It may take another 50 years before people will all provide their own Electricity and all cars become Lithium battery driven.  Later cars will also recharge themselves with special roof tiling, brought out recently, and being used only on houses at present. Australia is best set with places like Whyalla with 301 days of sun each year.  It is all a matter of reversing the curve.


----------



## orr (13 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we....




....We could, in the case of Sen Mal Roberts tomorrow, be a teapot or goldfish, maybe a rocket-ship or unicorn.... This will be observed from Mals 'unique' perspective.

Very shortly he will be observed as a non Senator. 77 primary votes, The Swedish for Seventy-Seven is _Shoo 'da' Shoo_.  Apt as he's about to get 'da boot'...


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 August 2017)

After 12000 years, yes global warming is too late to stop. Take up a religion and pray is the way forward for humans.  Fascinating that scientists have picked this up and ran with it. 


> What is the Holocene period?
> The *Holocene Epoch* began 12,000 to 11,500 years ago at the close of the Paleolithic Ice Age and continues through today. As Earth entered a warming trend, the glaciers of the late Paleolithic retreated.



Human would not be as prolific without the planetary temperatures allowing so.


----------



## basilio (24 August 2017)

Exxon is now under investigation by a range of bodies for it's efforts at lying on the reality and consequences of human caused  Climate Change.

Will be interesting to see the legal outcomes. Even more interesting to hear the responses from current climate change deniers on the research that Exxon undertook  that proved CC was real and exceptionally dangerous.

*Exxon researched climate science. Understood it. And misled the public.*
*New research shows the company gamed the public for years with things its own climate scientists knew were false.*
Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com   Aug 23, 2017, 9:40am EDT

 tweet 
 share 
(Shutterstock)
The world’s largest oil company has been under some scrutiny lately. Back in 2015, Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times published a pair of matching exposes on Exxon, using internal documents to show that the company was well aware of the threat of climate change as far back as the 1970s, but consistently misled the public and investors about it.

Now ExxonMobil is under siege from even more directions. * Seventeen state attorneys general have said they will begin cooperating on investigations into whether Exxon broke racketeering, consumer protection, or investor protection laws in its climate communications. New York AG Eric Schneiderman, Massachusetts AG Maura Healey, and US Virgin Islands AG Claude Walker are all leading separate investigations. And in 2016, the US Securities and Exchange Commission launched its o*wn federal investigation. All these investigations have inspired class-action lawsuits.

Exxon, not surprisingly, has denied all charges. It claims that it has been open and honest about climate change and that journalists are using “deliberately cherry-picked statements” to build their case.

In response to the 2015 articles, the company issued a challenge: “Read all of these documents and make up your own mind.”

Here’s a good lesson for #brands everywhere: Don’t issue reading-based challenges to a community full of nerds.

A couple of researchers at Harvard decided to take them up on it. They gathered every document, read them, did a thorough content analysis, and have just published the results in a peer-reviewed academic journal,_ Environmental Research Letters. _

Spoiler: Yes, Exxon misled the public.

*Exxon’s climate communications show internal honesty, outward-facing doubt*
Geoffrey Supran, a post-doctoral fellow in Harvard’s History of Science program, and Naomi Oreskes, his post-doc adviser (and of course a noted science historian and author, most famously of _Merchants of Doubt_), did the yeoman’s work of wading through all the Exxon documents.

*They found 187 overall, a mix of “peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements (‘advertorials’) in The New York Times.” (Exxon bought an advertorial in the Times every Thursday between 1972 and 2001 — one quarter of all the advertorials on the op-ed page.) 


They did content analysis (a common social science method) of the documents, scoring various attributes, such as whether the document treated climate change as a) real and human caused, b) serious, and c) solvable. 


The primary takeaway is this: In its public-facing advertorials, Exxon stressed doubt; in its internal documents and peer-reviewed research, it did not. 


Specifically, 83 percent of its peer-reviewed papers and 80 percent of its internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, while only 12 percent of advertorials do. Some 81 percent of the relevant advertorials express doubt.


“We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials,” Supran and Oreskes write. “Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public.”

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/23/16188422/exxon-climate-change*


----------



## basilio (24 August 2017)

Obviously many media have noted and commented on the "Exxon misleading the public on CC" story.  The guardian has a more indepth analysis with a sting in its tale.

* Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook *
A new study finds a stark contrast between Exxon’s research and what the company told the public

 

*Shares*
749
 
* Comments*
 210 
Dana Nuccitelli

Wednesday 23 August 2017 20.00 AEST   Last modified on Wednesday 23 August 2017 20.02 AEST

_Read all of these documents and make up your own mind._

That was the challenge ExxonMobil issued when investigative journalism by Inside Climate News revealed that while it was at the forefront of climate science research in the 1970s and 1980s, Exxon engaged in a campaign to misinform the public.

Harvard scientists Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes decided to take up Exxon’s challenge, and have just published their results in the journal Environmental Research Letters. They used a method known as content analysis to analyze 187 public and internal Exxon documents. The results are striking:


In Exxon’s peer-reviewed papers and internal communications, about 80% of the documents acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused.

In Exxon’s paid, editorial-style advertisements (“advertorials”) published in the New York Times, about 80% expressed doubt that climate change is real and human-caused.



 Facebook   Twitter   Pinterest 
Percentage of Exxon document positions on human-caused global warming: expressing only doubt (red), only reasonable doubt (grey), acknowledging but expressing doubt (black), acknowledging and expressing reasonable doubt (black hatch), and only acknowledging human-caused global warming (cyan). Illustration: Supran & Oreskes (2017), Environmental Research Letters.
*Merchants of Doubt*
As Oreskes documented with Erik Conway in Merchants of Doubt, tobacco companies and several other industries that profited from harmful products engaged in decades-long campaigns to sow doubt about the scientific evidence of their hazards. As one R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 1969 internal memo read:

_Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public_

The results of this new paper show that Exxon followed this same playbook. While the company’s internal communications and peer-reviewed research were clear about human-caused global warming, its public communications focused heavily on sowing doubt about those scientific conclusions.

For example, Exxon scientist Brian Flannery co-authored a chapter of a 1985 Department of Energy report with NYU professor Martin Hoffert concluding that in a “Low CO2” emissions scenario, humans would cause about 2°C global surface warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100, and about 5°C in a “High CO2” scenario. These projections were in close agreement with those in the latest IPCC report nearly 30 years later.





Temperature increase projected in response to rising carbon dioxide levels. Illustration: Hoffert & Flannery (1985), US Department of Energy report.
Yet in a 1997 advertorial in the New York Times opposing the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon argued:

_Nations are being urged to cut emissions without knowing either the severity of the problem – that is, will Earth’s temperature increase over the next 50–100 years? – or the efficacy of the solution – will cutting CO2 emissions reduce the problem?

...
*Exxon’s Defense is Hollow*
In its defense, Exxon spokespeople have asserted that the company didn’t suppress or try to hide its climate science research. While that’s generally true, it’s also true that Exxon’s public statements painted a very different picture about our understanding of human-caused global warming than the company’s scientific research and internal communications. The vast majority of those paid statements were aimed at manufacturing doubt, and often included the same misleading myths and charts that can be found on any run-of-the-mill climate denial blog.

Exxon’s scientists published some valuable climate research. Company officials discussed those findings internally. But in its public communications, Exxon officials decided to follow the tobacco industry playbook – claim that the science remains unsettled in order to undermine regulations and prevent a decline in public consumption of their dangerous products.

*The tobacco industry was eventually found guilty of racketeering. Considering the findings of this new study, ExxonMobil may face a similar fate.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...challenge-found-it-using-the-tobacco-playbook
_


----------



## basilio (24 August 2017)

And just to remind us how hot the water is..

*he year Trump was elected was so hot, it was one-in-a-million *
The odds of 2014, 2015, and 2016 naturally being as hot as they were are about the same as the odds you’ll be struck by lightning this year


*Shares*
559
 
* Comments*
 627 
Dana Nuccitelli

Friday 11 August 2017 20.00 AEST   Last modified on Saturday 19 August 2017 16.36 AEST

2014, 2015, and 2016 each broke the global temperature record. A new study led by climate scientist Michael Mann just published in Geophysical Research Letters used climate model simulations to examine the odds that these records would have been set in a world with and without human-caused global warming. In model simulations without a human climate influence, the authors concluded:


There’s a one-in-a-million chance that 2014, 2015, and 2016 would each have been as hot as they were if only natural factors were at play.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-was-elected-was-so-hot-it-was-1-in-a-million


----------



## basilio (27 August 2017)

Hurricance Harvey is trashing Houston and dumping record amounts of rain. 
*Catastrophic Flooding Happening Now in Houston as Harvey's Death Toll Rises to 3 *
By Pam Wright
Aug 27 2017 06:00 AM EDT
weather.com

 
*Hundreds of High-Water Rescues in Houston*

Catastrophic flooding in Houston prompts hundreds of high-water rescues. 

*Story Highlights*
Two people were killed in flooding in Houston, raising the death toll from Harvey to three.

Hundreds of water rescues were underway in the Houston metro as water levels rose.

Feet of water is reportedly in homes across Houston.

Hobby airport is closed due to the storm.


Thousands of homes are taking on water and hundreds of people are trapped and stranded in rising floodwaters across the Houston metro after Harvey dumped more than 20" of rain. The death toll from Harvey has risen to at least 3 as hundreds of water rescues are underway across the area.

“There is life-threatening, catastrophic flooding happening now in Southeast Harris County,” Jeff Lindner of the Harris County Flood Control District told The Weather Channel.

Lindner said water had overtopped Interstate 10, that there had been more than 400 water rescues overnight in the Houston area and that hundreds more were stranded in cars across roadways in the area.
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-harvey-houston-texas-impacts


----------



## basilio (27 August 2017)

Relating back to my previous post on the current crisis in Houston.

Houston is the centre for some of the largest petro-chemical works in the US. The risk of an environmental/economic catastrophe as a result of a direct hit by a hurricance is a big concern

* Houston fears climate change will cause catastrophic flooding: 'It's not if, it's when' *
Human activity is worsening the problem in an already rainy area, and there could be damage worthy of a disaster movie if a storm hits the industrial section

.....
*Disaster movie-style threat to Houston Ship Channel *
While residents battle for local improvements, there are predictions worthy of a disaster movie for what could happen if a powerful hurricane barrels directly into Houston’s industrial east. “If we get 20ft plus of water up the Houston Ship Channel it will be apocalyptic. I think all of us that have studied hurricanes are absolutely petrified about a big storm flooding the Houston Ship Channel and basically causing a number of those storage tanks to become unmoored and releasing their contents,” said Jim Blackburn, an environmental attorney and co-director of the Severe Storm Prediction, Education, and Evacuation from Disasters (SSPEED) Center at Rice University.

“There’s a lot of very dangerous materials that are generally handled, all things considered, fairly well, but they’re not designed against 20ft floods and if we have that it’s just going to be an incredibly bleak situation,” he said.

The coastal area from Galveston to Houston is home to several hundred thousand people, Nasa’s Johnson Space Center, the US’s second-biggest seaport in terms of total tonnage, some of the nation’s largest refineries and its biggest petrochemical complex.

Every year we put more people and critical assets in harm’s way. We keep rolling the dice and the stakes become higher

Sam Brody
It is not lost on environmental activists that those refineries, as part of the fossil fuels industry, may be imperiled by extreme weather linked to climate change.

As a ProPublica/Texas Tribune investigation pointed out last year, had Ike been a little stronger and not changed course at the last minute in 2008, Blackburn’s nightmare scenario might have become reality.

According to the SSPEED Center, a 24ft storm surge along the Ship Channel would cause about 90m gallons of crude oil and chemical substances to rush into neighbourhoods and Galveston Bay – an event that a 2015 report claims “could easily become the worst environmental disaster in US history”.

To say nothing of the economic impact on the region and the nation – a lengthy shutdown of south-east Texas’s facilities would be felt all over the country as products such as gasoline and jet fuel would become scarcer and more expensive.

A multibillion-dollar coastal barrier has long been on the wish list – but is far from being realised, since there is as of yet no consensus over the design, implementation and funding. “If you look historically at major hurricane enters Galveston Bay every 15-20 years, so it’s going to happen,” said Brody, the professor.

“It is something that keeps me awake at night every June that rolls around, hurricane season, because it’s not if, it’s just when – and every year we put more people and critical assets in harm’s way. We keep rolling the dice and the stakes become higher.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/16/texas-flooding-houston-climate-change-disaster


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2017)

I knew The Guardian wouldn't disappoint


----------



## basilio (28 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> I knew The Guardian wouldn't disappoint



And neither do you...


----------



## basilio (28 August 2017)

Keep an eye on Insurance stocks in the next few days.


 
*Hurricane Harvey: catastrophic flooding 'beyond anything experienced' in Houston *

*Greg Porter and Jason Samenow*
496 reading now
The worst fears of flooding are starting to be realised with Harvey as it unloads some of the most extreme rainfall Houston and other parts of Southeast Texas has ever witnessed. And much more rain is still to come.

"Catastrophic flooding in the Houston metropolitan area is expected to worsen," the National Weather Service said Sunday morning.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/wor...g-experienced-in-houston-20170827-gy5bat.html


----------



## orr (28 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> I knew The Guardian wouldn't disappoint




Houston NASA Hansen.... You're  not the only one to see the obvious connections WayneL.... James Hansen is at the bottom of this. My guess is he's purposely left the plug in, and he's down there now making sure no one pulls it out...
Just wait till Breightbart or Dellingpole gets the scoop on this, it'll blow the roof off the whole global warming scam.

And come to think of it, 'where's Flannery?'


----------



## wayneL (28 August 2017)

Okay  let's see the trend ladies.... unadjusted.


----------



## orr (30 August 2017)

With the unprecedented  'Biblical' flooding of Houston it's an opportune time to get with lord and happy clap my way to born-again redemption. Timing with so many things is 'everything'; And now being the vessel of received truth and my duty to proselytise; Surely who cannot behold Gods wrath on the Fossil Fuel Gomorrah, *Houston, Texas... *Now being cleansed and Baptised by his own godly works. See behold  and repent...
That's right sinners... How was I so oblivious for so long to the reeking stench of the brimstone direct from the fires of hell through the port hole that was the Cal*tex *refinery Kurnell... Beelzebub cast thy out...Ahh now the light. Falling on solar panels everywhere.... notably obvious on more than their fair share of Churches...
Mysterious ways....


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

orr said:


> With the unprecedented  'Biblical' flooding of Houston it's an opportune time to get with lord and happy clap my way to born-again redemption. ...




How about this instead:


----------



## basilio (30 August 2017)

Houston is going under and of course because it's First World and US everyone is all over it.

However ... have you noticed what is happening in India ?
* Mumbai paralysed by floods as India and region hit by heaviest monsoon rains in years *
More than 1,000 people killed in India, Nepal and Bangladesh in recent weeks and millions forced from their homes

Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 0:41
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
Mute
Monsoon rains bring India’s financial capital Mumbai to standstill

Wednesday 30 August 2017 16.26 AEST   First published on Wednesday 30 August 2017 13.35 AEST

Heavy monsoon rains have brought India’s financial capital to a halt, with authorities struggling to evacuate people with the scheduled high tide adding to the chaos.

Incessant rain flooded several parts of Mumbai on Tuesday and paralysed train services used by millions of commuters daily, with many stranded at stations and hundreds of others walking home through waist-deep water on railway tracks.

Poor visibility and flooding also forced airport authorities to divert some flights while most were delayed by up to an hour.

Thousands, some abandoning their water-logged cars, waded through waist-deep water to reach home after some parts of the city received as much as 297.6mm (11.72in) of rainfall. Children were sent home early from school.

Weather officials are forecasting heavy rains to continue over the next 24 hours and have urged people to stay indoors. A high tide at 1105 GMT amid the downpour led to water logging of up to 5ft in some parts of the city.
*Floods have killed more than 1,000 people in India, Nepal and Bangladesh in recent weeks and forced millions from their homes in the region’s worst monsoon disaster in recent years.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nd-region-hit-by-worst-monsoon-rains-in-years


----------



## luutzu (30 August 2017)

basilio said:


> Houston is going under and of course because it's First World and US everyone is all over it.
> 
> However ... have you noticed what is happening in India ?
> * Mumbai paralysed by floods as India and region hit by heaviest monsoon rains in years *
> ...




I guess we need to wait for 100%, literally fool-proof evidence before we should get "hysterical" about "Climate Change".

Got to be definitely sure whether it was CC that causes all these death and destruction before we'd waste money investing in clean and renewable energy that also create jobs, innovation and all that rubbish.

In other news, heard reports that certain oil/chemical refineries have a built in business plan to get rid of their chemical/toxic waste: store it in a pool or tank, wait for a storm and opps, there it goes with the storm. So smart yet so stupid.


----------



## basilio (12 September 2017)

Anyone for a cold shower and reality check on where we are heading with CC ?

* Hostage to myopic self-interest: climate science is watered down under political scrutiny *
Ian Dunlop
Scientific reticence allows politicians to neglect the real dangers we face. But waiting for perfect information means it will be too late to act




‘In the magical thinking of Australian policymakers, a pathway of gradual change, constructed over many decades in a growing, prosperous, coal-fired world stretches enticingly before us.’ Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

*Shares*
470
 
* Comments*
 342 
Monday 11 September 2017 02.27 BST   Last modified on Monday 11 September 2017 02.36 BST

Three decades ago when serious debate on human-induced climate change began globally, a great deal of statesmanship was on display. A preparedness to recognise that this was an issue which transcended nation states, ideologies and political parties. An issue which had to be addressed proactively in the long-term interests of humanity, even if the existential nature of climate risk was far less clear cut than it is today.

Then, as global institutions were put in place to take up this challenge and the extent of change this would impose on the fossil-fuel dominated world became more obvious, the forces of resistance mobilised. Today, despite the diplomatic triumph of the Paris climate agreement, debate around climate change policy has never been more dysfunctional, indeed Orwellian, particularly in Australia.

In his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell describes a double-speak totalitarian state where most of the population accepts “the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane.”

Orwell could have been writing about climate change and policymaking.

International agreements talk of limiting global warming to 1.5–2°C, but in reality they set the world on a path of 3–5°C. Goals are reaffirmed, only to be abandoned. Coal, by definition, is “clean”. Just 1°C of warming is already dangerous, but this cannot be said. The planetary future is hostage to myopic, national self-interest. Action is delayed on the assumption that as yet unproven technologies will save the day, decades hence. The risks are existential, but it is “alarmist” to say so. A one-in-two chance of missing a goal is normalised as reasonable.

Climate policymaking for years now has been cognitively dissonant, “a flagrant violation of reality”. So the lack of understanding among the public and elites of the full measure of the climate challenge is unsurprising. Yet most Australians sense where we are heading: three-quarters of people see climate change as a catastrophic risk and half see our way of life ending within the next 100 years. 

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ence-is-watered-down-under-political-scrutiny


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2017)

I find it interesting how the world cooperated over CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer and yet seems unable to get together over AGW and the greater risk that it poses to life on earth.


----------



## orr (12 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I find it interesting how the world cooperated over CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer and yet seems unable to get together over AGW and the greater risk that it poses to life on earth.




Naomi Oreskis addresses this in the Book "Merchants of Doubt'(highly recommend this read) . The short answer is that there was no down side for the vested interests as there were plenty of alternatives were immediately available for industry.
Interestingly the same atmospheric sampling programme that led strategic military planners in the 1950s to conclusions about CO2 warming was instrumental in the work on CFC's in the70's & 80's.


----------



## basilio (18 September 2017)

*Why are Forest Fires raging in the US ? What is our summer looking like ?*


*Has Climate Change Intensified 2017’s Western Wildfires?*
It was supposed to be a quiet year.





A firefighter battles the Ponderosa Fire east of Oroville, California, in late August. Noah Berger / Reuters


Robinson Meyer

This wasn’t supposed to be a bad year for Western wildfires.

Last winter, a weak La Niña bloomed across the Pacific. It sent flume after flume of rain to North America and irrigated half the continent. Water penetrated deep into the soil of Western forests, and mammoth snowdrifts stacked up across the Sierra Nevadas. California’s drought ended in the washout.

Yet fires are now raging across the West. More than two dozen named fires currently burn across Washington and Oregon. More than one million acres have burned in Montana, an area larger than Rhode Island, in the Treasure State’s third-worst fire season on record. And the largest brushfire in the history of Los Angeles currently threatens hundreds of homes in Burbank.

Canada may be experiencing an even worse year for wildfires: 2.86 million acres have burned in British Columbia, the largest area ever recorded in the province.

So what happened? How did a wet Western winter lead to a sky-choking summer?

The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts. Days of near-100-degree-Fahrenheit temperatures cooked the Mountain West in early July, and a scorching heat wave lingered over the Pacific Northwest in early August.

“This will become an important year for [anecdotes about] the importance of temperature. Despite the fact that these forests were really soaked down this winter and spring, these heat waves have dried things out enough to promote really large fires,” says Park Williams, a research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University.

“This heat wave is having a way worse influence on fire than it would in absence of human-caused warming.”
In other words, the weeks of heat that baked the West in July and August were enough to wipe away some of the fire-dampening effect of the winter storms.

“The last 60 to 90 days have been exceptionally warm and dry, the perfect recipe for drying out fuels (the one ingredient besides ignitions you need for fire in these systems),” said John Abatzoglou, a professor of geography at the University of Idaho, in an email. “I was running a few numbers this morning, and the last 60 days have been record warm from Spokane, Washington, to Medford, Oregon; both Seattle and Missoula earlier this summer set records for the longest number of days without measurable rain.”

This excessive heat can have an outsize effect on the size of forest fires. For more than three decades, wildfire researchers have known that fire and aridity, which is controlled by heat, exist in an exponential relationship. Every degree of warming does more to promote fire than the previous degree of warming, Williams said.

“Now, thinking about temperature trends due to human-caused climate change, we think that the western United States is 1.5 [degrees] Celsius, or 3 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than it would be in absence of climate change. And there’s a heat wave on top of that,” said Williams. “Because of the exponential influence of temperature, that means that this heat wave is having a way worse influence on fire than it would in absence of human-caused warming.”

In the runaway consequences of each additional degree of warming, wildfires are a “canary in the coal mine” for the effects of climate change, Williams said.

And global warming is already having an effect on wildfire. In a paper published last year in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,_ Williams and Abatzoglou found that the total area burned in the western United States over the past 33 years was double the size it would have been without any human-caused warming.

“The added forest fire area—due to just the degree and a half Celsius of warming—equaled the area of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined,” Williams told me.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...7-so-bad-for-wildfires-climate-change/539130/


----------



## basilio (18 September 2017)

A wrap up of the past week on Planet Earth.

*When the Planet Looks Like a Climate-Change Ad*
“We kept on trying to wrap our heads around [that forecast] as we made it.”

An image from the satellite GOES-16, taken last week NOAA / CIRA / Colorado State University


Robinson Meyer
Sep 12, 2017

It takes a lot of unusual weather to surprise the director of the National Weather Service. But speaking on Sunday from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration office in College Park, Maryland, Louis Uccellini couldn’t contain his shock.

“I tell people to look at the two forecasts we’ve made over the last two weeks,” he told me.“We forecast 50 inches of rainfall over eastern Texas. That was a forecast that we kept on trying to wrap our heads around as we made it. And then it verified—and we had to wrap our heads around that, too.”

He continued: “And then, for [Irma], we were predicting a significant right turn in the track. This right turn was being advertised days ahead of time. And that verified, too.”

It has been a stirring month for weather in North America. After a decade-long drought, two major hurricanes made landfall in the continental United States. Record-setting fires raged across the Pacific Northwest. The largest earthquake in a century struck southern Mexico.

There was so much unusual weather that _The New York Times _ran a front-page story lightly chiding people for thinking that “the End Times were getting in a few dress rehearsals.”

One image from last week seems to best encapsulate the historic weather insanity. It was taken by the newest weather satellite in NOAA’s fleet, known as GOES-16, on the afternoon of Friday, September 8.

CIRA / NOAA
In this image, you can see three hurricanes spin across the tropical Atlantic. Left to right, they are: Hurricane Katia, which made landfall in Mexico that night; Hurricane Irma, which was passing between Cuba and the Bahamas; and Hurricane José, which still churns in the open ocean.

But they are not the only visible environmental disasters. Across the western United States, you can see light-gray smoke pouring off the ground and drifting into the atmosphere. Those fumes are the product of massive wildfires burning across Montana, southern California, and the Pacific Northwest.

And there is a third type of disaster, ongoing when this picture was taken, that’s _not _visible: the southern Mexico earthquake, which left dozens dead.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...dinary-week-in-north-american-weather/539544/


----------



## luutzu (18 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I find it interesting how the world cooperated over CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer and yet seems unable to get together over AGW and the greater risk that it poses to life on earth.




Quoting Chomsky: Ozone depletion kill mainly White people. So it must be dealt with like civilisation depended on it. 

Climate Change kill mainly coloured and poor people. The rich, mainly White, people can simply close their door, switch on the air con then jack up the prices of everything. 

So you got population control, higher profit margin, potential wars that needs proper arms sales... then the softening of ice for easier drilling. So if you can look past the deaths and destruction to other people, it's pretty dam good.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Quoting Chomsky: Ozone depletion kill mainly White people. So it must be dealt with like civilisation depended on it.
> 
> Climate Change kill mainly coloured and poor people. The rich, mainly White, people can simply close their door, switch on the air con then jack up the prices of everything.
> 
> So you got population control, higher profit margin, potential wars that needs proper arms sales... then the softening of ice for easier drilling. So if you can look past the deaths and destruction to other people, it's pretty dam good.




So what you are saying is coloured people are valuable as consumers .... if they have money that is?


----------



## luutzu (18 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> So what you are saying is coloured people are valuable as consumers .... if they have money that is?




Coloured and/or Poor. There are poor White people too aren't there? 

But everyone with money is valuable. That's Money 101 

I'm just repeating what Chomsky said. Not sure why people call him a Lefty as though it's synonymous with being an idiot. 

Anyway, he was saying that when the scientists said there's a hole in the Southern Ozone, the "international community" doesn't gives two cents about it. I mean, the South has poor coloured folks and a few British convicts so who cares.

Then a few years later the Northern Ozone also has a hole in it... well UV is going to kill a lot of fair-skinned European sunbathing on their yachts and "the international community" must work together 

----

Put a cap on insurance premiums, no wiggle legalese and no state-funded natural disaster reliefs. Watch how many bankers and insurers will push for that green future.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Climate Change kill mainly coloured and poor people. The rich, mainly White, people can simply close their door, switch on the air con then jack up the prices of everything.




That's bs, Luutzu, Miami and Florida is a rich white (mainly) community and they just got battered. Watch for a change in policy.


----------



## luutzu (18 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That's bs, Luutzu, Miami and Florida is a rich white (mainly) community and they just got battered. Watch for a change in policy.




They're rich enough that aid and federal fund will come to them quicker and in bigger buckets. So they won't be left drowning or dying like the other Americans during Katrina. But...

But most of those in Florida and Texas that's affected aren't rich enough to change policy. Not in any significant way.

I mean, they might get another $1b for a better pump or something. Maybe a higher sea-wall in certain beach front suburbs... all else is mother nature and her unpredictable doing [note, current Florida governor banned the use of "Climate Change" in all Florida's gov't reporting. seriously.]


----------



## basilio (9 November 2017)

What will happen to the economic fabric of our society as the effects of a warming climate unfold? Deutsche Bank has developed a set of tools to enable it to identify the risks to the trillion dollars worth of investments it currently manages.

* Deutsche Bank maps climate change risks for investments *


*Cole Latimer*
Deutsche Bank has developed a tool to forecast where its investments across the globe may be impacted by natural disasters brought on by climate change.

Although tools have existed in the insurance industry to model the impact of climate change, this is the first time this sort of data has been systematically applied to investments.

Deutsche Asset Management created the map with climate change intelligence firm Four Twenty Seven, covering more than one million individual locations in order to see how changes to climate will threaten its investment portfolios. The group currently has about €711 billion ($1.06 trillion) under management.

*Economic modelling estimates that if carbon emissions aren't reduced throughout this century, per capita GDP will decrease by 23 per cent from what it otherwise would be.
"The effects of climate change will be ubiquitous but uneven, ranging from those that disrupt daily life, such as damaged or flooded infrastructure, to more gradual impacts like declines in labour productivity and widespread threats to global welfare through decreased crop yields," Four Twenty Seven stated.*

Deutsche Bank said the development of this tool meant that exposure to catastrophic events for individual companies can now be calculated.

"It tackles physical risk head-on, giving credible insight into the vulnerability of corporate production and retail sites to climate change. Factors such as sea level rise, droughts, flooding and cyclones pose an immediate and measurable threat to investment portfolios," Deutsche Bank Asset Management said.

These issues have already been seen in Australia, where heatwaves have caused spikes in power prices, directly impacting business operating costs.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...ge-risks-for-investments-20171109-gzhsxh.html


----------



## Knobby22 (10 November 2017)

Smart move by Deutsche.
if they can get an investment edge from this it will flow through to the bottom line as wealthy investors seek better returns and greater safety.


----------



## basilio (16 November 2017)

The movement of insurance companies to get out of coal is quickening. In the end it may be impossible for coal fired power stations to continue because they won't be able to obtain insurance for their operations.

So why are they getting out ?

* Growing number of global insurance firms divesting from fossil fuels *
Report shows around £15bn of assets worldwide have been shifted away from coal companies in the past two years as concern over climate risk rises

.......
Zurich said its decision to pull out was a practical as well as altruistic. “It’s not about politics or blame. It’s about utilising the immense amount of data and analytics we have from internal engineers, as well as external scientific experts, to guide our view of the future,” said Rob Kuchinski, global head of property and energy.

*The Bank of England has identified four reasons insurers should be concerned about climate change: their fossil fuel assets could be stranded, they could be held liable for damages linked to their investments, they could see their market diminish, and their payouts could rise.


Payouts are also expected to rise. Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer, recently suffered a €1.4bn loss and also faces soaring claims from hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria.


 “Left unchecked,” British insurer Aviva states, climate change will “render significant portions of the economy uninsurable, shrinking our addressable market.” 

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...l-insurance-firms-divesting-from-fossil-fuels*


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2017)

I thought it was pleasantly cool this November 2017 so I checked if there was a ststistical agreement. It is a fact ...

* Coldest start to November in 23 years *

Calling all scientists for an explanation?


----------



## basilio (16 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I thought it was pleasantly cool this November 2017 so I checked if there was a ststistical agreement. It is a fact ...
> 
> * Coldest start to November in 23 years *
> 
> Calling all scientists for an explanation?




Yes.  It's called "weather" .  It's what happens on a short term basis in a particular area.

Has only a passing resemblance to "climate" which describes what is happening over the longer term and generally speaking larger geographical areas.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2017)

basilio said:


> Yes.  It's called "weather" .  It's what happens on a short term basis in a particular area.
> 
> Has only a passing resemblance to "climate" which describes what is happening over the longer term and generally speaking larger geographical areas.



Oh okay. Thought there might be a trend change. Shorters covering you know.


----------



## cynic (16 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I thought it was pleasantly cool this November 2017 so I checked if there was a ststistical agreement. It is a fact ...
> 
> * Coldest start to November in 23 years *
> 
> Calling all scientists for an explanation?



Are you sure you posted your question to the correct thread?

What exactly is it, that has led you to believe that a scientific response may be solicited from an alarmism thread?


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2017)

cynic said:


> Are you sure you posted your question to the correct thread?
> 
> What exactly is it, that has led you to believe that a scientific response may be solicited from an alarmism thread?



It is hard to believe the story when I see the contrary or no change at all considering ....

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.

However it apparently is happening at the magnified level so we may not see the direct affects until it is too late to reverse. Pollution is being reduced as a result of climate change theory (or fact) and that is a huge positive for the planet. The reason why I don't believe it is extreme as portrayed but thankful for the action being taken.


----------



## Sean K (16 November 2017)

Have we gone around the Green House Gas buoy yet? That is, what makes up GHG and how do humans contribute?


----------



## IFocus (16 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I thought it was pleasantly cool this November 2017 so I checked if there was a ststistical agreement. It is a fact ...
> 
> * Coldest start to November in 23 years *
> 
> Calling all scientists for an explanation?




Wrong state WA breaking records the other way.


----------



## IFocus (16 November 2017)

kennas said:


> Have we gone around the Green House Gas buoy yet? That is, what makes up GHG and how do humans contribute?




The issue is ocean acidification = end game


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2017)

basilio said:


> The difficult part is that if this process was started 20-30 years ago a slow transition would be possible. *However the need to rapidly reduce  CO2 emissions if we are to have a ghost of a chance to stabilise global warming makes the current situation very difficult.*



Thankfully the difference between someone in the know and someone with an opinion is quite obvious here.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Thankfully the difference between someone in the know and someone with an opinion is quite obvious here.



True.


----------



## Sean K (20 November 2017)

IFocus said:


> The issue is ocean acidification = end game



Isn't GHG made up of about 70% water vapor and clouds. Carbon Dioxide makes up 25% ish. If H2O's the greatest effect on GHG shouldn't we be targeting water vapor and not CO2. Does ocean acidification increase water vapor? Or, is it just general heating of the ocean? Caused by what? Are we getting closer to the Sun, which might cause this?


----------



## IFocus (20 November 2017)

kennas said:


> Isn't GHG made up of about 70% water vapor and clouds. Carbon Dioxide makes up 25% ish. If H2O's the greatest effect on GHG shouldn't we be targeting water vapor and not CO2. Does ocean acidification increase water vapor? Or, is it just general heating of the ocean? Caused by what? Are we getting closer to the Sun, which might cause this?




Most of what I read in the general press is temperature / ocean levels related which wont wipe humans out. But oceans absorbing CO2 changes the oceans pH don't know the numbers off hand but its not far to end game.
There has been research done but haven't too much counter claim like the rest of the GW bun fight.


----------



## basilio (20 November 2017)

kennas said:


> Isn't GHG made up of about 70% water vapor and clouds. Carbon Dioxide makes up 25% ish. If H2O's the greatest effect on GHG shouldn't we be targeting water vapor and not CO2. Does ocean acidification increase water vapor? Or, is it just general heating of the ocean? Caused by what? Are we getting closer to the Sun, which might cause this?




There are plenty of shortish summaries that explain what climate scientists are saying about the causes and consequent effects of global warming.

The issue of ocean acidification is one of the collateral side effects of the steeply rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  Some of the extra CO2 is being dissolved in the oceans thereby increasing it's acidity. At a certain stage it becomes impossible for  shellfish to survive and whole ocean eco systems will collapse.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...estions-climate-change-too-embarrassed-to-ask
https://coastadapt.com.au/ocean-acidification-and-its-effects


----------



## Knobby22 (21 November 2017)

Jelly fish will survive.


----------



## wayneL (21 November 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> Jelly fish will survive.



Maybe we could impregnate ourselves with jelly fish genes?

May need cockroach genes first


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 November 2017)

Let's face it. The world has some severe chain smokers and they are destroying the lungs of this planet. Smoking countries have been asked to quit and it is happening. Deforestation has to be stopped. Interestingly with more CO2 in the atmosphere, vegetation should thrive. Progressively stop the burning of fossil fuels and give the planets lungs a chance to recover. This will extend human existence for whatever reason. There is no reason so make the most of the living years. Ignore the poo heads in the world.


----------



## basilio (23 November 2017)

The latest advisory White Paper is spelling out (in capitals) the impact climate chnage will have on Australias closet neighbours and how this will affect us.

* Australia facing climate disaster on its doorstep, government's white paper warns *
Foreign policy paper says climate-related conflict and migration could put Australia’s economic interests under pressure




Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop at the launch of the foreign policy white paper. The foreign affairs minister said Australia would resist the ‘false hope of protectionism and isolationism’. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

*Shares*
211

Katharine Murphy Political editor

 
@murpharoo

Thursday 23 November 2017 02.44 GMT   Last modified on Thursday 23 November 2017 02.46 GMT

Climate change is creating a disaster on Australia’s doorstep, with environmental degradation and the demand for sustainable sources of food undermining stability in some countries, especially “fragile states”, according to the Australian government’s first foreign policy white paper in more than a decade.

The new white paper, released on Thursday, contains warnings over the disruptive effects of climate change in Australia’s immediate region, noting that many small island states will be “severely affected in the long term”, and the coming decade will see increased need for disaster relief.

The white paper notes the demand for water and food will rise, with the world’s oceans and forests under intense pressure. It notes climate change and pressure on the environment could contribute to conflict and irregular migration, impacting specifically on Australia’s economic interests.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...on-its-doorstep-governments-white-paper-warns


----------



## wayneL (23 November 2017)

I think Revelations is more likely


----------



## explod (23 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> I think Revelations is more likely



Interesting how one can breathe through the sand if you have the right cover.  Had myself checked for dementia there awhile back but all good.

Scientists just realising that measurements have been based on a sea temperature some eight degrees above levels 150 to 200 years back.  But no one wants to hear those sort of distortions so its all expunged.  Just party.


----------



## wayneL (23 November 2017)

explod said:


> Interesting how one can breathe through the sand if you have the right cover.  Had myself checked for dementia there awhile back but all good.
> 
> Scientists just realising that measurements have been based on a sea temperature some eight degrees above levels 150 to 200 years back.  But no one wants to hear those sort of distortions so its all expunged.  Just party.



Citations please


----------



## explod (23 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> Citations please



About a week back,  do your own research,  I do.   "www.independent.co.uk/topic/climate -  change"


----------



## wayneL (23 November 2017)

explod said:


> About a week back,  do your own research,  I do.   "www.independent.co.uk/topic/climate -  change"



Thanks for the link 

I'm busy with more important research my sanctimonious friend,  viz the effects of static dorsiflexion of the distal interphalangeal joint on the podotrochlear apparatus in performance equines.


----------



## explod (23 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> Thanks for the link
> 
> I'm busy with more important research my sanctimonious friend,  viz the effects of static dorsiflexion of the distal interphalangeal joint on the podotrochlear apparatus in performance equines.



Me too,  "the frequency of sight across the picture plane" .  Started with Johannus Itton. 

Be good to get into that brain stuff though .


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2017)

I think GW is just one of the problems we have, whether it's caused by us or the sun. I remain adamant that it's overpopulation that's the key problem. It will also cause the next major WW because of competition for finite resources. I doubt we can science our way out of this. We crossed the point of no return about 2 billion people ago. Now the next mass extinction is almost inevitable. Whether it's nuclear war, disease, or environmental collapse - too many humans. It's going to take some time though and we'll be long gone.


----------



## explod (23 November 2017)

kennas said:


> I think GW is just one of the problems we have, whether it's caused by us or the sun. I remain adamant that it's overpopulation that's the key problem. It will also cause the next major WW because of competition for finite resources. I doubt we can science our way out of this. We crossed the point of no return about 2 billion people ago. Now the next mass extinction is almost inevitable. Whether it's nuclear war, disease, or environmental collapse - too many humans. It's going to take some time though and we'll be long gone.



Agree you and I,  but we won't be long gone in my view.   In fact I dont think humans will last till 2050.  You wont stop population growth or land clearing or runnoff into the oceans or those waiting for God to save us. 

Its all over so  just party.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 November 2017)

kennas said:


> I remain adamant that it's overpopulation that's the key problem.



That's hard to argue.

Nobody would worried about CO2 emissions if all Victoria (for example) had was steam locomotives, a few gas works producing trivial amounts of gas compared to what's used today and a small power station burning coal at Newport. A century ago that was indeed the case and whilst I don't have figures I'll say with confidence that the total CO2 emissions of those locomotives and gas works etc was absolutely trivial compared to today.

Deforestation, over fishing, natural gas, coal, oil, anything nuclear, petrochemicals and other toxics - practically the whole lot has occurred in just one human lifetime.

If someone is now 40 years old then they're roughly half way through their life. Now consider that two thirds of all crude oil ever used by man has been used in their lifetime thus far and you start to grasp the problem. It's similar for all sorts of other things - eg virtually all gas ever used has been used since 1960. No such thing as nuclear energy until the 1950's and it wasn't significant until the 1970's. Same with everything from metal ores to fish - the rapid rate of consumption is a very recent development even in terms of times that individual humans experience.

If it all ends badly then I expect it will take a form not dissimilar to what happens to most people, machines and other things as they come to the end of their life. All good until pretty close to the end when it starts to go downhill rather fast. Most collapses take that form - the ride down is a lot faster than the ride up was.


----------



## basilio (23 November 2017)

Unfortunately Smurf has exposed/acknowledged the wider issues  of resource collapse as factors in a non viable society. We just don't want to think about these issues do we ?  Far, far too challenging.

And yet the premise of our economic system is endless growth on a finite earth.  Doesn't quite work dose it ?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 November 2017)

basilio said:


> And yet the premise of our economic system is endless growth on a finite earth.  Doesn't quite work dose it ?




Nope. But of course it creates jobs and that's the political selling point.

The only person who has spoke seriously about this recently has been Dick Smith and he has been laughed off by the major parties and business groups.  

Population growth is a Ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 November 2017)

basilio said:


> Unfortunately Smurf has exposed/acknowledged the wider issues  of resource collapse as factors in a non viable society. We just don't want to think about these issues do we ?  Far, far too challenging.



The thing about resources is that you can really only use half of them in practice.

We've seen past debates about dams in Tasmania and then forests.

Now we're seeing debates about gas in various states and coal mines in Queensland.

It's the same story with all resources. Nobody cares too much if you want to build one dam or cut enough timber to supply one saw mill. Just put the dam somewhere that's cheap and easy and which nobody's worried about and even Bob Brown might be willing to turn the first sod if you asked him. Seems like a good idea and there's no real downside.

Then you build another one. And another one. And another....

Pretty soon you're drawing up plans to dam literally every last creek and are faced with building things which are at unfavourable sites which cost a fortune, are in the middle of nowhere or which have conservation values strong enough that people will fight for them. 

So you'll never dam the lot and you'll never mine all the coal or take all the gas from the ground. The first part is easy but the more you use the more costly it gets - economic, social, environmental etc it all gets more expensive no matter how you measure it.

There's plenty of examples globally and they all come to somewhere around the 50% mark as to what's actually useful. Going to 60% might be done for political reasons or to bring about some sort of semi-orderly end to it all but nobody goes to 100% or even 90%.

There's still a lot of coal in the UK for example. It's just that what's left is too deep or otherwise too costly (economically or environmentally) to mine and so it's staying in the ground. Sure, Thatcher wound it down and that's well known but what's less well known is that UK coal production was already heading firmly down well before she came on the scene - it peaked way back in 1913! All Thatcher really did was accelerate what was inevitable and even then she didn't make a lot of difference really in a big picture sense.

Closer to home the proverbial Blind Freddy can see that the game's just about up for expanding coal mining in Qld and NSW. It's not just the CO2 issue but the simple reality that if you look at official NSW government estimates as to coal that's actually worth mining then there's only 60 years left anyway and that's with zero growth in production. Plenty more coal in the ground yes, but not coal that's economic to mine and which isn't under cities, major infrastructure or things like National Parks. Qld isn't so far down that curve yet but at even a modest growth rate it happens before too much longer.

As an exercise to illustrate the point, let's say you live on a 600m2 block. The house is 150m2, the front yard is 200m2 and the backyard is 250m2. Ignore space down the side of the house to keep it simple.

You're now going to dig up 1m2 per year, with a 10% growth rate in your digging per annum.

It will take you 59 years to dig up the backyard.

In the next 17 years you will rip up the entire front yard.

It will take you just 3 years to rip up the house.

So that's a total of 68 years to demolish everything on your suburban block.

What happens in the next 68 years? Well you will completely rip up not one but 645 suburban blocks just like the one you had.

And the 68 years after that? Well you've now ripped down every house in Adelaide.

20 years after that Sydney's completely gone too.

Another 5 years and now you've also demolished Melbourne. 

And so on.

Constant compounding growth consumes everything in the end and does so at a rate that becomes truly frightening toward the end.


----------



## basilio (24 November 2017)

Awesome Smurf.  Probably one of the most down to earth presentations of the Limits to Growth issue I have seen for ages. That example you offered on the effects of compounding growth on ripping up homes/suburbs/cities is unnerving.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 November 2017)

Not that simple.

We can shift onto other resources, use resources more efficiently, not living in houses on blocks but in little human caves stacked on top of each other called apartments, make technological advances etc.
I am not so negative about the future.

In my view it will be intentionally engineered viruses that will virtually wipe out humanity.
Kurt Vonnegut's "Galapagos'" is the way I predict it will end. Like a biological computer virus.


----------



## sptrawler (3 December 2017)

Didn't Victoria build a desalination plant a few years ago, because the experts said their dams would never be filled again?
How are the dams? Seems like you're getting plenty of rain.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 December 2017)

Labor said they wouldn't build a dam but as the drought continued they panicked. Built it during the GFC on awful terms as only 2 tendered, both French and probably in collusion. Debt Disaster.


----------



## sptrawler (3 December 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> Labor said they wouldn't build a dam but as the drought continued they panicked. Built it during the GFC on awful terms as only 2 tendered, both French and probably in collusion. Debt Disaster.




Jeez it must be a big dam.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2017)

sptrawler said:


> Jeez it must be a big dam.



Whoops I meant desalination plant.


----------



## explod (4 December 2017)

sptrawler said:


> Jeez it must be a big dam.



The desal plant will still be needed, don't worry about that.   The science on climate change is learning as she goes, no one can really predict, remember "trend" though.  What was obviously missed was the rising temperature at the two poles being effected to the degree that moisture started to rise which then travelled north and south respectively.  Its called displacement and the warmer it gets the more volatile the weather.  Hottest month ever here in Victoria for November.  Now freezing cold here and in Tassie the other night a big fall of winter snow, IN DECEMBER, excuse me.

I had to put the heater on just before posting


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2017)

explod said:


> The desal plant will still be needed, don't worry about that.   The science on climate change is learning as she goes, no one can really predict, remember "trend" though.  What was obviously missed was the rising temperature at the two poles being effected to the degree that moisture started to rise which then travelled north and south respectively.  Its called displacement and the warmer it gets the more volatile the weather.  Hottest month ever here in Victoria for November.  Now freezing cold here and in Tassie the other night a big fall of winter snow, IN DECEMBER, excuse me.
> 
> I had to put the heater on just before posting



Can pleeese stop with the nonsense on that point every time there is a cold snap plod? 

Refer to science in toto.


----------



## explod (5 December 2017)

wayneL said:


> Can pleeese stop with the nonsense on that point every time there is a cold snap plod?
> 
> Refer to science in toto.



Explain the nonsence in the rationale.   There is science and and surely observations.  Its a discussion part of ASF. 

These are the sorts of comments that are gradually turning people away from this site.


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2017)

Disagreeing with your non scientific opinion is turning people away from this site?

Good Lord Plod! That's even more ridiculous than your previous post.


----------



## basilio (5 December 2017)

wayneL said:


> Disagreeing with your non scientific opinion is turning people away from this site?
> 
> Good Lord Plod! That's even more ridiculous than your previous post.




Nope.  But saying that all the recognised climate scientists are creating false stories about the changes in our climate and the reasons for them does tend to turn off people who respect reality.


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2017)

basilio said:


> Nope.  But saying that all the recognised climate scientists are creating false stories about the changes in our climate and the reasons for them does tend to turn off people who respect reality.



Well you do have an interesting take on reality bas.

A reality of alarmist modelling which has consistently failed to materialise.

A reality which is unfailingly mendacious in representing the views of moderates.

Unreal mate,  unreal.


----------



## basilio (5 December 2017)

wayneL said:


> Well you do have an interesting take on reality bas.
> 
> A reality of alarmist modelling which has consistently failed to materialise.
> 
> ...





And denial like that in the face of a world with repeated record temperatures  and evidence of rapid climate change around the globe is one of the basic reasons we are facing a crisis.


----------



## explod (5 December 2017)

And its emerging that the mean temperature of the ocean that scientists had been modelling from is now being proved as eight degress cooler than previously known. 

Under/over statments to keep the mulititides content has been the order.  However the tide in community awareness is the big one coming to surface. 

And I gave the reference a week back but its common knowledge to those paying attention.


----------



## basilio (6 December 2017)

This is the latest article which pulls together what is happening with CC and the current and future consequences.

Not pretty but real.

*American leaders should read their official climate science report *
The United States Global Change Research Program report paints a bleak picture of the consequences of climate denial






The remains of the Signorello Estate winery smolder after the October wildfires in Napa, California. Photograph: Eric Risberg/AP

*Shares*
1327
 
* Comments*
 667 
John Abraham

Monday 27 November 2017 11.00 GMT   Last modified on Monday 27 November 2017 11.04 GMT

The United States Global Change Research Program recently released a report on the science of climate change and its causes. The report is available for anyone to read; it was prepared by top scientists, and it gives an overview of the most up to date science. 

If you want to understand climate change and a single document that summarizes what we know, this is your chance. This report is complete, readily understandable, and accessible. It discusses what we know, how we know it, how confident we are, and how likely certain events are to happen if we continue on our business-as-usual path. 

To summarize, our Earth has warmed nearly 2°F (1°C) since the beginning of the 20th century. Today’s Earth is the warmest it has ever been in the history of modern civilization.




 Facebook   Twitter   Pinterest 
Global average surface temperatures over the past 1,700 years. Illustration: United States Global Change Research Program
While the planet has warmed, the climate and the Earth’s environment has responded. We are observing heating of the atmosphere, oceans, and the Earth’s surface. Glaciers are melting at an alarming rate. Snow cover is decreasing and we are experiencing increased water scarcity, particularly in parts of the world that rely on snowmelt for water.

The amount of ice is decreasing. In particular, the ice that floats atop waters in the Arctic have decreased significantly since measurements began. As a result of melting land ice and thermal expansion, sea levels are rising. Oceans have risen, on average, 7–8 inches. In some places, the rise has been much more. Astonishingly, half of the total rise has occurred in the last 30 years. Currently, oceans are rising faster than any point in time in the last ~3,000 years. Not only that, the ocean rise is causing city flooding to accelerate.

According to the report, seal levels will likely rise somewhere between 1–4 feet by the end of the century, but increases up to 8 feet can’t be ruled out (~2.5 meters). For context, approximately 150 million people around the world live within one meter of current sea level. 

If you live away from the shores, you are not immune to the impacts of climate change. The report delves into the increases in extreme weather. For instance, heavy rainfall is increasing across the United States as well as globally. These increases will continue into the future and they are already leading to more severe flooding. The prediction that scientists made that wet areas will become wetter is turning out to be true. 

There are more extreme heatwaves as well. Not only are we seeing more heat waves (and severe droughts), but in the next few decades, the authors predict temperatures will rise by ~2.5°F (~1.5°C) in the United States. This is an enormous change in temperature that will reshape the country. Similar changes are occurring and will occur in other countries.

What the report also shows is that the biggest uncertainty in future climate change is us. What will humans do about it? We have the choice of taking action now to reduce future climate change. Or, we can ignore the problem and face the consequences. That choice has tremendous implications. If we take strong actions to reduce greenhouse gases, we may be able to limit global warming by 2100 to 3.5°F (2°C) above pre-industrial temperatures. If we ignore the problem, we will face temperature increases as much as 9°F (5°C). The impact such a temperature change would have on agriculture, sea level, heat waves, droughts, and weather is almost unthinkable.

There is some hope in this report. Even with recent economic growth, the rate at which we emit greenhouse gases has not risen as fast as the past. This means it is possible to have a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

For those who say dealing with climate change is too expensive, they repeat a myth. In fact, ignoring climate change is much more expensive then dealing with it. Had we taken action years ago when scientists first warned us of the problem we would be well on our way to effective mitigation. We’ve lost valuable years to the denialists. The more time we waste, the more expensive this problem will be in both lives and dollars.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ld-read-their-official-climate-science-report

http://www.globalchange.gov/


----------



## luutzu (6 December 2017)

basilio said:


> This is the latest article which pulls together what is happening with CC and the current and future consequences.
> 
> Not pretty but real.
> 
> ...




Never thought it's possible to have bushfires in Winter, but it's burning in California.


----------



## basilio (25 December 2017)

*Dealing with Global Warming and the destruction of Coral reefs
*
Perhaps there is a chance to intervene and save our coral reefs to a certain point.  Would be a good sign.

* New lab-bred super corals could help avert global reef wipeout *
Pioneering research on cross-species coral hybrids, inoculations with protective bacteria and even genetic engineering could provide a lifeline for the ‘rainforests of the oceans’

New super corals bred by scientists to resist global warming could be tested on the Great Barrier Reef within a year as part of a global research effort to accelerate evolution and save the “rainforests of the seas” from extinction.

Researchers are getting promising early results from cross-breeding different species of reef-building corals, rapidly developing new strains of the symbiotic algae that corals rely on and testing inoculations of protective bacteria. They are also mapping out the genomes of the algae to assess the potential for genetic engineering.

Innovation is also moving fast in the techniques need to create new corals and successfully deploy them on reefs. One breakthrough is the reproduction of the entire complex life cycle of spawning corals in a London aquarium, which is now being scaled up in Florida and could see corals planted off that coast by 2019.

“It is a story of hope, rather than saying ‘it’s all going to die and there’s nothing we can do about it’,” said Prof Madeleine van Oppen, from the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the University of Melbourne.

The researchers, who presented their cutting-edge work at a conference at the University of Oxford last week, acknowledge that such serious biological interventions on coral reefs could be seen as controversial or risky.

“But it is too late to leave them alone, given the pace at which we are losing corals,” said van Oppen, who said the broad aim is to speed up natural evolutionary processes. “I don’t have any problem with that. We have already intervened in the marine environment tremendously and there is no part where we cannot see human influence.”

Coral reefs are critical ecosystems in the oceans, hosting more than a million species and sustaining natural services worth $10tn a year, including providing vital food for 500 million people. But climate change is heating the oceans and causing corals to bleach: reefs could die out as early as 2050, with perhaps half already gone.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-corals-could-help-avert-global-reef-wipeout


----------



## wayneL (25 December 2017)

Merry Christmas to you too bas


----------



## explod (25 December 2017)

Yep Merridy exmas.  As a shearer in the 1960's myself can relate to this bloke:



"Not long after leaving school, I followed the well-trodden path of many farm girls and boys; packing my bags and joining a shearing team. Through 40-plus degree days of skirting fleeces and grinding blades (hot tip, this is not a good way to cool down) on the edge of the pastoral country during a Western Australian summer as a 17-year-old, I had no idea the suffocating heat was rapidly becoming a defining feature of our changing climate. Fast forward more than a decade and as I write this, in Crookwell, NSW it’s 38 degrees and a local sheep farmer has come in from an early morning start – forced to muster his lambs before the inescapable heat stresses livestock, and farmers. Shaking his head as the sweat drips down, he wonders how to adjust to temperatures 14 degrees above average.


For most urban dwellers, summer means time by the pool and flocking to the nearest shopping centre when the heat becomes too much. For Australian farmers, summer means something very different. 

A heatwave means never-ending water runs, relishing the chance to clean out troughs in the hope that wet jeans will keep you cool for at least a few minutes.

It’s the sight of working dogs collapsed in the shade of the field bin – seeking just a short reprieve from the inescapable heat. It’s the constant fear of header fires; when everything is bone-dry and the slightest spark from overheated machinery can create a raging inferno; endangering lives and wiping out crops, pastures and infrastructure.

According to CSIRO and BOM data from 1950-2013, heatwaves are more frequent over much of Australia. The first heatwave of each season is occurring earlier, virtually everywhere, and the hottest days of heatwaves are becoming even hotter. Like most farmers, I’m a big fan of our sunburnt country, our land of drought and flooding rains. What I’m less fond of is the flow-on impacts of the increased number and intensity of heatwaves which are rapidly becoming a defining feature of climate change. Fruit, vegetables, grains, and grapes all struggle to cope under hot conditions. Fruit wilts in the paddock and grapes ferment before your eyes; tempers fray as the stress of maintaining farm productivity under unprecedented conditions takes its toll.

For livestock producers, the burden is immense with heatwaves dramatically impacting on the well-being and productivity of beef and dairy cattle, with many struggling to ever return to pre-heatwave productivity levels. Sheep farmers are no better off, with studies demonstrating a drop in ram fertility as a result of heatwave conditions.

What does this mean for productivity on farm, and what can our farmers do to adjust? Many are already leading the way by integrating sprinkler systems into feedlots, going off the grid to ensure reliable energy supplies as our coal-fired power stations melt down in the heat – a heat which they’ve helped to perpetuate. Others are turning to vegetation and even shade cloth for some degree of protection. Meanwhile, our scientists work against time to expand the reach of heat and drought-tolerant crop varieties.  

While farmers are sweltering in the paddocks and crops are literally sizzling on the stalks, our federal government has comprehensively failed to develop a credible and cohesive climate and energy policy framework to alter Australia’s climate trajectory. In the air-conditioned halls of Parliament, our leaders are cushioned from the realities of climate change. Our farmers are not."

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/5135637/farmers-on-the-front-line-of-climate-change/


----------



## dutchie (3 January 2018)

Global warming causes brutal record-breaking cold snap hitting northern United States and Canada.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-29/cold-weather-hits-northern-us-and-canada/9291644


----------



## basilio (5 January 2018)

The oceans are suffocating. If they go,  we go.

* Oceans suffocating as huge dead zones quadruple since 1950, scientists warn *
Areas starved of oxygen in open ocean and by coasts have soared in recent decades, risking dire consequences for marine life and humanity




A fisherman on a beach in Temuco, Chile that is blanketed with dead sardines, a result of algal blooms that suck oxygen out of the water. Photograph: Felix Marquez/AP
Damian Carrington Environment editor

@dpcarrington

Fri 5 Jan ‘18 06.00 AEDT   Last modified on Fri 5 Jan ‘18 20.17 AEDT


*Shares*
6280
 
* Comments*
 1,565 
Ocean dead zones with zero oxygen have quadrupled in size since 1950, scientists have warned, while the number of very low oxygen sites near coasts have multiplied tenfold. Most sea creatures cannot survive in these zones and current trends would lead to mass extinction in the long run, risking dire consequences for the hundreds of millions of people who depend on the sea.

Climate change caused by fossil fuel burning is the cause of the large-scale deoxygenation, as warmer waters hold less oxygen. The coastal dead zones result from fertiliser and sewage running off the land and into the seas.

The analysis, published in the journal Science, is the first comprehensive analysis of the areas and states: “Major extinction events in Earth’s history have been associated with warm climates and oxygen-deficient oceans.” Denise Breitburg, at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in the US and who led the analysis, said: “Under the current trajectory that is where we would be headed. But the consequences to humans of staying on that trajectory are so dire that it is hard to imagine we would go quite that far down that path.”

“This is a problem we can solve,” Breitburg said. “Halting climate change requires a global effort, but even local actions can help with nutrient-driven oxygen decline.” She pointed to recoveries in Chesapeake Bay in the US and the Thames river in the UK, where better farm and sewage practices led to dead zones disappearing.

However, Prof Robert Diaz at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, who reviewed the new study, said: “Right now, the increasing expansion of coastal dead zones and decline in open ocean oxygen are not priority problems for governments around the world. Unfortunately, it will take severe and persistent mortality of fisheries for the seriousness of low oxygen to be realised.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/oceans-suffocating-dead-zones-oxygen-starved


----------



## basilio (7 January 2018)

* 2017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming *
Climate scientists predicted the rapid rise in global surface temperatures that we’re now seeing




Firefighters lighting backfires as they try to contain the Thomas wildfire in Ojai, California on on December 09, 2017. Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images
Dana Nuccitelli

Tue 2 Jan ‘18 22.00 AEDT   Last modified on Wed 3 Jan ‘18 06.28 AEDT


*Shares*
3571
 
* Comments*
 268 
2017 was the second-hottest year on record according to Nasa data, and was the hottest year without the short-term warming influence of an El Niño event:


 Facebook   Twitter   Pinterest 
1964–2017 global surface temperature data from Nasa, divided into El Niño (red), La Niña (blue), and neutral (black) years, with linear trends added.
In fact, 2017 was the hottest year without an El Niño by a wide margin – a whopping 0.17°C hotter than 2014, which previously held that record. Remarkably, 2017 was also hotter than 2015, which at the time was by far the hottest year on record thanks in part to a strong El Niño event that year.

For comparison, the neutral El Niño conditions and the level of solar activity in 1972 were quite similar to those in 2017. 45 years later, the latter was 0.9°C hotter than the former. For each type of year – La Niña, El Niño, and neutral – the global surface warming trend between 1964 and 2017 is 0.17–0.18°C per decade, which is consistent with climate model predictions.




 Facebook   Twitter   Pinterest 
1964–2017 global surface temperature data from Nasa, divided into El Niño (red), La Niña (blue), and neutral (black) years, with linear trends added. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming


----------



## Logique (10 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> Disagreeing with your non scientific opinion is turning people away from this site?
> Good Lord Plod! That's even more ridiculous than your previous post.



This thread is a vestigial  indulgence for the few remaining warmist zealots.  Incited by their political commissars, whilst it is convenient for the background Leftist narrative.  

Australians aren't silly. They will examine their electricity bills. Especially in South Australia, which now has the most expensive electricity in the world. 

As for the Aus BoM, caught out falsifying the minimum temperature readings for Goulburn and Canberra. They are part of the problem. Minimal credibility.


----------



## basilio (10 January 2018)

*2017 Was the Third Hottest Year on Record for the U.S.*
Only 2012 and 2016 were warmer than last year





The remains of a fire damaged homes and cars at the Journey's End Mobile Home Park on October 9, 2017 in Santa Rosa, California. _Credit: Justin Sullivan Getty Images_

Last year was the third hottest on record in the United States, with an average temperature of 54.6 degrees Fahrenheit—2.6 F above average.

Only 2012 and 2016 were warmer than 2017, according a new report from NOAA. The five hottest years on record in the country have been in the last decade, based on 123 years of record-keeping.

The record heat means that every year since 1997 has been warmer than average in the United States. And in 2017, every state had a warmer-than-average year, and 32 recorded one of their 10 hottest years on record, according to NOAA.

"In 2017, every state in the Lower 48 had an average temperature that was above average, and this is the third consecutive year that has been the case," said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "It's a continuation of what we saw in 2016, what we saw in 2015, and we also saw a continuation in 2012, so the warmth in 2017 really was observed coast to coast."

Five states—Arizona, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina and South Carolina—had their warmest years on record, according to NOAA. Alaska had its warmest December ever, 15.7 F above the average, for a statewide average of 19.4 F.

After two-thirds of the contiguous United States experienced a blast of Arctic air and low temperatures in the single digits in December, President Trump tweeted that more global warming might help make the weather less cold.

"Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against," he wrote, in reference to the Paris climate agreement.

Scientists have long explained that winter and record cold snaps will not disappear as a result of climate change, and that cold spikes may get worse as a result of shifting weather patterns under global warming.

"We do live in a warming world, but we do have very cold poles, and we still have the weather systems that pull cold air away from those poles into areas where we live," said Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.

NOAA and NASA will release their global temperature report next week. Based on data recorded this year, they will likely announce that 2017 is the second- or third-warmest year on record.

_Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net._

*ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)*
Scott Waldman

*Recent Articles*

Climate Change May Have Helped Spark Iran's Protests
States to Revive Climate Panel Disbanded by Trump
Algae Growth Speeds Up Greenland's Melting
ClimateWire


*2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record*



*Earth Sees 11 Record Hot Months in a Row*



*California Wildfire Sets Grim Record*




https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2017-was-the-third-hottest-year-on-record-for-the-u-s/


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

basilio said:


> *2017 Was the Third Hottest Year on Record for the U.S.*
> Only 2012 and 2016 were warmer than last year
> 
> 
> ...



You mean to say that the world has cooled since 2016! 

How do you account for this startling change in the climate trend? 
Did somebody stop driving their SUV?


----------



## basilio (11 January 2018)

*2017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming *

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2018)

basilio said:


> *2017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming *
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming




And the deniers will just turn up the air con another notch and pretend everything is ok.


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2018)

This is the kind of article I'm interested in. It expands climate change on the basis of wet bulb temps as opposed to being obsessed with dry bulb (sensible). e.g. enthalpy is what air conditioners are sized on because evaporator coils have to handle both latent and sensible heat.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2007-willett/1INTRO.pdf



> The climate system of the Earth is ever changing across all space and time scales. Evidence for past changes arises from “proxies” such as ice cores and geological records, and for more recent times from tree rings, coral growth, and historical documentary records. Only over the last two Centuries have we been actively measuring the atmosphere. Since the late 18th Century, measurements by thermometers and other surface instruments on land have been available along with measurements made by ships. After the Second World War, balloon-based sounding of the free atmosphere began and finally, since the 1970s satellites have also been employed to monitor the climate system....................


----------



## basilio (14 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> This is the kind of article I'm interested in. It expands climate change on the basis of wet bulb temps as opposed to being obsessed with dry bulb (sensible). e.g. enthalpy is what air conditioners are sized on because evaporator coils have to handle both latent and sensible heat.
> 
> https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2007-willett/1INTRO.pdf




Yes interesting.
High heat plus high humidity will be/is the killer with global warming. We don't need a longitutional study to establish that reality; it's arrived.

*Humidity could be the killer with climate change*
Conditions so severe that the human body can no longer cool itself could make some parts of the world all but uninhabitable. Richard A. Lovett reports on the new research.

 
In January 2015, thermometers in Marble Bar, Western Australia, touched 50 °C – a single degree shy of the national record. But it’s extreme humidity records we should be taking more notice of, a wave of new research suggests.

As the climate changes, deadly heatwaves that combine high temperatures with humidity so severe that the human body can no longer cool itself, could start to affect regions of the world currently home to hundreds of millions of people. That’s the conclusion reached by Columbia University’s Ethan Coffel, reported at an American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December.

In 2010, climate scientist Steven Sherwood from the University of New South Wales first highlighted the humidity problem. He modelled the widespread occurrence of extreme humidity events we might see by the end of the century, should worst-case CO2 emissions raise average global temperatures by 7 °C.

Coffel’s study, however, used the latest IPCC climate projections for 2060 and found regional, relatively near-future effects from much more modest heating.

This extreme humidity is less likely to occur in arid spots like Marble Bar. Coffel’s climate models suggest that there is more risk in India, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries along the Persian Gulf – environments where hot air meets very warm coastal waters.

 'A 35 °C wet-bulb temperature is the point at which your sweat will not evaporate'

To model these events, Coffel looked at a number called the wet-bulb temperature, which combines heat and humidity into a single metric.

Wet-bulb temperature is taken by placing a damp cloth over the thermometer’s bulb. Evaporation cools the bulb, the same way perspiring cools the body. As humidity increases, the cooling effect slows. For many mammals, including humans, 35 °C wet-bulb temperature is critical.

“In theory, a 35 °C wet-bulb temperature is the point at which your sweat will not evaporate,” Coffel says.

At that point, even the fittest young adult is unlikely to survive more than a few hours before fatally overheating. But lower wet-bulb temperatures can still claim the lives of the elderly or infirm. Deadly heat waves in India and Pakistan that killed 5,000 people in 2015 only produced wet-bulb temperatures in the range of 29-31 °C, he says.

Coffel found that by 2060, an estimated 600 million people will live in regions at risk of heat waves producing wet bulb temperatures hitting 32 °C. Of these, 250 million could see heat waves with wet-bulb temperatures of 33 °C, and 50 million could see 34 °C – one degree shy of the limit.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/humidity-could-be-killer-climate-change


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 January 2018)

More records broken, this time in Qld:

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/71797-qld-swelters-are-mercury-soars-past-40c.html

This sort of thing is becoming so common that it barely makes headline news these days. It used to but not now.

Meanwhile we've now had 11 consecutive _years_ of above normal temperatures in Tasmania. Yes, 11 years. The details differ but the basic trend is the same in every state except the NT (ignoring the technicality of the NT not actually being a state but that's irrelevant in this context).

Regardless of the reasons it seems very clear to me that it's getting warmer. That's what the data shows.


----------



## Tisme (15 January 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> More records broken, this time in Qld:
> 
> http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/71797-qld-swelters-are-mercury-soars-past-40c.html
> 
> ...



 Remember QLD is at best sub tropical, so a 40°C day here is far worse than a typical 40°C in say Perth or Adelaide.


----------



## explod (15 January 2018)

The other issue becoming apparent is the volatility.   Sure in the past after heat we'd have a cool change,  usually just a southerly breeze here in Melbourne around 4pm, you could set your clock on it.


A few days back we were roasting and in the night all clothes off with the fan on.   The last two nights very cold,  last night the electric blanket on.  Had to wear a jumper to go up the street this morning.   And this is January.


----------



## moXJO (15 January 2018)

explod said:


> The other issue becoming apparent is the volatility.   Sure in the past after heat we'd have a cool change,  usually just a southerly breeze here in Melbourne around 4pm, you could set your clock on it.
> 
> 
> A few days back we were roasting and in the night all clothes off with the fan on.   The last two nights very cold,  last night the electric blanket on.  Had to wear a jumper to go up the street this morning.   And this is January.



Thailand up in lampang got down to 10 degrees. They tend to wear snow weather gear when it hits 23 degrees. But 10 degrees is colder then anyone remembers.
 They also enjoyed 50 plus degrees not too long ago.


----------



## sptrawler (14 February 2018)

Nothing to do with global warming, but good footage of a flooding in NW W.A.


----------



## basilio (28 March 2018)

New tack on CC by Big Oil.  Interesting  headlines and first paragraph but the rest of the story bears a close look as well.
* In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial *
If even oil companies accept human-caused global warming, why doesn’t everybody?

Dana Nuccitelli

Fri 23 Mar 2018 06.00 EDT   Last modified on Fri 23 Mar 2018 06.02 EDT


*Shares*
1772
 
* Comments*
 585 



A combination of file photos shows the logos of five of the largest publicly traded oil companies - BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Total. Photograph: REUTERS/Reuters
In a California court case this week, Judge William Alsup asked the two sides to provide him a climate science tutorial.

The plaintiffs are the coastal cities of San Francisco and Oakland. They’re suing five major oil companies (Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips and BP) to pay for the cities’ costs to cope with the sea level rise caused by global warming. Chevron’s lawyer presented the science for the defense, and most notably, began by explicitly accepting the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, saying:

*From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change

Chevron’s first slide quotes #IPCC: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Says there is no debate on this consensus. #climatetutorial #climateliability

10:06 am - 21 Mar 2018 

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial
*


----------



## SirRumpole (28 March 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Nothing to do with global warming,




How do you know it has nothing to do with global warming ?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 March 2018)

basilio said:


> Chevron’s first slide quotes #*IPCC*: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Says there is no debate on this consensus. #*climatetutorial* #*climateliability*




Yep, it's time for the cynics to take notice of their masters.


----------



## basilio (3 April 2018)

And the consequences of years of human generated global warming ?  Don't hang onto your seaside estates for much longer.

* Underwater melting of Antarctic ice far greater than thought, study finds *
The base of the ice around the south pole shrank by 1,463 square kilometres between 2010 and 2016

Jonathan Watts

Mon 2 Apr 2018 12.18 EDT   Last modified on Mon 2 Apr 2018 17.00 EDT


*Shares*
664




An Adelie penguin standing on a block of melting ice in East Antarctica. Photograph: Reuters
Hidden underwater melt-off in the Antarctic is doubling every 20 years and could soon overtake Greenland to become the biggest source of sea-level rise, according to the first complete underwater map of the world’s largest body of ice.

Warming waters have caused the base of ice near the ocean floor around the south pole to shrink by 1,463 square kilometres – an area the size of Greater London – between 2010 and 2016, according to the new study published in Nature Geoscience.

The research by the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds suggests climate change is affecting the Antarctic more than previously believed and is likely to prompt global projections of sea-level rise to be revised upward.
*

Until recently, the Antarctic was seen as relatively stable. Viewed from above, the extent of land and sea ice in the far south has not changed as dramatically as in the far north. 


But the new study found even a small increase in temperature has been enough to cause a loss of five metres every year from the bottom edge of the ice sheet, some of which is more than 2km underwater.*

“What’s happening is that Antarctica is being melted away at its base. We can’t see it, because it’s happening below the sea surface,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd, one of the authors of the paper. “The changes mean that very soon the sea-level contribution from Antarctica could outstrip that from Greenland.”

The study measures the Antarctic’s “grounding line” – the bottommost edge of the ice sheet across 16,000km of coastline. This is done by using elevation data from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 and applying Archimedes’s principle of buoyancy, which relates the thickness of floating ice to the height of its surface.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ctic-ice-far-greater-than-thought-study-finds


----------



## explod (12 April 2018)

Cooking.

”The mercury topped out at 35.4C in Sydney’s CBD at 2.25pm. The average maximum for April is a mere 22.5C. Sydney Airport was even hotter reaching 36.8C.
At 36.3C at 3pm, Adelaide has also experienced its hottest April day ever, beating a record set back in 1938.
Canberra, too, is experiencing summer like day way above average for autumn, with its warmest start to the month on record.
“It’s a big milestone (for Sydney) as it’s also the warmest start to April on record when you average out maximum temperatures so far,” Tom Saunders, a meteorologist at Sky News told news.com.au.
Given Sydney has some of Australia’s most extensive weather data, going back 150 years, breaking the April record is no mean feat.
“But I can’t say I’m surprised that the record was broken today. 2016 was the most recent record breaking April in Sydney and much of that is due to global warming,” said Mr Saunders.”

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/…/…/a6d526dfcf55d518500afded08729eef…


----------



## explod (13 April 2018)

And on the toes of the record heat yesterday we're going to have some snow tomorrow.

The melting recently discovered under the Antarctic is kicking in now.  The displacement effect is accelerating.


----------



## moXJO (14 April 2018)

explod said:


> And on the toes of the record heat yesterday we're going to have some snow tomorrow.
> 
> The melting recently discovered under the Antarctic is kicking in now.  The displacement effect is accelerating.



Yeah its definitely changed weather patterns. My fathers fruit and veggie patch is going crazy. I'm seeing fruit being grown that previously wouldn’t grow here. Yep thats my scientific measure.

Personally I think we should be preparing for change rather then going hell for leather on carbon. Nothing we do is going to stop cc now. Better off investing in water security,  cool zones,  and better farm practice.  Cities will need further planning as well.


----------



## cynic (14 April 2018)

explod said:


> Cooking.
> 
> ”The mercury topped out at 35.4C in Sydney’s CBD at 2.25pm. The average maximum for April is a mere 22.5C....



Plod did you happen to notice the statistical "sleight of hand" being employed in this sentence.

It isn't actually saying whether or not a new maximum, for the month of April,was achieved, nor is it saying that a new maximum average was achieved!

In fact it isn't even telling you how that maximum temperature truly compares to those throughout the years used to calculate their *average* maximum, nor is it clear about which historical April days (i.e all of them, or only those 8 days corresponding with the elapsed portion of the current April month) were used for calculation of that *average* maximum.

It is mendacious employment of statistical trickery such as this, amongst other logically bereft practices, that gives skeptics ample justification for holding to a cynical stance.


----------



## basilio (14 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Plod did you happen to notice the statistical "sleight of hand" being employed in this sentence.
> 
> It isn't actually saying whether or not a new maximum, for the month of April,was achieved, nor is it saying that a new maximum average was achieved!
> 
> ...




*This is total and complete load of rubbish even for you Cynic. *If you ever care to actually pursue reality rather than the ridiculous  notions you conjure in your mind you will find that the temperatures across Australia in March /April 2018 have been *significantly* above the average temperatures of previous years.
This month in particular has set new temperature records that have toppled records set only a few years ago. The heat is on.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...e-settles-in-over-sydney-20180411-p4z920.html
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...k=8907bc9eb4bca2048547efd1b5644f98-1523663532
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...k=8907bc9eb4bca2048547efd1b5644f98-1523663590


----------



## basilio (14 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Yeah its definitely changed weather patterns. My fathers fruit and veggie patch is going crazy. I'm seeing fruit being grown that previously wouldn’t grow here. Yep thats my scientific measure.
> 
> Personally I think we should be preparing for change rather then going hell for leather on carbon. Nothing we do is going to stop cc now. Better off investing in water security,  cool zones,  and better farm practice.  Cities will need further planning as well.




Ok  MoXJO so you agree that CC is real and happening. 

Exactly how bad do you think it could get in the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years ? What will the consequences be ?  

Why does the scientific community demand that we radically reduce CO2 emissions even as the world is burning? Simply because these emissions are the fuel that will take our climate from hot to completely unbearable.
 And in any case fossil fuel is
1) Running out
2) Too expensive
3) Polluting the environment an
4) Destroying our climate.

Yeah we have to do everything you say in spades.  But if we want even a sliver of a chance to survive as a coherant society we have to take immense steps in reversing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...emissions-have-suddenly-started-rising-again/
https://reneweconomy.com.au/climate-change-1-5c-closer-imagine-44124/


----------



## cynic (14 April 2018)

basilio said:


> *This is total and complete load of rubbish even for you Cynic. *If you ever care to actually pursue reality rather than the ridiculous  notions you conjure in your mind you will find that the temperatures across Australia in March /April 2018 have been *significantly* above the average temperatures of previous years.
> This month in particular has set new temperature records that have toppled records set only a few years ago. The heat is on.
> https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...e-settles-in-over-sydney-20180411-p4z920.html
> http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...k=8907bc9eb4bca2048547efd1b5644f98-1523663532
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...k=8907bc9eb4bca2048547efd1b5644f98-1523663590



A one day maximum temperature, a third of the way into its calendar month, has been proclaimed as meaningful based upon a, highly inappropriate, comparison to the historical average maximum temperatures for that particular month!!!

In light of this, how does one pointing out the deviousness of such attempts at bamboozlement of the general populace, entitle another to retort with accusations of rubbish?

How about we take the time to look at the raw data employed, and then apply some appropriate metrics, before blindly accepting any claims to the relentless toppling of weather records.

That way we might be able to arrive at a clearer picture of what (if anything) may be truly happening, and thereby more confidently determine where the accusations of rubbish truly belong!!

Edit: I forgot to mention one of my own personal observations of the seeming shifting of seasons, relative to our calendar year, which (provided my observation is correct) would potentially render comparisons based upon calendar month invalid due to non correspondence with past seasons.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Why does the scientific community demand that we radically reduce CO2 emissions



At a purely personal level I've been aware of this issue since the 1980's and have given it an awful lot of thought over that time.

The problem is not engineering. Ways to drastically reduce CO2 do exist.

The problem is not a lack of materials. We have the materials to build the things needed to reduce CO2.

The problem is not lack of labour. There's enough people unemployed who could, with appropriate training, build this stuff.

The problem is not reasonable environmentalism. NIMBY's and those insisting on perfection or nothing with no concept of compromise can be a major obstruction but sensible science based conservation isn't standing in the way.

The problem is ultimately the financial system. So long as we've got an economic system which operates in only two modes, constant growth or outright collapse, it's a given that we'll in due course use every possible resource on the planet and that includes the atmosphere. Related to that is population growth, a massive problem in itself.

Now, how do we go about replacing pretty much the entire financial system? There's going to be a hell of a lot of resistance to that one.


----------



## moXJO (14 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Ok  MoXJO so you agree that CC is real and happening.
> 
> Exactly how bad do you think it could get in the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years ? What will the consequences be ?
> 
> ...



Money Bas.
I don't agree with Australia wasting money on carbon initiatives first. It's a waste of time and money.  The tech will come to reduce emissions and it won't be manufactured here. 
And even if Australia did reduce to zero,  it would still have no effect. Its a feelgood,  do nothing waste of money. If find most CC discussion alarmist bs.

We would be better to prep first with water and food security. These are things that Australia can actually do and help the rest of the world with.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2018)

cynic said:


> That way we might be able to arrive at a clearer picture of what (if anything) may be truly happening, and thereby more confidently determine where the accusations of rubbish truly belong!!



There are proper measurements that have huge potential use in research but in general you won't find any of those collected in an urban environment since that development itself skews the data.


----------



## basilio (14 April 2018)

MoKJO all CC discussion is alarming . In fact if you follow it clearly it is down right terrifying.  Unfortunately that doesn't make it wrong.

It's clear that CC is happening and the rate of change is, in fact, faster than was suggested even 10 years ago. The research to date looks at the consequences of allowing CO2 emissions to continue on their current path vs moving heaven and earth to reduce them. The difference in outcome is moving from just  disastrous to making the planet largely unihabitable for us.

Yes we do need to redirect our energies to food and water security.  Mind you *how *the driest continent on earth can create water security in a rapidly warming climate is the $1 Trillion  question.  Good luck with that.

On the overall picture of the fragility of our current climate check out the danger facing us as the Gulf Stram falls to it's weakest flow for 1600 years.

*Slow-Motion Ocean: Atlantic’s Circulation Is Weakest in 1,600 Years*
If hemisphere-spanning currents are slowing, greater flooding and extreme weather could be at hand


By Andrea Thompson on April 11, 2018
_Credit: Tim Graham Getty Images_
In recent years sensors stationed across the North Atlantic have picked up a potentially concerning signal: The grand northward progression of water along North America that moves heat from the tropics toward the Arctic has been sluggish. If that languidness continues and deepens, it could usher in drastic changes in sea level and weather around the ocean basin.

That northward flow is a key part of the larger circulation of water, heat and nutrients around the world’s oceans. Climate scientists have been concerned since the 1980s that rising global temperatures could throw a wrench in the conveyor belt–like system, with possibly stark climatic consequences. Sea levels could ratchet upward along the U.S. east coast, key fisheries could be devastated by spiking water temperatures and weather patterns over Europe could be altered.

Such concerns had been quelled over the last decade as climate models suggested this branch of the ocean’s circulatory system was not likely to see a rapid slowdown, which would slow any consequences. But two new studies, published Wednesday in the journal _Nature,_ suggest the recent weakening spotted by ocean sensors is not just a short-term blip, as some had thought. Rather, it is part of a longer-term decline that has put the circulation at its weakest state in centuries. The results imply climate models are missing key pieces of the puzzle, and that ill effects could be on their way.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...antics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/


----------



## moXJO (14 April 2018)

basilio said:


> MoKJO all CC discussion is alarming . In fact if you follow it clearly it is down right terrifying.  Unfortunately that doesn't make it wrong.
> 
> It's clear that CC is happening and the rate of change is, in fact, faster than was suggested even 10 years ago. The research to date looks at the consequences of allowing CO2 emissions to continue on their current path vs moving heaven and earth to reduce them. The difference in outcome is moving from just  disastrous to making the planet largely unihabitable for us.
> 
> Yes we do need to redirect our energies to food and water security.  Mind you *how *the driest continent on earth can create water security in a rapidly warming climate is the $1 Trillion  question.  Good luck with that.



We were suppose to be underwater by now. All the alarmist crap is - just crap. It doesn't help the discussion. And the propaganda put out by idiots on the left stopped debate. Remember the "you're a nazi if you don't believe in climate change". 

Israel is drier than us. You seen their tech?  $hits over ours, but they are rich. So yes I'm confident on water security


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2018)

Any chance those of you in the rest of the country could send some if your heat down to Tas?

Largely due to wind chill but it’s rather cold outside right now. Think I’ll turn the heater on.....


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Any chance those of you in the rest of the country could send some if your heat down to Tas?
> 
> Largely due to wind chill but it’s rather cold outside right now. Think I’ll turn the heater on.....




I'll send you some heat if you send some rain to NSW Central West.


----------



## wayneL (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'll send you some heat if you send some rain to NSW Central West.



I'll send you some rain,  from SEQ,  but you can keep the heat. If you like humidity,  I'll send some of that too. 

I'll take some of Smurfs cold though.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> I'll send you some rain,  from SEQ,  but you can keep the heat. If you like humidity,  I'll send some of that too.
> 
> I'll take some of Smurfs cold though.




That's a done deal.


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

SEQ predicted to have a really cold winter ...... I would suggest Noco would be asking the question


----------



## explod (14 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> SEQ predicted to have a really cold winter ...... I would suggest Noco would be asking the question



Yes he would and my reply,,  Europe had and extremely cold winter and the Arctic Circle was up to 30c above normal.  At times zero deg c when its supposed to be up to 50 below.  This is the displacement effect of the abnormal patterns.  Al Gore and most scientists did not anticipate this.  

Of course cold weather fits with the denier agenda but its not helping the problem go away, just kicking the can down the road.  Ok for an old fella but not for our future generations.


----------



## cynic (14 April 2018)

explod said:


> Yes he would and my reply,,  Europe had and extremely cold winter and the Arctic Circle was up to 30c above normal.  At times zero deg c when its supposed to be up to 50 below.  This is the displacement effect of the abnormal patterns.  Al Gore and most scientists did not anticipate this.



Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!

All this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given their overt unwillingness to separate fashionable opinions from "pseudo scientific" research practices.


> Of course cold weather fits with the denier agenda but its not helping the problem go away, just kicking the can down the road.  Ok for an old fella but not for our future generations.




The funny thing about agreement, is that it happens to be a form of denial of disagreement.
Whenever someone decries those in disagreement as deniers, the decrier is assuming a position of denial of those so decried!

So you too, are at least as guilty of denial, as those you so quickly accuse of same!


----------



## Tisme (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!
> 
> All this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given their overt unwillingness to separate fashionable opinions from "pseudo scientific" research practices.
> 
> ...




As someone who uses mathematical logic daily, it's refreshing to see some of it spill from morphemes to sentences.


----------



## explod (15 April 2018)

So its ok to ignore sudden rises in temperature of 40deg c in the arctic whilst at the same time record cold snow storms across Europe and just pretend alls ok.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

explod said:


> So its ok to ignore sudden rises in temperature of 40deg c in the arctic whilst at the same time record cold snow storms across Europe and just pretend alls ok.



With the possible exception of alarmism, I am not seeking to ignore anything.

What I would dearly like to witness, is a departure from alarmism, accompanied with a gravitation towards scientific practice, in order that humankind might, hopefully, gain a better understanding of the true nature and implications of the causation underlying any changes that may be occurring.

By what metric/s, can someone harbouring the aforesaid sentiments, be accused of ignoring events and/or being in denial?


----------



## Joules MM1 (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> What I would dearly like to witness.. a gravitation towards scientific practice....




https://twitter.com/SciSchreibs?lang=en
@SciSchreibs


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!




That carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen and various man-made chemicals trap heat in the atmosphere is a very well understood theory.

If the atmosphere didn't retain heat then every night would be a lot colder than it is now. Also a well understood concept.

Laboratory experiments, whilst obviously imperfect, do show the expected results. Proper scientists have done plenty of that and for what it's worth I had a go too just to see what happened. Add more CO2 and my simulated planet got warmer. Those who did it with more scientific rigour get the same results.

We are 100% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. It has been measured for decades at places distant from local pollution sources and then there's things like ice cores. We know it's increasing.

What nobody could honestly say they know is what effects this will bring. Anything there is theory and observation only, nobody can say for certain what the climate will be like in Melbourne, Vienna or Tokyo 50 years from now. Logic says that if the earth's overall temperature increases then that will have impacts but nobody's sure of the details. Predicting the exact closing value of the ASX200 on the 17th of July 2061 and who will be president of the USA a decade from now would be somewhat easier than predicting the fine details of climate change.

Does increasing CO2 cause warming = almost certainly yes. Works in theory. Works in a lab. Seems to be working in practice on earth. Even without the science, pure commonsense says that changing the composition of the atmosphere would likely result in _something _happening. 

What nobody knows for sure is what effects it's going to have. Anyone claiming otherwise is most certainly making assumptions.

That said, it's a fair point that there's at least some chance the effects will be seriously bad and, since there's no going back, it would be wise not to find out.


----------



## Tisme (15 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen and various man-made chemicals trap heat in the atmosphere is a very well understood theory.
> 
> If the atmosphere didn't retain heat then every night would be a lot colder than it is now. Also a well understood concept.
> 
> ...




The trouble with lab experiments is that, in this instance. it's like putting a small aquarium inside a much larger one and expecting the larger one not to influence the smaller one. Its the same problem scientists have with gravity.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen and various man-made chemicals trap heat in the atmosphere is a very well understood theory.
> 
> If the atmosphere didn't retain heat then every night would be a lot colder than it is now. Also a well understood concept.
> 
> ...




I fail to see how simple laboratory experiments, which are generally only able to consider a scant few of the potentially relevant factors (from the multitude that may be expected to exist in an entire planet with attendant ecosystems,atmosphere and astrophysical relationships etc.) can arrive at any confident statements about the effect of elevated concentrations of CO2.

In the absence of certainty, there is the chance that lasting effects, from such atmospheric change, may or may not exist. If lasting effects do exist, there is also (again in the absence of certainty) the chance that those effects are beneficial, detrimental or neutral!! In the absence of more comprehensive research, I am unable to claim certainty as to which it will be, but tend to favour the power of nature (as demonstrated throughout history) to have a healthy response to these predominantly natural emissions.  

The respiratory needs, consequent to the dramatically increased mammalian populace of the Earth, appears, to me, to be the more probable cause of the observed elevation in atmospheric CO2 levels. (If memory serves, the human population roughly doubled during the latter half of the twentieth century).

This fixation of climate alarmism on fossil fuels, as the only possible causation, and the accompanying claim that tolerance of such elevated levels, can only result in catastrophe, is at best extremely premature (and in likelihood seriously amiss).

As such I am doubtful that efforts to artificially reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, will achieve any lasting effect, beneficial or otherwise, and may even prove detrimental to the health of the populace due to the short term creation of an (thankfully unsustainable) hiatus in the flow of this "nature serving" gas throughout various ecosystems.

The what, why, and how questions need to be more  effectively addressed, if this issue is to be progressed towards satisfactory resolution (presuming an issue requiring resolution even exists!)

This presumption that our atmosphere isn't justified in holding elevated CO2 levels, consequent to the respiration needs of a more than doubled human populace, poses(in my opinion) a far greater threat to humankind, than the wildest imaginings of the more zealous proponents of climate alarmism.


----------



## satanoperca (15 April 2018)

Always thought the question of global warming or cooling was a silly one, as the answer is yes, the earths climate in constantly changing.

Has man contributed to the change? Yes, regardless of what sciences states.

To me the question should be "*Are humans polluting the earth and making it more difficult for all living creatures to survive?* _YES_

We have polluted the seas, the water ways, removed the lungs of the earth - forests through deforestation, polluted the air, destroyed the soil with chemicals  etc.

Will humans change their behaviour? NO. Have we stopped starvation/poverty with all the technology available to us today? Have with removed chemical and nuclear weapons? Have we created peace?

Will the earth survive and fight back? YES, but many species will become extinct, maybe even humans.

Whether people agree with me or not, this is just part of evolution in the long term.

What is a shame, is humans think we are the most intelligent species on the planet, but are we, are we no different to every other living form, only care about our existence in the moment.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2018)

So far as respiration is concerned that’s just part of the carbon cycle and under normal circumstances adds zero CO2 to the atmosphere since what you’re breathing out was removed from the atmosphere not long prior when the crops were grown.

There’s no denying that food production does emit considerable CH4 (methane) and NOx (various oxides of nitrogen) both of which are lower thermal conductivity gases than the nitrogen and oxygen which comprise most of the earth’s atmosphere.

As for lab experiments, me doing that was definitely in a manner that lacked sufficient rigour and really more for entertainment value than anything but that it produced the anticipated results wasn’t likely a coincidence given that the insulating properties of various gases are well understood and the concept has commercial application in, among other things, the power industry.

That different gases have different levels of thermal conductivity is known with certainty and has practical application. There’s no argument there since it’s measured, known and put to use.

Whether or not a minor change in the earth’s atmosphere matters is the question to my understanding.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as respiration is concerned that’s just part of the carbon cycle and under normal circumstances adds zero CO2 to the atmosphere since what you’re breathing out was removed from the atmosphere not long prior when the crops were grown.
> ...



On the contrary, the CO2 exhalations of the populace require the atmosphere as a conduit! A doubling of the populace, doubles the respiratory contribution present in our atmosphere at any given time!

In effect it is simply a doubling of the volume of discernible CO2 traffic, in correspondence to the doubled populace, but not a banking up of CO2 traffic.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> In effect it is simply a doubling of the volume of discernible CO2 traffic, in correspondence to the doubled populace, but not a banking up of CO2 traffic.



True but it’s the “banking up” not the flow which is the issue of concern (noting that CO2 exhaled by humans was extracted from the atmosphere before being exhaled).

It’s the net addition of CO2 which is causing concern.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> True but it’s the “banking up” not the flow which is the issue of concern (noting that CO2 exhaled by humans was extracted from the atmosphere before being exhaled).
> 
> It’s the net addition of CO2 which is causing concern.



But what makes you, or any scientist for that matter, so certain that there has been a "banking up"?

The human populace has doubled!

We and much of our associated livestock continuously exhale CO2.

Why would any rational person, expect atmospheric CO2 concentrations, to remain static in the face of such a population explosion?

Has the minimum atmospheric CO2 level, requisite to the biological needs of the Earth's flora/fauna populace, ever been accurately quantified?

Has the rate by which this requisite level would be expected to change, in correspondence with fluctations in the Earth's populace, ever been quantified?

If so when, and how, was all this done?

Before deciding upon the solution we need to understand the problem, (presuming that a problem even exists).

In the absence of quality answers to these important questions, I fear that any hasty attempts at the reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels, other than culling of large portions of the Earth's populace, may prove, at best futile, and at worst downright dangerous!


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> But what makes you, or any scientist for that matter, so certain that there has been a "banking up"?




I’m not a scientist but the answer is measurement at places not exposed to localised influences (eg Cape Grim baseline air pollution monitoring station in Tas is an Australian facility doing such measurements and there are many others internationally).

The measurements clearly show that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I’m not a scientist but the answer is measurement at places not exposed to localised influences (eg Cape Grim baseline air pollution monitoring station in Tas is an Australian facility doing such measurements and there are many others internationally).
> 
> The measurements clearly show that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing.



You may not be employed as a scientist, but if not the training, you certainly have the requisite aptitude.

Of course atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing! That is one of the few things I readily accept as true and correct. This was to be expected whilst humans continued to proliferate.

Raw measurements, carefully taken so as to minimise localised corruption (to the gleaned data), are truly wonderful!
However, those measurements alone aren't sufficient to explain causation,or quantify the volumes required to support the biological necessities for Earth's populace. 
So not actually answers to the questions posed. I fear too many presumptions are being made regarding causation.

The closest thing to an answer, that I have encountered to date, was an article,(featured on an Oceanographic website, to which another ASF member had kindly alerted me) claiming that the causation of CO2 elevations in atmospheric samplings, could be identified via a process of  "isotopic fingerprinting".

Suffice to say that amidst the impressive claims to the application of mass spectrometry and carbon dating principles, there were some creative assumptions, analogies, alongside seemingly convenient oversights, all in the accompaniment of multiple layers of data adjustments.
Justifications were offered for a number of these adjustments (e.g. fractionation, the claim that plants were fussy eaters and discriminated between different CO2 molecules based upon carbon isotope etc.)

One of several issues I had with the outlined approach, was the presumption that the way in which changes in isotopic ratios were interpreted, was dependent upon the presence of a one to one (as opposed to one to many) relationship between those rational changes and interpretations of same. The one to one presumption was demonstrably unjustifiable. (i.e. the changed isotopic ratios, could have, at minimum, two distinct causes, rendering the one to one presumption invalid). Upon noticing that I realised the futility of further entertaining the works of that particular novelist.

So I am again left with, more or less, the same unanswered questions!

Such as, why it is that it is somehow always assumed that the cause of these increases is solely artificial, as opposed to biological (or perhaps even geological)?

Based upon that which I have witnessed to date, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the reasoning has more to do with tacit political agendas than any findings of actual scientific research.


----------



## noirua (16 April 2018)

Some parts of Siberia and Canada just cant wait for global warming to speed up more. If the average temperatures in Australia was minus 2 degrees with lows around minus 40 degrees you may end up praying for it.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

noirua said:


> Some parts of Siberia and Canada just cant wait for global warming to speed up more. If the average temperatures in Australia was minus 2 degrees with lows around minus 40 degrees you may end up praying for it.



The problem is, it is also global cooling!

The climate brigade keep assuring us that nobody (other than that nefarious, research burying, oil industry, that so many love to hate), want what climate change promises to deliver.

Apparently everybody is going to get the sort of weather that they could not possibly want! Those needing the heat are going to get cooler, and those wanting it cooler are assured of a roasting!

I believe that this is the reason why Global Warming had to be rebranded as Climate Change, when it was being marketed to the masses!

It leads me to wonder how it was that the climate managed to evolve such a mighty intellect, as to be able to ascertain how to differentiate the selection and geographical delivery for its repertoire of punishments.

So when the weather is warmer, the climate brigade crows "Itoldyasoooo!" and when it gets cooler the climate brigade crows "Itoldyasoooo!"

And they are of course quite right, they did "tell us so!" with their "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition.


----------



## explod (16 April 2018)

You're like a spinning top there cynic, this way that way up and down, anything to counter any argument against your take.

Climate change/global warming is a topic on a world scale for good reason and most can physically see it accelerating.

The air is getting dirty exponentially against the steadiness of the past which allowed our general evolution.  The oceans are filling up with plastic killing the fish.  Our forests are disappearing, cities are clogging with traffic, we are running out of places to grow food and one could go on.  You can not claim that things are ok and insinuate that we are some form of idiocracy from the commoleft.  Growing numbers are merely concerned for the future and that it will be too bad for our children etc to adapt.  In that I'm not saying it's black and white, I'm saying that to most people it looks bad and that we should not stand idly by.

We have to stop using coal and oil and the by products such as plastic and we have to stop population growth.  This means the end of industrialisation as we've known, no more cars or other mechanical movement and a return to village clusters where we survive by growing and living on vegetable matter only and regrowing our forests to try and repair the planet.  In a lot of places even in Australia this is consciously starting to occur.

However, honestly, what I hope for is not possible and we are going to go down the gurgler.  But to try and maintain its normal for the climate change happening now is incorrect.


----------



## orr (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> So I am again left with, more or less, the same unanswered questions!
> 
> Such as, why it is that it is somehow always *assumed* that the cause of these increases is solely artificial, as opposed to biological (or perhaps even geological)?
> 
> I am becoming increasingly convinced that the reasoning has more to do with *tacit political agendas *than any findings of actual scientific research.




The increase from the pre-indusrtial era circa 280ppm to now 400+ppm have been reseached intensively, not least by Exxon i.e Burn billions of tonnes of geologically sequested and then extracted hyro carbons and solid carbon whislt compromising the very systems that sequest carbon from the atmosphere. The causes of the increase are known. To ignore this research, and the obvious, is your choice.
The political agendas  are well known to. Suggested reading; Naomi Oreskis ' Merchants Of Doubt'. For my benifit you could find negative critque of Oreskis book. I've found very little....


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

explod said:


> ...
> We have to stop using coal and oil and the by products such as plastic and we have to stop population growth.  This means the end of industrialisation as we've known, no more cars or other mechanical movement and a return to village clusters where we survive by growing and living on vegetable matter only and regrowing our forests to try and repair the planet.  In a lot of places even in Australia this is consciously starting to occur.
> 
> However, honestly, what I hope for is not possible and we are going to go down the gurgler.  But to try and maintain its normal for the climate change happening now is incorrect.




Unlike yourself, I make no definite claim, as to whether or not current atmospheric CO2 levels, pose a threat to the welfare of the Earth and/or its populace.

Unlike yourself, I make no definite claim, as to whether or not recent climate behaviours are out of accord with nature.

Unlike yourself, I make no definite claim, as to whether or not the climate has sustained any lasting and/or irreversible impact/s from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

_*Like*_ yourself, I sincerely believe everything I post.


Anyhow, it sure does sound like you have a very bleak view of humanity's future. (My understanding of what you are saying is that everybody is doomed with no possibility of redemption!)

Is there any upside to holding to your expressed convictions?

After all, if those convictions prove correct, then there is no solution! Nothing can be done to alter humanity's fate!

So the only true hope that remains for humanity, is for your convictions to turn out to be amiss in one or more respects!!

For the sake of the future welfare of humanity, and planet Earth, are you willing to be wrong?


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

orr said:


> The increase from the pre-indusrtial era circa 280ppm to now 400+ppm have been reseached intensively, not least by Exxon i.e Burn billions of tonnes of geologically sequested and then extracted hyro carbons and solid carbon whislt compromising the very systems that sequest carbon from the atmosphere. The causes of the increase are known. To ignore this research, and the obvious, is your choice.
> The political agendas  are well known to. Suggested reading; Naomi Oreskis ' Merchants Of Doubt'. For my benifit you could find negative critque of Oreskis book. I've found very little....



All potentially valid correlations should ideally be considered during investigation of causation, and not just the one's that happen to conveniently serve the political agendas of those seeking to depose capitalism!!


----------



## explod (16 April 2018)

Re-read my post cynic, I made no definite claims, merely stated what is observably taking place.  Clogged cities,* its a fact*, peak hour everyday here in Melbourne now except Sunday mornings

With attitudes and stubbornness to accept reality it should be pretty clear as to why I despair.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

explod said:


> Re-read my post cynic, I made no definite claims, merely stated what is observably taking place.  Clogged cities,* its a fact*, peak hour everyday here in Melbourne now except Sunday mornings
> 
> With attitudes and stubbornness to accept reality it should be pretty clear as to why I despair.



Are we talking about the same post?!!!

There are precious few, of the sentences in that post, that aren't making definite claims about one thing or another. Perhaps they weren't explicitly stating, three of the popular assertions, that I happened to be challenging.

So perhaps you believe that I have mistakenly attributed to you, certainties that you do not actually hold! Is that the case? (If so I sincerely apologise.)

In order to aid my understanding, by clearing away any misconceptions about where our points of disagreement actually reside:

Are you claiming uncertainty about, current atmospheric CO2 levels, posing a threat to the welfare of the Earth and/or its populace?

Are you claiming uncertainty about, recent climate behaviours, being out of accord with nature?

Are you claiming uncertainty about, the climate having sustained lasting and/or irreversible impact/s from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Are you claiming uncertainty, in the sincerity of your belief, in the things you post?


----------



## Knobby22 (17 April 2018)

"I would bet my house on it, that there's a climate change signal in this most recent heatwave," University of New South Wales climate scientist Sarah Perkins–Kirkpatrick said.

That quote is within an article commenting on the amazing record breaking temperatures the southern states of Australia have been getting this autumn. April is meant to average 20 degrees in Melbourne and we have been mostly in the 30s.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-17/april-heatwave-why-autumn-has-felt-more-like-summer/9664122


----------



## basilio (17 April 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> "I would bet my house on it, that there's a climate change signal in this most recent heatwave," University of New South Wales climate scientist Sarah Perkins–Kirkpatrick said.
> 
> That quote is within an article commenting on the amazing record breaking temperatures the southern states of Australia have been getting this autumn. April is meant to average 20 degrees in Melbourne and we have been mostly in the 30s.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-17/april-heatwave-why-autumn-has-felt-more-like-summer/9664122




It's not an El Nino year and we are seeing exceptional rises in average temperatures on top of records set only a few years ago. If one was concerned about a step change in climate happening rather than a steadily increasing rate this would be a worrying event.


----------



## explod (17 April 2018)

"The biggest problem is that measuring changes in global activity is very difficult to do with precision. That leads many to burrow deeper into the comfort of their personal worldview and shrug, “Wake me when you know for sure. In the meantime, there’s some ‘research’ here from the Heartland Institute or the American Petroleum Institute that says we have nothing to worry about.”

“We are dealing with a system that in some aspects is highly non-linear, so fiddling with it is very dangerous, because you may well trigger some surprises,” Rahmstorf says. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know. We should avoid disrupting the AMOC at all costs. It is one more reason why we should stop global warming as soon as possible.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/1...limate-scientists-warn-tipping-point-is-near/


----------



## basilio (17 April 2018)

Swedish response to Climate Change. Just makes sense..

* To lead on climate, countries must commit to zero emissions *
Isabella Lövin
The UK’s climate laws forged a path for others to follow. But as progressive nations commit to zero emissions, it must reclaim its leading role, writes Sweden’s deputy prime minister 

Tue 17 Apr 2018 06.34 EDT   Last modified on Tue 17 Apr 2018 06.37 EDT


*Shares*
What does it mean for a nation to be a “climate leader” in 2018?

At the very least, it must mean having a firm plan in place to deliver your nation’s fair share of the Paris agreement. During that stunning fortnight in December 2015, 195 governments freely and willingly committed not only to keep global warming well below 2C, but to aim for the safer level of 1.5C. And they committed to bring net greenhouse gas emissions down to zero.

I cannot help but feel huge pride that my government was the first in the western world to step up and deliver on the Paris agreement. In June last year, we adopted a target of cutting Sweden’s net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2045, and we set it in law. Within a generation, Sweden will not be contributing to the problem of climate change. Science tells us that if all nations adopt this target, there is a good chance that we will live up to the commitments that we made at the Paris summit, and keep climate change within safe boundaries.

Our law does not only set an emissions target and a date. Every year the government must present a progress report to parliament, and every four years it must make a new set of policies that deliver ever-greater emission cuts. This way we will ensure that we will make steady progress towards our net-zero target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...imate-countries-must-commit-to-zero-emissions


----------



## basilio (17 April 2018)

When did the multi-national oil company Shell become aware of the reality and dangers of Climate Change ? How about in 1991 when they produced a video explaining the cause and likely consequences of man made climate change.

It's particularly interesting at this time becasue there is a court case in the US which is attempting to decide on who is/has been responsible for global warming.

*Watch Shell's 1991 Video Warning of Catastrophic Climate Change*

*The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.*

However, since then the company has invested heavily in highly polluting oil reserves and helped lobby against climate action, leading to accusations that Shell knew the grave risks of global warming but did not act accordingly.

Shell’s 28-minute film, called Climate of Concern, was made for public viewing, particularly in schools and universities. It warned of extreme weather, floods, famines and climate refugees as fossil fuel burning warmed the world. The serious warning was “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their report to the United Nations at the end of 1990,” the film noted.
*“If the weather machine were to be wound up to such new levels of energy, no country would remain unaffected,” it says. “Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that to wait for final proof would be irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.”*

A separate 1986 report, marked “confidential” and also seen by the Guardian, notes the large uncertainties in climate science at the time but nonetheless states: “The changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”
The predictions in the 1991 film for temperature and sea level rises and their impacts were remarkably accurate, according to scientists, and Shell was one of the first major oil companies to accept the reality and dangers of climate change.
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/watch-shells-1991-video-warning-catastrophic-climate-change/


----------



## basilio (26 April 2018)

Perhaps some reality testing should be done on CC?  Dr Mayer Hillman has some clear ideas about our future.  The fact he is   saying nothing different to the "do nothing" models on action re CC.
*
Every, single  analysis of what will happen to the earth if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions comes to one apocalyptic conclusion - we and the earth as we know it are gone.*  But Mayers comments just pull it all together.

* 'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention *
By  Patrick Barkham
The 86-year-old social scientist says accepting the impending end of most life on Earth might be the very thing needed to help us prolong it

 @patrick_barkham 
Thu 26 Apr 2018 14.00 AEST


  

  
*Shares*
2045




Dr Mayer Hillman with his bike outside his home in London. Photograph: John Alex Maguire / Rex Features
“We’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And very few appear to be prepared to say so.”

Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.

From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record. But when it issues from Hillman, it may be worth paying attention. Over nearly 60 years, his research has used factual data to challenge policymakers’ conventional wisdom. In 1972, he criticised out-of-town shopping centres more than 20 years before the government changed planning rules to stop their spread. In 1980, he recommended halting the closure of branch line railways – only now are some closed lines reopening. In 1984, he proposed energy ratings for houses – finally adopted as government policy in 2007. And, more than 40 years ago, he presciently challenged society’s pursuit of economic growth.

....But he insists that I must not present his thinking on climate change as “an opinion”. The data is clear; the climate is warming exponentially. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the world on its current course will warm by 3C by 2100. Recent revised climate modelling suggested a best estimate of 2.8C but scientists struggle to predict the full impact of the feedbacks from future events such as methane being released by the melting of the permafrost.

Hillman is amazed that our thinking rarely stretches beyond 2100. “This is what I find so extraordinary when scientists warn that the temperature could rise to 5C or 8C. What, and stop there? What legacies are we leaving for future generations? In the early 21st century, we did as good as nothing in response to climate change. Our children and grandchildren are going to be extraordinarily critical.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

https://mayerhillman.com/


----------



## moXJO (26 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Perhaps some reality testing should be done on CC?  Dr Mayer Hillman has some clear ideas about our future.  The fact he is   saying nothing different to the "do nothing" models on action re CC.
> *
> Every, single  analysis of what will happen to the earth if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions comes to one apocalyptic conclusion - we and the earth as we know it are gone.*  But Mayers comments just pull it all together.
> 
> ...



He is discounting technological advances.


----------



## basilio (3 May 2018)

There is an international scientific study starting in Antartica focusing  on the stability of the Thwaites glacier.
Long story short this glacier is the cork that stops trillions of tons of land locked ice pouring into the oceans. Unfortunately there is concern that the effects of global warming have made it is dangerously unstable.  

If it fails global sea levels will rise quickly and steeply.

*'Cork' Glacier Holding Back Sea Level Rise May Pop*
By Rafi Letzter, Staff Writer |  April 30, 2018 11:18am ET









The calving front of Thwaites Ice Shelf photographed from the IceBridge research plane. The water acts as a blue filter for ice visible below the water's surface. Thwaites Glacier flows into Pine Island Bay, in West Antarctica.
Credit: NASA / Jim Yungel
The seas are rising. But just how dire is the situation?

That's the question that a huge team of international scientists is hoping to answer as it prepares to launch a major study of one of the main culprits of sea level rise: the Thwaites glacier.

More than 100 scientists from the U.S., United Kingdom, and other countries will begin a $27.5 million study of the glacier, which is located in West Antarctica, according to a report in The Guardian. Thwaites, as Live Science has previously reported, is one of a small cluster of glaciers that act like corks, holding back the enormous ice masses of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And, like its cousins, Thwaites' melting has accelerated rapidly in recent years.

https://www.livescience.com/62435-thwaites-glacier-sea-level-study.html


----------



## cynic (3 May 2018)

Maybe that 27.5M could have been better spent on insuring against the prophesied apocalypse.

Instead of scientists, 100 carpenters could be tasked with the construction of a very large boat, in which pairings of all the world's land dwelling heterosexual species of fauna could then be herded.


----------



## Tisme (3 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Maybe that 27.5M could have been better spent on insuring against the prophesied apocalypse.
> 
> Instead of scientists, 100 carpenters could be tasked with the construction of a very large boat, in which pairings of all the world's land dwelling heterosexual species of fauna could then be herded.




Would we build it in cubits by long armed people?


----------



## cynic (3 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> Would we build it in cubits by long armed people?



That would surely depend upon the obesity of the fauna populace, from which the pairings are to be selected.

In order to deduce this one must ask: 

Within which of the 7 years is the fauna populace grazing? 

Is it the 7 years of abundance, or the seven years of famine?

If the former, then long armed people will be mandatory for facilitation of the appropriate measurements. 

If the latter, then the services of amputees may be required.


----------



## wayneL (3 May 2018)

Hetrosexuals?

Not in the brave new postmodern LGBTIQDIDWHBXYEHHCEGHIURSGKHDHURGJHGERHJGFHJFHITDFH world.


----------



## basilio (3 May 2018)

*What would happen if the Thwaites glacier proves as unstable as feared and collapses in the near future ? *

This scenario didn't surface yesterday. If anyone was looking glaciologists had discovered in past few years that the warming ocean was reaching rapidly into the underside of the glaciers and lifting and detaching the glacier from its bedrock home. The glaciologists also discovered that after the last ice age there had been similar rapid collapses of icecliffs as the world started to warm. This is not new. 

So what would happen ?

*The fate of Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers in Antarctica is in the balance — and so is that of all our cities*
TWO enormous glaciers could soon irrevocably reshape our future. They’re melting. They’re fragmenting. And a cataclysmic collapse of an entire Antarctic ice sheet may be just decades away.

Jamie Seidel
News Corp Australia NetworkNovember 25, 201710:55am

Video
Image
1:43
/
3:24
Autoplay

*Antarctic Glacier Melting Due to High Winds, Causing Potential Impact to Sea Levels. Credit - Australian Antarctic Division via Storyful*









PINE Island. Thwaites.

These two names are likely to become increasingly familiar in future years.

They’re among Antarctica’s biggest and fastest-melting glaciers.

But what makes these different is that they’re fed from ice sitting on solid ground.

This ice does not displace the ocean.

That means all the water that melts off them must be added to the total mass forming the world’s seas.

Current calculations put that at roughly 3.4 meters.

According to US meteorologist Eric Holthaus, that’s enough to inundate every coastal city on our planet.

“There’s no doubt this ice will melt as the world warms,” Holthaus writes. “The vital question is when.”

And that’s the thing.

Scientists used to think it would take thousands of years for Antarctica’s ice sheets to melt under a warming atmosphere.

But new evidence shows it could happen within a few decades.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...s/news-story/cd363c1430b2788154f5bb14b44c1c39


----------



## explod (3 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> Hetrosexuals?
> 
> Not in the brave new postmodern LGBTIQDIDWHBXYEHHCEGHIURSGKHDHURGJHGERHJGFHJFHITDFH world.



Marcel Duchamp, Modernism in the hanging of the toilet seat 1917; then,

Postmodernity, the search for unreality; 

and then oh dear meee...comes

Climate Change, so shut the doors, block the ears and answer every question but the one put

Ole Pal


----------



## wayneL (3 May 2018)

I just think we need better questions...

...Ol' Bean


----------



## basilio (3 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> I just think we need better questions...
> 
> ...Ol' Bean





Fair enough.  Try this for size.

The International group of scientists researching the stability of the Thwaites glacier come to a conclusion in the next 3-5 years that there is a moderate/high/ certain probability that the glacier will collapse in the next 15-25 years with a consequential collapse of the ice cliffs it is buttressing.  As a consequence  there will be a large scale movement of the  inland ice cliffs into the Antartatic oceans from 2040 onwards and that by 2060 world wide sea levels will be 1.5 to 3 metres higher.

This dramatic increase in sea level will not stabilise at  this point with uncertain additional effects from the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and other inland ice sheets.

What do we do ?

(By the way  *scietists are certain there is no way* the Thwaites glacier will survive the current climate. The only question is when will the cork pop.)

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...acier-could-be-globally-catastrophic-thwaites
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/02/01/glacial-geoengineering-sea-level-rise/


----------



## cynic (3 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Fair enough.  Try this for size.
> ...from the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and other inland ice sheets.
> 
> What do we do ?
> ...



I have already answered that question, if you are so damned certain, then build a mighty big boat!


----------



## basilio (6 May 2018)

Maybe concerns about the collapse of the Thwaites glacier are totally unnecessary?
This perspective on the effects of  irreversible, run away CC by a biologist seem to take far more precedance.

Looking on the bright side... at least we won't to have worry about growing old and feeble or running out of money to finance our twilight years.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 May 2018)

basilio said:


> The International group of scientists researching the stability of the Thwaites glacier come to a conclusion in the next 3-5 years that there is a moderate/high/ certain probability that the glacier will collapse in the next 15-25 years with a consequential collapse of the ice cliffs it is buttressing.



Hi Basilio
That sentence doesn't make sense, something is missing.


----------



## basilio (6 May 2018)

_The International group of scientists researching the stability of the Thwaites glacier come to a conclusion in the next 3-5 years that there is a moderate/high/ certain probability that the glacier will collapse in the next 15-25 years with a consequential collapse of the ice cliffs it is buttressing.  basilio_



Knobby22 said:


> Hi Basilio
> That sentence doesn't make sense, something is missing.




I think it does make sense in the overall context of the West Antarctic ice cap being protected by the Thwaites glacier which sits on the edge of the ocean and is fed by the ice cap.

The article I was referencing a few posts earlier noted that all glaciologists are very concerned about the escalating collapse of the Thwaites glacier. It is being uncut by warm ocean waters which are lifting it off the bedrock and allowing it to slip faster and faster into the ocean.

Once upon a time scientists thought this break up would take centuries. However because the last 10-15 years has seen quite startling changes they now think break up of the glacier could happen much, much quicker - perhaps in a matter of a few decades.  

If in fact the glacier does collapse in 20-30-40 years the inevitable consequence will be a rolling collapse of the West Antartic ice shelf that is currently being supported by this glacier. The ice cliffs cannot support themselves.

Glaciologists are so concerned they are embarking on a 5 year program to do exhaustive studies of the Thwaites glacier around it, under it, through it and see if they determine when it might actually break up and if there is any way this process can be delayed or stopped.

If the analysis comes back with a high degree of confidence that the glacier will collapse in the next 20-40 years the inevitable consequence is the inundation of all world wide coastal cities. This would start happening within a decade of the collapse of the glacier because the volume of ice that would go into the sea would be that big. This rate of sea leve rise has a historical precedent.

The two articles I referenced go into more detail.


----------



## cynic (7 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Maybe concerns about the collapse of the Thwaites glacier are totally unnecessary?
> This perspective on the effects of  irreversible, run away CC by a biologist seem to take far more precedance.
> 
> Looking on the bright side... at least we won't to have worry about growing old and feeble or running out of money to finance our twilight years.




So are you now telling me that we no longer need to build that boat?

It looks like the 27.5M may have been needlessly wasted, when it could have been better used to send ourselves into oblivion with one ripsnorter of a doomsday eve party!


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2018)

Interesting,  and meshes with my observations 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488

*Abstract*
We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.


----------



## Tisme (8 May 2018)




----------



## cynic (8 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> Interesting,  and meshes with my observations
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488
> 
> ...



Interesting how this aspect of human behaviour was accurately prophesied long ago.
If only they had eyes willing to see, and ears willing to listen, our most zealous climate crusaders could then benefit from revision of the demonstrable truths underlying the following proverbs, : 



and


----------



## cynic (8 May 2018)




----------



## noirua (8 May 2018)

*Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable? = Yes!*
*Eventually when the earth is in a bad state it will be evacuated as people move to other planets.  That will then leave planet Earth about 10 thousand years to recover. During that time all humans will be banned from returning and thus hastening recovery.*


----------



## Sdajii (9 May 2018)

The climate has never stopped changing. It has been warmer than at present (many many times, including recently - only a few thousand years at most), it has changed at a faster rate than it currently is, and has always been in a chaotic cycle.

'Unstoppable' implies that it 'should' or was sitting stable, at some baseline, until humans started playing around. No climate scientist says this, and most of the people saying it are the climate alarmists. If it was currently 'unstoppable' (stoppable from doing what exactly?), whatever couldn't be stopped would have happened hundreds of millions/billions of years ago.

I am not a climate denier (sic), no doubt humans are interacting with the climate, but what the vocal folks say about it is complete nonsense. The actual climate scientists, biased as they are, mostly don't agree with the full on alarmists you hear from on social and mainstream media. They're inherently biased and no doubt their predictions will turn out to be massively exaggerated, just as their previous predictions which have had time to play out were seen to be. Yes, we are playing with the climate, but no one seems capable of being rational about it. They're either irrationally alarmist or playing ostrich. Anyone anywhere in the middle is accused by everyone else of being at their opposite extreme.


----------



## Tisme (9 May 2018)

Humans started meddling in climate change when they started burning the bush 70k years plus ago for game and consequently deserts. When they started oak building sailing ship armadas. When imbeciles cleared the prairies for dust storms and tornadoes. When they built huge dams in China that buggered up the reliability of monsoons. When they sealed up the ozone hole over antarctica which caused it to warm up ever since.


----------



## Tisme (9 May 2018)

http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-in-800000-years-20180508




> 11 hours ago  4  Shares
> *Carbon Dioxide Levels In Earth's Atmosphere Reach 'Highest In 800,000 Years'*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cynic (9 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-in-800000-years-20180508



Could Google searches be to blame for this dramatic increase?
http://www.janavirgin.com/CO2/


----------



## Sdajii (9 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> Humans started meddling in climate change when they started burning the bush 70k years plus ago for game and consequently deserts. When they started oak building sailing ship armadas. When imbeciles cleared the prairies for dust storms and tornadoes. When they built huge dams in China that buggered up the reliability of monsoons. When they sealed up the ozone hole over antarctica which caused it to warm up ever since.




Okay, so if you want to say humans started interacting (meddling implies it was deliberate) with the climate 70k years ago, look at what was happening before that. 100,000 years ago there were massive natural fluctuations taking place, including the same old things like tremendous sea level changes, enough to create land bridges between Australia and PNG, UK and mainland Europe, etc. This isn't something which only happened recently, it isn't something which only happened after humans first started lighting fires or walking upright. It has been happening for billions of years.

Yes, absolutely, since the industrial revolution humans are obviously interacting with the climate significantly, but it's by means unprecedented in pretty much any respect (you point out that the CO2 levels are the highest in a period of thousands of years, less than one million. Climate change has been occurring for *billions* of years: skip straight past the millions and go to billions. We don't even need to go to a million years ago to get the last time CO2 was this high, and CO2 levels are the biggest thing the alarmists are squawking about. If it last happened less than a million years ago and the climate has been there doing its thing for billions of years, it's obviously not that significant and even in terms of the entire history. It has happened many, many, many, many times before.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting this means it doesn't matter or isn't a problem or we shouldn't be concerned or do anything, but if it was 'unstoppable', whatever it is you say can't be stopped would have happened countless times before, but obviously it's just part of the big cycle and we haven't thrown it outside of those limits. Far far from it. Even if we went far enough to wipe out most life on the planet and completely destroy the place, it wouldn't make any climate pattern unstoppable. This catastrophic type event has already happened a small number of times over the planet's history, and even that is not unstoppable; in terms of climate it can and has been something which comes back to the normal range of the fluctuations.

Now, you're probably going to accuse me of trying to dismiss massive catastrophe or say it's acceptable or some such nonsense I didn't actually say. I am not belittling catastrophe, it would be by definition catastrophic and we must do everything possible to ensure it doesn't happen. My point is that even that is not unstoppable. Even if it gets that extreme, it's not like the climate goes into some positive feedback loop and turns the world into a lifeless irradiated rock and nothing can stop that. As soon as whatever has caused the climate to become radically out of the normal range (we're still well within the normal range at the moment), whether it's an asteroid or human interference or massive tectonic activity or anything else, once that influence stops, the climate will return to normal. To get to a point where 'global warming' or any other climate change was actually unstoppable, that is, even if the unusual influence, in this case human land clearing and fossil fuel burning etc was removed, it would continue, you would need to go way beyond the point where humans could not live on this planet. So, without some sudden impact such as setting off all the world's nukes simultaneously (even that may not be enough to cause unstoppable climate change), we can't cause unstoppable climate change which will permanently take the planet outside its normal climate range.

Again, don't accuse me of saying things I'm not saying. The title of the thread asks if global warming is becoming unstoppable. All I am really saying here is that the answer is a very clear and obvious no. This doesn't mean I'm a 'climate denier' (sic) or saying there is no problem or that we shouldn't be concerned or anything of the sort. Just that if humans stopped pushing the climate in the direction they currently are, the climate would just continue on in the current range, and even if we pushed it well outside its normal range (which we haven't yet done, but possibly will, but even that won't be as extreme as what has happened before, because if it was we'd almost all have died before we got there and before the time most of us were dead we'd stop, even if just because most of us were dead so we couldn't keep doing it, and even that wouldn't be taking the planet to unprecedented levels), it would then return to the normal range.


----------



## cynic (9 May 2018)

According to some scientists, its not going to be nearly so bad as the models are predicting:
https://mailchi.mp/thegwpf/press-release-new-data-imply-slower-global-warming?e=3acdae4011


----------



## Knobby22 (9 May 2018)

cynic said:


> According to some scientists, its not going to be nearly so bad as the models are predicting:
> https://mailchi.mp/thegwpf/press-release-new-data-imply-slower-global-warming?e=3acdae4011



I said quite a few years back that the increase is linear, not exponential as feared. The linear rate though has been faster than many models. Bit that doesn't mean a non linear effect won't kick in and we get a step change.


----------



## explod (9 May 2018)

Forget the models, its common knowledge that the melt in Antarctica for instance is happening underneath.

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-melting-glacier-sea-level-rise-a8285336.html

With a watery bottom it's all just going to slide off and a 2 or 3 metre sea level rise will occur very quickly from there.


----------



## basilio (9 May 2018)

I can see (maybe) how people can continue to dismiss global warming as serious. But now scientists using the most sophisticated tools ever created can map the undermining of glaciers over time, work out how much the glacier has thinned down, calculate how quickly the glacier is now moving (compared to only a couple of decades ago and present all this information as hard facts.

Not models. Not maths. Just reality.

And this reality has them all so concerned about a catastrophic near term collapse of the Thawaites glacier they have agreed to spend ungodly months on and under the glacier to get some  certainty about the likelehood of such an event.

What are the stakes in this game ? The end of the world as we know it.  The universal collapse of our current societies and world order. 

Does that sound too alarmist ? Just check out the effects on the worlds cities with a 2 metre rise in sea levels. And remember that this would just be the beginning of a relentless increase in sea levels as more ice sheets become unstable.

How do you decide where to build new cities (sounds simple in a sentence doesn't it..) to house a few hundred million people when you have absolutely no idea when the new sea level will finally settle?

And yet these facts and the concerns they raise are treated with the same disregard that the last 10,000 papers on global warming have been given. 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...s/news-story/2cd13d732b102365c9c708c4a223961f
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html


----------



## cynic (9 May 2018)

explod said:


> Forget the models...



If only I could! The esteemed climate cardinals, keep reminding me of their prophetic powers and decrying as heretics those daring to turn their eyes aside.


> ...
> With a watery bottom it's all just going to slide off and a 2 or 3 metre sea level rise will occur very quickly from there.



So I take it that boat will need to be built, after all! 
Better let others know. (Basilio seemed to think that it was "game over" inside the decade, for most of the human populace.)


----------



## wayneL (9 May 2018)

If only the alarmists would change their ways like we "deniers" have.....


----------



## luutzu (9 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> If only the alarmists would change their ways like we "deniers" have.....




Deniers have changed?

So CC exists now, just alert rather than alarmed Sifu?


----------



## cynic (9 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Deniers have changed?
> 
> So CC exists now, just alert rather than alarmed Sifu?



Yep its call the weather and its been changing in response to numerous cycles of varying duration throughout the entirety of Earth's history, some deniers have held this view from inception and therefore haven't changed, others have chosen to await confirmation via the results reported from application of the empirical scientific method.


----------



## luutzu (9 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Yep its call the weather and its been changing in response to numerous cycles of varying duration throughout the entirety of Earth's history, some deniers have held this view from inception and therefore haven't changed, others have chosen to await confirmation via the results reported from application of the empirical scientific method.




You know everyone know that the weather changes right? It's the magnitude and frequency that's the problem.

Has the world always had 7Billion people, and growing?
Deforestation was on the same scale?
Energy uses? Pollution? Roads? Industries? Mode of travel? etc. etc.

Isn't there some theory of thermal dynamics; Newton's laws of things remaining the same _unless_ something else acted on it. 

From a few million monkies swinging in the trees to DiCaprio and his jets... it's fair to say the world aren't exactly in the same condition as it was when we got it. 

But then there are those eggheads with their fancy lab coats and decades of knowing what the heck they're talking about... trying to be all smart and telling us about the weather like we can't switch on the TV or read the news to see with our own eyes.

Oh wait, you're saying that the scientific studies on CC so far aren't conclusive, more need to be done to be absolutely sure 100% that we're screwed. 

As my mother always say, you wait until the flood reaches your ankle then you jump.


----------



## cynic (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> You know everyone know that the weather changes right? It's the magnitude and frequency that's the problem.
> 
> Has the world always had 7Billion people, and growing?
> Deforestation was on the same scale?
> ...



Thanks for the sermonising.

Why would the fact of casually observable changes, equate to the imminent doom of the human populace?

Why is every noticeable variation in the weather, automatically deemed to be evidence of imminent catastrophe?

Where is empirical science to be found within the Climate religion?


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Has the world always had 7Billion people, and growing?
> Deforestation was on the same scale?
> Energy uses? Pollution? Roads? Industries? Mode of travel? etc. etc.




Well over half of all oil and gas ever used by man has been used in my lifetime.

At current rates of use we'll use as much oil in the next 11 years as we did for all time up to 1973.

And however many other such statistics one chooses to look at. It all comes down to this whole thing of mass consumption of resources being far more recent than most realise.

Whatever the effects are going to be, there's going to be a time lag and that's the scary bit. Assuming that increasing CO2 leads to higher temperature, it would continue warming for quite some time even if all man-made emissions were stopped completely literally right now. So whatever effects we're seeing now, there's more to come that's 100% certain no matter what we do.

My own views on the subject haven't shifted greatly over the years and I say that as someone who's taken a pretty keen interest in it since the 1980's.

We don't have a full understanding of natural processes and thus do not know with certainty what the effects of adding CO2, CH4 and other gases to the atmosphere is going to be.

Commonsense says that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere will have some effects including on temperature.

It is established fact that CO2 does act as a thermal insulator. This is well understood and has been since at least the late 1800's.

Given there is no practical means of reversing the change in the atmosphere and we do not fully understand the consequences it is rational to apply the precautionary principle.

CO2 and climate change are most certainly not the only environmental issues. It is arguable whether or not they are the most important, even that is not clear.

In practice humans will not act until presented with overwhelming evidence of a problem. This is the same sort of behaviour which leads to other preventable disasters such as financial crashes and property being destroyed by floods or fires which could have been avoided with appropriate actions. This mode of thinking is inherent to human nature and won't change so it's unwise to expect it to.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Where is empirical science to be found within the Climate religion?




Increasing world evidence of droughts, fires, floods, cyclones( or hurricanes what ever you want to call them), plus the record breaking temperatures around the world that have been occurring over the last decade or more.


----------



## Sdajii (10 May 2018)

On the topic of sea level rising, I think we're looking at it in the wrong way. In completely natural, normal, standard scenarios, the sea level fluctuates radically. People talk about a 1-2m sea level rise like it's the end of the world. That's stupid.

Consider that the last time Australia was connected to PNG by land, and the UK was connected to mainland Europe (and many other examples all over the world) was very, very recently. Don't believe me, google it. Over the last 100,000 years it happened *many* times. And before that, and so on. It's just what naturally happens. Imagine being able to walk to PNG. That's not a trivial difference in sea level.

So everyone is acting like if what happens completely routinely and naturally happens now, we're all going to be screwed and it's the end of the world. The sea level isn't supposed to be stable and it never has been stable. And it often naturally occurs quite quickly.

So, even if humans were having zero impact on the climate, this is an issue we would need to be dealing with. The fact we are probably making it zig rather than zag or zig or zag a little differently doesn't really change that much. Either way, the only possible way we could ever have stable sea levels and stable coast lines would be through human induced stabilisation, with a deliberately engineered climate. We are still a long long way away from that capability. Most people still seem to think that without human influence the climate would be stable!

Another thing I find very amusing is that virtually all of the very wealthy high profile climate alarmists own beachside properties. Let that sink in.


----------



## cynic (10 May 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Increasing world evidence of droughts, fires, floods, cyclones( or hurricanes what ever you want to call them), plus the record breaking temperatures around the world that have been occurring over the last decade or more.



I agree that there is empirical evidence of an increased amount of sensationalised media reporting!


----------



## Knobby22 (10 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> The climate has never stopped changing. It has been warmer than at present (many many times, including recently - only a few thousand years at most), it has changed at a faster rate than it currently is, and has always been in a chaotic cycle.
> 
> 'Unstoppable' implies that it 'should' or was sitting stable, at some baseline, until humans started playing around. No climate scientist says this, and most of the people saying it are the climate alarmists. If it was currently 'unstoppable' (stoppable from doing what exactly?), whatever couldn't be stopped would have happened hundreds of millions/billions of years ago.
> 
> I am not a climate denier (sic), no doubt humans are interacting with the climate, but what the vocal folks say about it is complete nonsense. The actual climate scientists, biased as they are, mostly don't agree with the full on alarmists you hear from on social and mainstream media. They're inherently biased and no doubt their predictions will turn out to be massively exaggerated, just as their previous predictions which have had time to play out were seen to be. Yes, we are playing with the climate, but no one seems capable of being rational about it. They're either irrationally alarmist or playing ostrich. Anyone anywhere in the middle is accused by everyone else of being at their opposite extreme.



You are referring to the ice age.
This is quite a different scenario.


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Deniers have changed?
> 
> So CC exists now, just alert rather than alarmed Sifu?



Sigh,  such a hard Grasshopper to teach. 

Did you not read the research I posted about relative behaviours? 

My views on cc are well documented I won't go through the tiresome process of repeating them for the millionth time for them to be disingenuously ignored and/or misrepresented... again. 

Irrespective of co2 emissions, there are 1001 other ways gratuitous consumption is polluting our planet,  which the alarmists seem intenr on ignoring in favour of the CC political agenda. 

Meanwhile, absurdly,  grotesquely, CC "warriors" are flying about in private jets and psrtying on megayachts and preaching to the great unwashed and collecting environmental prizes. 

It's you alarmists who turn out to be doing the most damage. Do you not find the hypocrisy totally nauseous?


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2018)

e.g., Grasshopper

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...his-hypocrisy-gives-the-finger-to-his-message


> SNIP: Suzuki, who did not return calls to respond, spends a lot of time hectoring others about over-population (but he has five children), reducing our carbon footprint (he has a jet-set lifestyle of the rich and famous), living smaller (he owns four houses in B.C. and an apartment in Port Douglas, Australia) and much else besides. So much hypocrisy from this guru of green.
> 
> If Suzuki was really convinced that the Earth is going to perish because of increasing amounts of man-made carbon being released into the atmosphere, would he seriously own a vacation getaway in Australia, so far away from Vancouver?
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (10 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> e.g., Grasshopper
> 
> http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...his-hypocrisy-gives-the-finger-to-his-message




Hipster greens drinking hot unnecessary coffee from manufactured drinking cups, with milk from methane cows, transported in fossil fueled vehicles, while wearing petrochemical derived synthetic shoes, pants, shirts and coats,etc etc


----------



## Tisme (10 May 2018)

> Deforestation has stopped in wealthy countries. Europe’s forest area grew by more than 0.3% annually from 1990 to 2015. In the United States it is growing by 0.1% annually


----------



## Humid (10 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> Hipster greens drinking hot unnecessary coffee from manufactured drinking cups, with milk from methane cows, transported in fossil fueled vehicles, while wearing petrochemical derived synthetic shoes, pants, shirts and coats,etc etc



You forgot man products


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Thanks for the sermonising.
> 
> Why would the fact of casually observable changes, equate to the imminent doom of the human populace?
> 
> ...




Who says every weather event is a "Climate Change" event? 

btw, again repeating... the term "Climate Change" was invented by vested interests to replace "Global Warming". No, not changed by the greenie commies, but by that high-paid consultant they go to for electioneering. 

Why the change? Because "Climate Change" will fool some people into thinking that it's just the weather changing, no duh! "Global Warming" sounds bad. 

As to "empirical evidence"... ask the Pentagon why some 60 million people around the world are displaced each year. No, not the ones escaping the war zones... 

And no, people don't pack their family off and away because of a few bad months of harvest. They move, mostly to refugee camps or the capital cities, because their farm turns to dust or salt to to it.


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> Sigh,  such a hard Grasshopper to teach.
> 
> Did you not read the research I posted about relative behaviours?
> 
> ...




I think that line of argument has it backwards Sifu.

The "alarmists" are the ones who like the current way of life; like, for the most part, our current organised way of existence. Hence the "alarm" about it being swept away if no alternative source of energy etc. are seriously taken up. 

It's like a person who enjoy driving or a train ride pointing out that maybe we ought to repair and maintain the thing lest it collapses and derail one day.

That's not to say certain behaviour and ways don't need to be changed. For example, recycle more; more investment into recycling, into alternative sources of energy; maybe eat more variety of food rather than just meat and more of it.


----------



## cynic (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Who says every weather event is a "Climate Change" event?



Don't you read your own posts?


> btw, again repeating... the term "Climate Change" was invented by vested interests to replace "Global Warming". No, not changed by the greenie commies, but by that high-paid consultant they go to for electioneering.
> 
> Why the change? Because "Climate Change" will fool some people into thinking that it's just the weather changing, no duh! "Global Warming" sounds bad.



No that wasn't the reason. It was to enable alarmists to have an each way bet, thereby avoiding eggs on faces each time the weather thwarted their warming prophecies.







> As to "empirical evidence"... ask the Pentagon why some 60 million people around the world are displaced each year. No, not the ones escaping the war zones...
> 
> And no, people don't pack their family off and away because of a few bad months of harvest. They move, mostly to refugee camps or the capital cities, because their farm turns to dust or salt to to it.



Where is the empirical evidence for this?
What does NaCl have to do with CO2?
(Ask the pentagon?!!! And people accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist!)


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> I think that line of argument has it backwards Sifu.
> 
> The "alarmists" are the ones who like the current way of life; like, for the most part, our current organised way of existence. Hence the "alarm" about it being swept away if no alternative source of energy etc. are seriously taken up.
> 
> ...




Err... Not quite Grasshopper. A parry should be effective,  not simply a denial that one has been struck. You cannot win this one against insurmountable odds,  ie the now established  fact of alarmist hypocrisy. 

There is more honour in standing back and conceding.

Back to Grasshopper school,  Grasshopper.


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> Err... Not quite Grasshopper. A parry should be effective,  not simply a denial that one has been struck. You cannot win this one against insurmountable odds,  ie the now established  fact of alarmist hypocrisy.
> 
> There is more honour in standing back and conceding.
> 
> Back to Grasshopper school,  Grasshopper.




I thought I made sense on that one but alright. Try this one:

Don't kill the messenger.

Read the message. Judge its content. Don't judge the hypocrisy or whatever of the person delivering it. 

I mean, going by that line of argument and there wouldn't be any innovation, or sense.

It's like laughing and mocking at some genius who suggests that maybe the light bulb could more efficient than Edison's version. Maybe even safer, less heat, brighter, cheaper. 

It'd be pretty silly to say to that person that... what, you don't like electric lights? You don't use them?


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Don't you read your own posts?
> 
> No that wasn't the reason. It was to enable alarmists to have an each way bet, thereby avoiding eggs on faces each time the weather thwarted their warming prophecies.
> Where is the empirical evidence for this?
> ...




You know you can google these stuff right?

The Pentagon, as claimed in an interview with US Col. Wilkinson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell... said that the Pentagon have war games and planning papers on how to deal with the "national security" threat caused by Climate Change. 

You probably might have heard it from former Sec of State John Kerry... that Climate Change and "climate refugee" poses a great danger to (the rich countries). i.e. you can't shoot them all dead on site at the border. 

Anyway, from memory the war plans assume catastrophic climate refugee/migration in the hundreds of millions in coming decades.

And of course there's those damages to civilian/domestic infrastructure from severe "weather" event. You know, if it floods in a few region, the army and its reserves can't cope. Civilians will be dead, those alive will not be happy... and they can't all be Puerto Rican you can just ignore. 

Not to mention drought, severe bushfires etc. affecting agriculture and its exports; taxing emergency services. 

Anyway, the Pentagon (and I'm assuming all other national security agencies around the world) takes Climate Change seriously. So serious that even Donald Trump and its band of psychos can't remove mentions of Climate Change in the Pentagon's plans. They can muck around with the EPA and stuff, not when it come to more serious places.


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2018)

cynic said:


> ...
> What does NaCl have to do with CO2?




Sodium Cloride? Salt? 

Salt water, the sea. 

If the rivers dries up, shrinks... sea water will move inland. That's how water in the world's oceans and deltas work. 

A fairly large chunk of the world's food are grown in the deltas. If it's salted... You know what Rome did to Carthage after they took it over right? Carthage don't exist no more.


----------



## basilio (10 May 2018)

Echoing Luutzu comments, at what stage will anyone on this forum as well as the wider community  respond to what is happening in the Antartic at the Thwaites glacier ? 

Do we just ignore what scientists are observing  because ... it's only alarmists talk ?

Do we say it can't be happening because...it hasn't actually happened right now ?

Do we say it doesn't matter if the oceans rise 3 to 30 metres because ... it happened hundreds of thousands of years ago as well ?

Or is Thinking the Unthinkable just too confronting ?


----------



## cynic (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Sodium Cloride? Salt?
> 
> Salt water, the sea.
> 
> ...



As usual, the alarmist doesn't understand enough science to understand, let alone answer the question. (Water is H2O). Where does CO2 feature in your latest rambling?


----------



## cynic (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> You know you can google these stuff right?



I can google all sorts of things, like the following:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/aliens/26535/alien-spaceships-to-attack-earth-in-2013/
Does the fact that it is found via google make it true? 







> The Pentagon, as claimed in an interview with US Col. Wilkinson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell... said that the Pentagon have war games and planning papers on how to deal with the "national security" threat caused by Climate Change.
> 
> You probably might have heard it from former Sec of State John Kerry... that Climate Change and "climate refugee" poses a great danger to (the rich countries). i.e. you can't shoot them all dead on site at the border.
> 
> ...



War games and catastrophic climate assumptions?!! Seriously!! So how are theses anything more than hypothetical explorations of "What if...?" scenarios?


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2018)

cynic said:


> As usual, the alarmist doesn't understand enough science to understand, let alone answer the question. (Water is H2O). Where does CO2 feature in your latest rambling?




I thought we all agreed that high level of CO2 in the atmosphere warms up the earth - the greenhouse effect. No?

But unlike the greenhouse where you grow plants and things, the planet have these icecaps at either end. Too hot and ice tend to melt, releasing trapped water etc. 

Anyway, I'm no climate science surgeon man. Just got paid by Al Gore to hurt the poor oil industry who's just trying to make ends meet.


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2018)

cynic said:


> I can google all sorts of things, like the following:
> http://weeklyworldnews.com/aliens/26535/alien-spaceships-to-attack-earth-in-2013/
> Does the fact that it is found via google make it true?
> War games and catastrophic climate assumptions?!! Seriously!! So how are theses anything more than hypothetical explorations of "What if...?" scenarios?




Here you go:
What if Superman crashed his spaceship in the North Pole and killed Santa.


----------



## cynic (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> I thought we all agreed that high level of CO2 in the atmosphere warms up the earth - the greenhouse effect. No?



I understand its presence to insulate the escape and *penetration* of some forms of radiation. It is unclear to myself, as to whether or not the climate is warming, cooling or in equilibrium and the extent (or lack thereof) of CO2's contribution to any trend that may exist.







> But unlike the greenhouse where you grow plants and things, the planet have these icecaps at either end. Too hot and ice tend to melt, releasing trapped water etc.



The ice caps aren't the only part of the plaent, nor is CO2 the only part of the atmosphere, nor is this planet the only part of the solar system etc. Way too many other factors need to be considered before jumping to hasty conclusions







> Anyway, I'm no climate science surgeon man...



Your posts, to date, have made the truth of that statement blindingly apparent!


----------



## cynic (10 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Here you go:
> What if Superman crashed his spaceship in the North Pole and killed Santa.
> ...



Well it's obvious that he didn't, because I saw children lining up to be photographed with Santa last December.
So hopefully superman also survived the crash.

Anyway, even if Santa had somehow been killed, that would be one heck of a lot more credible than the apocalyptic rubbish being published in peer reviewed papers courtesy of the climate clergymen.


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Echoing Luutzu comments, at what stage will anyone on this forum as well as the wider community  respond to what is happening in the Antartic at the Thwaites glacier ?
> 
> Do we just ignore what scientists are observing  because ... it's only alarmists talk ?
> 
> ...



What the.... ?

How duplicitous can you people get?  The reasearch shows that those such as yourself are doing nothing at all, quite the opposite, soothing your grotesque hypocrisy with consicious consumption, large centrally heated and air conditioned homes, and holiday apartments on the other side of the world.

All the while lecturing  us who are either doubtful or moderate beliefs to do something... WHEN WE ARE DOING MORE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAN YOU!!!

Then you further console yourselves as being "messengers" making you exempt. 

How ****ing obscene!


----------



## Knobby22 (11 May 2018)

Better call the exterminator.
Infestation of trolls.


----------



## basilio (11 May 2018)

Which people are telling us what is happening on the Thwaites glacier ?
What are they saying ?
Do they have credible expertise in the area?
What are the consequences for all of us if their observations are correct?

*How much, how fast?: A science review and outlook for research on the instability of Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier in the 21st century*
Author links open overlay panelT.A.ScambosR.E.BellR.B.AlleyS.AnandakrishnanD.H.BromwichK.BruntK.ChristiansonT.CreytsS.B.DasR.DeContoP.DutrieuxH.A.FrickerD.HollandJ.MacGregorB.MedleyJ.P.NicolasD.PollardM.R.Siegfried…P.L.Yager
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.04.008Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811630491X


----------



## basilio (11 May 2018)

*Just how unstable is the massive Thwaites glacier? Scientists are about to find out. *
PRI's The World

May 01, 2018 · 7:45 AM EDT

By Carolyn Beeler
US and British scientific agencies announced their biggest joint Antarctic research effort in more than a generation on Monday.

The focus is Thwaites Glacier, which is roughly the size of Florida and sits on the western edge of Antarctica.

Ice melting on Thwaites accounts for 4 percent of global sea level rise, an amount that’s nearly doubled since the 1990s. Scientists in the new five-year research collaboration hope to determine how much more, and how fast, the glacier will melt as the world continues to warm.

...“Really the whole program is about understanding that extra uncertainty attached to sea level rise and doing what we can to remove it, allowing people to protect their coastal environments and to prepare property to protect their populations,” said David Vaughan, director of Science at British Antarctic Survey, at a press conference announcing the research in Cambridge, England on Monday. 

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05...hwaites-glacier-scientists-are-about-find-out


----------



## basilio (11 May 2018)

This story is almost 3 years old. It examines the range of research that glaciologists had done on the causes and rate of melting around the Thwaites glacier.








Two Antarctic ice shelves on the verge of collapsing—the Pine Island Glacier (shown) and the Thwaites Glacier—will cause the ultimate collapse of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a new study shows.

NASA/Maria-José Viñas
*Just a nudge could collapse West Antarctic Ice Sheet, raise sea levels 3 meters*
By Carolyn GramlingNov. 2, 2015 , 3:00 PM

It won’t take much to cause the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet to collapse—and once it starts, it won’t stop. In the last year, a slew of papers has highlighted the vulnerability of the ice sheet covering the western half of the continent, suggesting that its downfall is inevitable—and probably already underway. Now, a new model shows just how this juggernaut could unfold. A relatively small amount of melting over a few decades, the authors say, will inexorably lead to the destabilization of the entire ice sheet and the rise of global sea levels by as much as 3 meters.

Previous models have examined the onset of the collapse in detail. In 2014, two papers, one in _Science_ and one in _Geophysical Review Letters_, noted that the Thwaites Glacier, which some scientists call the “weak underbelly” of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, has retreated dramatically over the past 2 decades. Most Antarctic researchers chalk this up to warm seawater melting the floating ice shelves at their bases; seawater temperatures there have risen since the 1970s, in part because of global temperature increases. Right now, an underwater ledge is helping anchor the glacier in place. But when the glacier retreats past that bulwark, it will collapse into the ocean; then seawater will intrude and melt channels into the ice sheet, setting the juggernaut in motion.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...antarctic-ice-sheet-raise-sea-levels-3-meters


----------



## cynic (11 May 2018)

basilio said:


> This story is almost 3 years old. It examines the range of research that glaciologists had done on the causes and rate of melting around the Thwaites glacier.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Basilio, when conducting their research, are these scientists disrupting the structure of these ice formations in any way?
( I.e drilling into them or cutting out pieces of them etc.)

If they care so much, then maybe they should desist from meddling.
Consecutive armies of researchers, taking core sample after core sample, cannot be a good thing (even a behemoth may be totally consumed by a sufficiently large  quantity of small bites).

Climate catastrophists could easily be to blame for at least some of the perceived diminution of the antarctic.


----------



## cynic (11 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> What the.... ?
> 
> How duplicitous can you people get?  The reasearch shows that those such as yourself are doing nothing at all, quite the opposite, soothing your grotesque hypocrisy with consicious consumption, large centrally heated and air conditioned homes, and holiday apartments on the other side of the world.
> 
> ...



There is however, one notable exception to be found amidst the catastrophe credulists participating in this thread. Unlike so many others, he has actually put his religion into practice and truly walks the walk. If only the others would follow his example and spend more of their talking time walking instead.
Perhaps then, their vocal message/s wouldn't get so thoroughly undermined by the betrayals of their actions.


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2018)

cynic said:


> There is however, one notable exception to be found amidst the catastrophe credulists participating in this thread. Unlike so many others, he has actually put his religion into practice and truly walks the walk. If only the others would follow his example and spend more of their talking time walking instead.
> Perhaps then, their vocal message/s wouldn't get so thoroughly undermined by the betrayals of their actions.



Yes agreed, he has integrity and I give him kudos for that.


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2018)

cynic said:


> There is however, one notable exception to be found amidst the catastrophe credulists participating in this thread. Unlike so many others, he has actually put his religion into practice and truly walks the walk. If only the others would follow his example and spend more of their talking time walking instead.
> Perhaps then, their vocal message/s wouldn't get so thoroughly undermined by the betrayals of their actions.



Yes agreed, he has integrity and I give him kudos for that.


----------



## basilio (11 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Basilio, when conducting their research, are these scientists disrupting the structure of these ice formations in any way?
> ( I.e drilling into them or cutting out pieces of them etc.)
> 
> If they care so much, then maybe they should desist from meddling.
> ...




Cynic could you please try and find some sense of proportion when you respond to these questions. This is just rubbish and only diminishes anything else you care to say on the subject.

What ever 8 inch  ice drills are made to ascertain what has happened in the  ice caps will have absolutely no impact versus the oceans of warm water melting out the underside of the glacier.

At the last point of examination *an area the size of Greater London* had melted as a result of the ingress of warmer waters.


----------



## basilio (11 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> Yes agreed, he has integrity and I give him kudos for that.



Thanks for that wayne.  Much appreciated...

I didn't realise you were so aware of my wideranging environmental good works and modest ecological footprint.

Now have you had an opportunity to consider the integrity of the glaciologists who are all over the Thwaites glacier situation and their concerns?


----------



## cynic (11 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Cynic could you please try and find some sense of proportion when you respond to these questions. This is just rubbish and only diminishes anything else you care to say on the subject.
> 
> What ever 8 inch  ice drills are made to ascertain what has happened in the  ice caps will have absolutely no impact versus the oceans of warm water melting out the underside of the glacier.
> 
> At the last point of examination *an area the size of Greater London* had melted as a result of the ingress of warmer waters.



Sense of proportion! What qualifies you to accuse others of lacking a sense of proportion!!
Oh I know! You clearly subscribe to the "it takes one to know one!" philosophy.


----------



## Sdajii (11 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> You are referring to the ice age.
> This is quite a different scenario.




I'm not referring to 'the' ice age (there have been many, they happen all the time, for various reasons). I'm referring to more events than can be counted over billions of years including not just the cold periods but also hotter periods than we're currently experiencing. Even in very recent (just a few thousand years, and more than a small few climate scientists believe a few hundred years - the debate among climate scientists is whether the last time was about 500 or 5,000 years, but effectively none say longer than that) times, the climate was warmer than it is now. 5,000 years is like a couple of minutes ago in terms of the global climate fluctuations. Over the last 100,000 years we've seen quite a number of dramatic fluctations. A bit over 100,000 years ago (before anyone saying humans were having any impact at all, around the time people say humans were first becoming human, there was a really severely hot period in which there was mass extinction across Australia, species became extinct and new species began to evolve. My honours year at university involved studying a couple of these species and looking at how climate interacted with their creation and spread, and how future climate change would affect them and other species.

Looking further back than 100,000 years there are many tremendous fluctuations both high and low, although it becomes very difficult for us to identify the severe short term fluctuations (no doubt at all they were occurring but we weren't there to take detailed measurements) and we can only see the overall trends, and even they fluctuate wildly, and outside the current range including hotter, and during those periods where the world was hotter for long periods of time there couldn't possibly have been an absence of brief fluctuations in both directions. The brief hot periods during those large hot periods would have been completely brutal, and then, the world cooled, and heated, and so on. Looking at the range of climate states the world has been in over the last billion years, or few hundred million years, or few million years (take your pick), the current climate is actually extremely favourable for us, and choosing between getting a bit hotter or going to the average level we see, a bit hotter and wetter is more favourable (you get more living things overall when it's warm, you can grow more crops more quickly, etc).

I like the old vegetable farms in Europe where people were actually growing stuff, you can still see the vegie garden beds if you go there today, people were farming stuff, it's less than a thousand years old, and today it's far too cold to grow the stuff they were growing there. But, apparently, according to social media and sometimes mainstream media, it's now the hottest it has ever been! 

I am not talking about one ice age.


----------



## luutzu (11 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Basilio, when conducting their research, are these scientists disrupting the structure of these ice formations in any way?
> ( I.e drilling into them or cutting out pieces of them etc.)
> 
> If they care so much, then maybe they should desist from meddling.
> ...




I thought human cannot possibly have any impact on the environment.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> I'm not referring to 'the' ice age (there have been many, they happen all the time, for various reasons). I'm referring to more events than can be counted over billions of years including not just the cold periods but also hotter periods than we're currently experiencing. Even in very recent (just a few thousand years, and more than a small few climate scientists believe a few hundred years - the debate among climate scientists is whether the last time was about 500 or 5,000 years, but effectively none say longer than that) times, the climate was warmer than it is now. 5,000 years is like a couple of minutes ago in terms of the global climate fluctuations. Over the last 100,000 years we've seen quite a number of dramatic fluctations. A bit over 100,000 years ago (before anyone saying humans were having any impact at all, around the time people say humans were first becoming human, there was a really severely hot period in which there was mass extinction across Australia, species became extinct and new species began to evolve. My honours year at university involved studying a couple of these species and looking at how climate interacted with their creation and spread, and how future climate change would affect them and other species.
> 
> Looking further back than 100,000 years there are many tremendous fluctuations both high and low, although it becomes very difficult for us to identify the severe short term fluctuations (no doubt at all they were occurring but we weren't there to take detailed measurements) and we can only see the overall trends, and even they fluctuate wildly, and outside the current range including hotter, and during those periods where the world was hotter for long periods of time there couldn't possibly have been an absence of brief fluctuations in both directions. The brief hot periods during those large hot periods would have been completely brutal, and then, the world cooled, and heated, and so on. Looking at the range of climate states the world has been in over the last billion years, or few hundred million years, or few million years (take your pick), the current climate is actually extremely favourable for us, and choosing between getting a bit hotter or going to the average level we see, a bit hotter and wetter is more favourable (you get more living things overall when it's warm, you can grow more crops more quickly, etc).
> 
> ...




I am sure you are aware that the latest research shows it was the effects of humans that wiped out the large animals in Australia (as occurred in Europe and Asia). The giant kangaroo, diprotodon, giant wombat, etc. all existed 40,000 years ago though gradual climate change of Australia moving towards India exacerbated this.

I agree the current climate is favourable for us but getting hotter will have adverse effects, especially with the effects of carbon dioxide acidifying the oceans. Of course there have been periods where life on earth has been severely disrupted over previous billions of years including the iceball earth period and the big die offs for various reasons. We have only really been around 150,000 years.

Of course we could create our own big die off, it could be argued we are succeeding at this without global warming but it is obvious that global warming is happening quite rapidly and if we don't modify our behaviour it will continue increasing for hundreds of years. The effect will be to cause a massive die off and make some areas such as the tropics unliveable. Of course you are right, some regions might be better off such as Canada and Siberia but other areas will suffer greatly and our many coastal cities will be in great danger due to rising sea levels.

So what is the argument for doing nothing and letting it happen, does it effect the profits of the Koch brothers too much?


----------



## Sdajii (11 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> I am sure you are aware that the latest research shows it was the effects of humans that wiped out the large animals in Australia (as occurred in Europe and Asia). The giant kangaroo, diprotodon, giant wombat, etc. all existed 40,000 years ago though gradual climate change of Australia moving towards India exacerbated this.
> 
> I agree the current climate is favourable for us but getting hotter will have adverse effects, especially with the effects of carbon dioxide acidifying the oceans. Of course there have been periods where life on earth has been severely disrupted over previous billions of years including the iceball earth period and the big die offs for various reasons. We have only really been around 150,000 years.
> 
> ...




I am indeed well aware of the huge extinction event which wiped out the Australian megafauna tens of thousands of years ago, though it's laughable to suggest climate change did it. It existed in Australia for many millions of years through all sorts of climatic fluctuations, then died out when the climate wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary relative to what it had experienced and lived through for that massive amount of time, but suddenly the aboriginals (which weren't aboriginal at the time I suppose) arrived and wiped them all out, partly by burning down forests, but mostly by hunting them to extinction, and partly by introducing dingos which outcompeted them (and directly wiped out some of the smaller species too). At no stage during hominid occupation of Australia did the climate come anywhere near making it outside natural extremes. It is still yet to do so. Those extinct species already survived greater climatic extremes with no trouble. Regularly. For millions of years.

Indeed, climate change does change the places which are better and worse off. This has always been the case.

I never said environmentalism is a worthless pursuit. I am simply addressing the question of this thread (check the title). The answer is a very big, clear 'no'. Most of what people say about climate change is garbage which any person with intelligence not too dramatically below average can easily see to be garbage if they are capable of looking with unbiased eyes and not being a slave to herd thinking. These second two are very difficult for most people. And I'm talking both about the alarmists and the 'climate deniers' (sic).

If we are to put an effort into environmentalism, which we currently are not other than token publicity stunts amounting to little more than nothing, we should do it rationally, in a way which would be effective. Even if we were to try to take the action the alarmists want we'd we wasting our efforts (as opposed to not bothering with efforts). Even if we do end up putting significant efforts into environmentalism, which is doubtful, I doubt it will be done in an effective way.

As a young fella I was very interested in helping the world. I became a scientist, I studied climate and biology, I worked as an ecologist. I realised any effort I put in would be wasted and threw it in, put my attention into the stock market and made a pile of money, and started full time travel. I'm still interested in analysing stuff, I still enjoy looking at the planet and seeing what is happening, predicting what will happen, laughing at how stupid the mainstream thinking is, and it doesn't take much analysis to see that there's nothing I can do to change anything, so I might as well just have fun


----------



## cynic (11 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> I thought human cannot possibly have any impact on the environment.



At last, you make a post consistent with your actions! Let's hope that this becomes a lasting and fashionable trend!


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Thanks for that wayne.  Much appreciated...
> 
> I didn't realise you were so aware of my wideranging environmental good works and modest ecological footprint.




It is my belief we were referring to Plod


----------



## cynic (11 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> It is my belief we were referring to Plod



That was my belief also.

Could it be that a certain somebody else, mistook the meaning of the phrase "noteable exception" to be somehow synonymous with "notable example"?


----------



## luutzu (11 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> I am indeed well aware of the huge extinction event which wiped out the Australian megafauna tens of thousands of years ago, though it's laughable to suggest climate change did it. It existed in Australia for many millions of years through all sorts of climatic fluctuations, then died out when the climate wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary relative to what it had experienced and lived through for that massive amount of time, but suddenly the aboriginals (which weren't aboriginal at the time I suppose) arrived and wiped them all out, partly by burning down forests, but mostly by hunting them to extinction, and partly by introducing dingos which outcompeted them (and directly wiped out some of the smaller species too). At no stage during hominid occupation of Australia did the climate come anywhere near making it outside natural extremes. It is still yet to do so. Those extinct species already survived greater climatic extremes with no trouble. Regularly. For millions of years.
> 
> Indeed, climate change does change the places which are better and worse off. This has always been the case.
> 
> ...




The last three paragraphs can be summed up as "Meh, fark it. Make money and enjoy life."

And people accused me of being long winded. 

The first paragraph... did you mean to say that with or without CC human would wipe out other species anyway? 

Yea... I think we're currently extinct-ing about 1 specie per year for the past 100 years. Haven't seen rate of extinction since the dino goes bye bye.

But to the point, CC is not just about other species going extinct... possibly organised civil society as we know it. 

I know, that sounds alarmist. But being alarmist does not make it untrue. 

For example, what would happen if sea level rises and the Indonesians, a hundred million of them, need to get away from the shore line? 

Nauru wouldn't fit them. And nuking or building a wall is probably out of the question.


----------



## Sdajii (12 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> The last three paragraphs can be summed up as "Meh, fark it. Make money and enjoy life."
> 
> And people accused me of being long winded.
> 
> ...




Yes, climate change was irrelevant in the mass extinction caused by aboriginal Australians tens of thousands of years ago. People like to spread this nonsense myth that the aboriginals lived in harmony with the land, but their arrival saw a swift extinction of many species, at a time when the climate wasn't doing anything more interesting than it usually does, or had been doing for millions of years previously.

I think it's highly likely that 'organised civil society as we know it' ceases to exist. I think it probably will before 2045, and it will have nothing to do with climate change. I hope some of us survive beyond that and rebuild.

Sea levels naturally fluctuate as you describe. If humans had been exterminated 200,000 years ago, it still would have happened. It was happening before then, it has been happening over the last 200,000 years, and with or without humans, it will happen in the future (unless we get really really good at manipulating the climate and stopping it for the first time since sea levels existed). Yes, if it happens now for whatever reason, it will cause chaos. I think we have bigger problems coming much sooner anyway.


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> Yes, climate change was irrelevant in the mass extinction caused by aboriginal Australians tens of thousands of years ago. People like to spread this nonsense myth that the aboriginals lived in harmony with the land, but their arrival saw a swift extinction of many species, at a time when the climate wasn't doing anything more interesting than it usually does, or had been doing for millions of years previously.
> 
> I think it's highly likely that 'organised civil society as we know it' ceases to exist. I think it probably will before 2045, and it will have nothing to do with climate change. I hope some of us survive beyond that and rebuild.
> 
> Sea levels naturally fluctuate as you describe. If humans had been exterminated 200,000 years ago, it still would have happened. It was happening before then, it has been happening over the last 200,000 years, and with or without humans, it will happen in the future (unless we get really really good at manipulating the climate and stopping it for the first time since sea levels existed). Yes, if it happens now for whatever reason, it will cause chaos. I think we have bigger problems coming much sooner anyway.




In That TEDx talk, the admiral was saying something like sea level rises over the last 200,000 years being an inch. In the last 200 years, it's a foot. Don't quote me on the exact figures but it's definitely not stable "like before".

I heard somewhere that the average, i.e. "normal", extinction rate is about 1 specie per 100 years. Natural selection and maybe aboriginal abuses. 

AUstralian Aborigines have been on this continent for how long now? 50,000 years? So if we take that 1 specie going extinct per 100 years as being "normal" cycle of evolution... that's 500 species since the arrival and it'd still be normal.


----------



## Sdajii (12 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> In That TEDx talk, the admiral was saying something like sea level rises over the last 200,000 years being an inch. In the last 200 years, it's a foot. Don't quote me on the exact figures but it's definitely not stable "like before".
> 
> I heard somewhere that the average, i.e. "normal", extinction rate is about 1 specie per 100 years. Natural selection and maybe aboriginal abuses.
> 
> AUstralian Aborigines have been on this continent for how long now? 50,000 years? So if we take that 1 specie going extinct per 100 years as being "normal" cycle of evolution... that's 500 species since the arrival and it'd still be normal.




It's really amazing how much misinformation is out there on the alarmist side. More amazing is how blatantly wrong it is, and more amazing still is that people believe it.

Okay, on the sea level fluctuations, consider that many times, as a semi regular cycle with a period of a few thousand years (that is to say it happens every few thousand years, not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands), the sea level fluctuates enough so that it forms land bridges between mainland Australia and PNG. Now, without looking it up, I'm willing to say Torres Strait is more than an inch deep. Your information is completely and utterly wrong. I've already pointed this out earlier in the thread. I'm not sure how you can say you think an inch over 200,000 years makes any sense when it literally fluctuates enough to create dry land between Australia and PNG. It happened many times over the last 200,000 years. It happened several times over the last few tens of thousands of years.

People argue about how long ago hominids invaded Australia, but I won't split hairs, let's say 50,000 years. As an ecologist by training, it's a little annoying when people talk about species extinctions as though they are all equivalent, and even ignoring that, they caused far more extinctions than have been counted. It's a lot easier to see some obscure little marsupial going extinct today than to observe that happening 50,000 years before anyone was cataloguing anything. But, even ignoring that, at the time hominids first stepped on to Australia (which was almost certainly a case of walking there rather than arriving by boat), there were giant lizards which made Komodo Dragons look small, snakes far, far larger than anything alive today, wombats the size of cars, marsupial wolves, giant kangaroos far larger than anything alive today, the world's only terrestrial crocodiles (crocodiles that didn't live in or near water), and many others. We know about these because they were big and obvious and if we find remains they're clearly different from anything else. These things went extinct in the blink of an eye right after aboriginals arrived, and shortly after, extinctions largely stopped until they brought in dingos and there was then another wave of extinctions. These days biologists constantly relabel every little population of species as separate species, so when one population goes extinct they say an entire species has gone extinct. If we were to apply the same rules and had the same observational abilities over the last 100,000 years the extinction rate would have been much higher. What exactly constitutes as a 'species' is very vague, and one species going extinct is not the same as another. It doesn't really relate to climate change and I'm not sure why you want to focus on this point, but aboriginals caused a massive extinction event when they arrived, and this happened at a time when no unusual climate activity was occurring. The background/base level extinction rate you're talking about is meaningless in this context, but even so, if we were able to measure things (or if we just look at what happened and take best estimates) it goes against what you are saying.


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> It's really amazing how much misinformation is out there on the alarmist side. More amazing is how blatantly wrong it is, and more amazing still is that people believe it.
> 
> Okay, on the sea level fluctuations, consider that many times, as a semi regular cycle with a period of a few thousand years (that is to say it happens every few thousand years, not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands), the sea level fluctuates enough so that it forms land bridges between mainland Australia and PNG. Now, without looking it up, I'm willing to say Torres Strait is more than an inch deep. Your information is completely and utterly wrong. I've already pointed this out earlier in the thread. I'm not sure how you can say you think an inch over 200,000 years makes any sense when it literally fluctuates enough to create dry land between Australia and PNG. It happened many times over the last 200,000 years. It happened several times over the last few tens of thousands of years.
> 
> People argue about how long ago hominids invaded Australia, but I won't split hairs, let's say 50,000 years. As an ecologist by training, it's a little annoying when people talk about species extinctions as though they are all equivalent, and even ignoring that, they caused far more extinctions than have been counted. It's a lot easier to see some obscure little marsupial going extinct today than to observe that happening 50,000 years before anyone was cataloguing anything. But, even ignoring that, at the time hominids first stepped on to Australia (which was almost certainly a case of walking there rather than arriving by boat), there were giant lizards which made Komodo Dragons look small, snakes far, far larger than anything alive today, wombats the size of cars, marsupial wolves, giant kangaroos far larger than anything alive today, the world's only terrestrial crocodiles (crocodiles that didn't live in or near water), and many others. We know about these because they were big and obvious and if we find remains they're clearly different from anything else. These things went extinct in the blink of an eye right after aboriginals arrived, and shortly after, extinctions largely stopped until they brought in dingos and there was then another wave of extinctions. These days biologists constantly relabel every little population of species as separate species, so when one population goes extinct they say an entire species has gone extinct. If we were to apply the same rules and had the same observational abilities over the last 100,000 years the extinction rate would have been much higher. What exactly constitutes as a 'species' is very vague, and one species going extinct is not the same as another. It doesn't really relate to climate change and I'm not sure why you want to focus on this point, but aboriginals caused a massive extinction event when they arrived, and this happened at a time when no unusual climate activity was occurring. The background/base level extinction rate you're talking about is meaningless in this context, but even so, if we were able to measure things (or if we just look at what happened and take best estimates) it goes against what you are saying.




Alright, my bad. I wasn't taking notes. But ey I did say don't quote me on the stats from the video.

Rewatched it and at about the 18 to 20minute mark, he said 8 inche in sea level rise in the 20th century. It is estimated that in the 21st century, he said, it'd be from 3 to 6 feet. ANd that's a gross, gross, underestimation, he said.

8inch = 20cm; 3 to 6 feet = 91cm to 1.8m.

So we're accelerating yes? It's not the same old, same old.



From wiki,

"
Recently, it has become widely accepted that late Holocene, *3,000 calendar years ago to present*, *sea level was nearly stable prior to an acceleration of rate of rise that is variously dated between 1850 and 1900 AD.* Late Holocene rates of sea level rise have been estimated using evidence from archaeological sites and late Holocene tidal marsh sediments, combined with tide gauge and satellite records and geophysical modeling. For example, this research included studies of Roman wells in Caesarea and of Roman _piscinae_ in Italy. These methods in combination suggest a mean eustatic component of *0.07 mm/yr for the last 2000 years.*[15]

Since 1880, the ocean began to rise briskly, climbing a total of 210 mm (8.3 in) through 2009 causing extensive erosion worldwide and costing billions.[19]
 "

So, over the last 3,000 years... ocean level remain pretty much the same.
Over the last 2000 years, it rises about 0.07mm/year.

From the same TEDx lecture, it's quoted as:
20th Century - about 2mm/year
21stC expected to rise 3 to 3.5mm/year


-------------

Yes man... the Aborigines were total eco-terrorists. Wiping out giant mamals and clearing the land so much that when the first European arrives they thought it's like a jungle no one lives here.


----------



## cynic (12 May 2018)

Some of these articles may be a little dated, but many of the criticisms of pseudoscientific practices have remained evident to the present day:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ea...ing-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html


----------



## Sdajii (13 May 2018)

Luutzu: It's incredible, the extent to which you can continue arguing a point despite how blatantly insane it is.

The sea level has literally risen and fallen many times over the last 200,000 years, to such an extreme, that it literally allows you to walk from Australia to PNG or the UK to mainland Europe.

As your own data points make out when you actually get them right rather than saying 2 inches in 200,000 years, they can sit fairly stable for a few thousand years, which means when they move, they can move quite quickly. And we know this happens quite often (every few thousand years, typically). And sometimes it probably happens more slowly, though that's more difficult to demonstrate with certainty.

And, now, here we are, for the first time ever making real time observations, and observing nothing at all remotely like the extreme changes which occur entirely naturally, and would occur naturally with or without us, and will occur with or without our influence. To say that the rate is increasing is like saying that since the temperature rose by 3 degrees between 8am and 1pm, after it was sitting quite stable between 6am and 8am during which it only rose by 0.5 degrees, by the end of the day it will have risen by 20 degrees, 100 degrees tomorrow and 1,500 degrees by the end of the week.

You are literally applying observations over less than 200 years and extrapolating it in the context of a pattern which takes orders of magnitude longer to play out. If you take that small a section of any cycle and try to extrapolate it, you'll get ridiculous projections, as demonstrated in the paragraph above. If you wanted to you could try it on a different time scale and say that this week was cooler than last week and this month is dramatically cooler than last month, and then project that by the end of the year we will stop seeing temperatures above zero, ever. In reality, we're currently in autumn (well, you are, assuming you're in southern Australia), and after winter the cycle will be in the upswing. We have a daily weather cycle, a yearly climate cycle, phenomena such as the multi year El Nino/La Nina cycle which was only relatively recently discovered and is still not fully understood, no doubt many other short term (a few years to tens of years) phenomena yet to be discovered, no double phenomena which takes hundreds and thousands of years to complete cycles, if you look at the last 150,000 years of global climate there seems to be patterns which cycle under some circumstances with a period of several thousands of years which can be interrupted by whatever forces (solar variance, celestial impacts, volcanic or tectonic activity, etc etc) and no doubt if we had better data we would see patterns over millions of years and longer, although they would generally interrupted.

Things such as tectonic movement, which humans still have no influence over and no positive or negative influence over, have huge impacts on the climate. If you were to rearrange the shape of the continents (this does happen over time), you would change ocean currents and wind patterns and radically alter the climate.

It's a very big, complex system with all sorts of influences, big, small, slow and rapid. We have become a part of that, but we are not suddenly jumping into a previously stable system as a huge disruptive force, we're just playing along as one of many forces, by no means the biggest, and unless we increase our impact (which we probably will because we're stupid), we won't throw it outside natural boundaries and will just make it zig rather than zag a bit. It certainly is still nothing at all like being unstoppable, in any sense other than the fact that climate change has always occurred, and is virtually unstoppable, and if it did stop it would be the first time since the planet had a climate, and we are nowhere near being able to do it, and completely removing all humans and all human influence would not do it.

Anyway, you seem fixated on the 'climate was previously stable and is now changing because of humans' narrative, despite how incorrect it is, so I'll probably stop responding.

Have a read of this, a government climate website (not a biased 'climate denier' (sic) thing) briefly examining the climate over the last 200 million years or so (massively, massively longer than we've been discussing in this thread, but still recent history in terms of the planet). On that timescale you can see that our current situation isn't really hot (when it's actually *really* hot, the arctic has a tropical climate, and that hasn't happened for tens of millions of years, but has happened multiple times, the most recent being more than 50 million years before humans existed, clearly nothing to do with us, and far, far, far more extreme than any climate scientist is suggesting might happen, and, even *that* naturally reversed itself!)

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

If you stop unconditionally trying to push your fictional narrative and look at the situation objectively it should become more clear.

Once again, it's probably worth pointing out that I am not saying humans are having no impact or that we can be sure that we won't cause catastrophic environmental disaster, don't accuse me of saying anything I'm not.


----------



## cynic (13 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> ...
> 
> If you stop unconditionally trying to push your fictional narrative and look at the situation objectively it should become more clear.
> 
> Once again, it's probably worth pointing out that I am not saying humans are having no impact or that we can be sure that we won't cause catastrophic environmental disaster, don't accuse me of saying anything I'm not.



As I believe you have already observed in one of your other posts, the polarisation of this debate is such that anyone not fully endorsing the narrative of one polar extreme, is automatically accused of residing at the opposite.

So you might as well get used to being accused of that heresy of denial, and thereby being liable for the sin of having damned the earth (and its population) to imminent extinction.

That is the cost of speaking reason, within an environment permeated with religious zealotry.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2018)

I can't say I observed any difference in the relative height of plimsoll lines versus tides..... what problem?


----------



## Knobby22 (13 May 2018)

Is there a way we can check if cynic is real or a robot?


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Is there a way we can check if cynic is real or a robot?


----------



## Knobby22 (13 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> I can't say I observed any difference in the relative height of plimsoll lines versus tides..... what problem?



The rise in sea levels according to NASA is only 8cm over the last 25 years on average. Considering the variability of the tides not that noticeable.  

The fact that the arctic is melting has no real effect. In the near term the Greenland ice shelf melt is the real concern. 

Speaking of the arctic, on track for a record melt this year though we won't know if we reach it till September.


----------



## explod (13 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Is there a way we can check if cynic is real or a robot?



He may have the direct power of God:-

https://amp.smh.com.au/national/why...0180512-p4zev4.html?__twitter_impression=true

*New York: *Cardinal George Pell has emerged as a mystery guest who dined at a lavish Rome restaurant with embattled US environmental chief Scott Pruitt to secretly plan a public debate challenging climate change.


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> Luutzu: It's incredible, the extent to which you can continue arguing a point despite how blatantly insane it is.
> 
> The sea level has literally risen and fallen many times over the last 200,000 years, to such an extreme, that it literally allows you to walk from Australia to PNG or the UK to mainland Europe.
> 
> ...




Dude, keep it short. Now I know how other feel reading some of my stuff 

Beside the Chinese, most of the world's current civilisation [race/culture] kind of have their "recorded history" going back to about 5,000 years.

As Wiki tell us, sea level rises over the past 2,000 years were practically zero... over the past 3,000 years it was, what 0.007mm/year?

So your argument that the Earth have been through this before; that there was the Ice Age and we're alright mate... That's like saying that the Earth managed the survived after the dinosaurs were wiped out. Yea, that's true. Just the key factor was survival of the species then... 

Key word is "organised civil society" as we currently know it. Not we'll be send back to the stone age, the ice age and we'll be alright.

Then there's the problem of practically all major import/export terminals, most of the world's cities and some 1 billion people live near or at sea level... BUt yea, a meter or two above current sea level is no problem at all.

And that doesn't include the other factors a warming ocean causes. There's the slowing down of that gulfsteam and world current; there's the greater frequency and intensity of hurricanes, typhoons. The reefs getting cooked, no small fishies to feed the bigger ones to continue that circle of life.

But alright, if water rises we'll just build a wall or buy a bigger pump.


----------



## cynic (13 May 2018)

I am aware of at least two contributors to changes in the sea level that have nothing to do with global warming theory.

It is curious how they are seldom if ever mentioned.

The increasing human populace is impacting the sea level in at least two ways:

(i) The human body is comprised of over 70% water! More humans equates to less water elsewhere on the planet!! This exerts a reductionary influence on the volume of the ocean waters, hence a lowering of sea levels.
(ii) More cargo carrying ships in the ocean. This displaces water driving sea levels upward, i.e. a raising of sea levels.

So the above factors are exerting competitive influences on the direction of sea level changes.
So it would seem that there is only a very small likelihood of those opposing influences, somehow being of exactly equal magnitude.

If one factor is truly overwhelming the other, thereby causing a change in the sea level, then both factors need to be taken into account.

So why are the climate clergy so insistent that changes to sea level can only be a consequence of anthropegenic CO2 emissions?

When the blindingly obvious gets bypassed in favour of wild and unsubstantiated theories, it becomes clear that the practice of science has left the laboratory!


----------



## Knobby22 (13 May 2018)

lol


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> lol




Science right there !


----------



## basilio (13 May 2018)

The big question that is driving conversations about the effects of global warming is the impact on the Antarctic ice caps  and in particular the vulnerable Thwaites/Pine glaciers. Rapid destabilisation of the Antarctic ice cap will cause a rapid 1-2 metre plus increase in sea levels world wide. The evidence of the thinning and undermining of the glacier is already in. The more detailed examination of how soon it will break down and open up the landlocked ice is about to begin. Frankly I wouldn't be betting on a long death for the glacier.

I'm  bewildered by Cynics attempts to explain increases in ocean levels by suggesting the increase in sea traffic and the extra number of humans are somehow significant effects. This a rabbit warren with a million blind tunnels. Why not consider the mass loss of fish and land based animals as well?

 These are vanishingly small  elements in the picture of explaining current sea levels. The main factors are
1) How warm is the ocean?  Warm water expands
2) How much water is locked up on land in  mountain glaciers and Ice caps?

The Wiki discussion on the various factors that affect sea level is detailed and well documented. But at present the overwhelming question is the stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet. There is some troubling analysis of previous rapid sea levels rises which can only have happened because of rapid collapses in polar ice caps.

_Solid geological evidence, based largely upon analysis of deep cores of coral reefs, exists only for 3 major periods of accelerated sea level rise, called meltwater pulses, during the last deglaciation. They are Meltwater pulse 1A between circa 14,600 and 14,300 calendar years ago; Meltwater pulse 1B between circa 11,400 and 11,100 calendar years ago; and Meltwater pulse 1C between 8,200 and 7,600 calendar years ago. Meltwater pulse 1A was a 13.5 m rise over about 290 years centered at 14,200 calendar years ago and *Meltwater pulse 1B was a 7.5 m rise over about 160 years centered at 11,000 years calendar years ago*. In sharp contrast, the period between 14,300 and 11,100 calendar years ago, which includes the Younger Dryas interval, was an interval of reduced sea level rise at about 6.0–9.9  mm/yr.* Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 calendar years and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years.*[16][17][18] Such rapid rates of sea level rising during meltwater events clearly implicate major ice-loss events related to ice sheet collapse. The primary source may have been meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet. Other studies suggest a Northern Hemisphere source for the meltwater in the Laurentide ice sheet.[18]_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise


----------



## basilio (13 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Then there's the problem of practically all major import/export terminals, most of the world's cities and some 1 billion people live near or at sea level... BUt yea, a meter or two above current sea level is no problem at all.




This should concentrate our thinking. 

But somehow I doubt it will until it's way too late.


----------



## basilio (13 May 2018)

How much water is there on the Earth? How many people are there ? There is an analysis of this information.  What about the ants ? Do they count in terms of "holding" water?

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/pictured-72-billion-people-shown-3483253
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29281253


----------



## Sdajii (13 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Dude, keep it short. Now I know how other feel reading some of my stuff
> 
> Beside the Chinese, most of the world's current civilisation [race/culture] kind of have their "recorded history" going back to about 5,000 years.
> 
> ...




If there was any shred of doubt remaining about you not being worth conversing with, this post of yours removed it. Thank you


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> If there was any shred of doubt remaining about you not being worth conversing with, this post of yours removed it. Thank you




That's a bit harsh man. It's also not true in that... 

Confucius says, when I converse with an intelligent man I learn; When I converse with a stupid man, I also learn. .. (and) learning must never stop


----------



## basilio (13 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> If there was any shred of doubt remaining about you not being worth conversing with, this post of yours removed it. Thank you




Sdajii I think that shot at Luutzu just blew up in your face. 

Not true, not nice and certainly not a good look.


----------



## Sdajii (13 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Not true, not nice and certainly not a good look.




You're quite right on two out of three.


----------



## wayneL (13 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Sdajii I think that shot at Luutzu just blew up in your face.
> 
> Not true, not nice and certainly not a good look.



The irony....


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> The irony....




Come on Sifu, you know I'm right at least half the time.


----------



## wayneL (13 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Come on Sifu, you know I'm right at least half the time.



I don't know,  I'm just trying to "be like water,  my friend".

Ya know, cups, bottles and tea cups etc


----------



## basilio (13 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Come on Sifu, you know I'm right at least half the time.



I suggest being right on this forum is largely irrelevant.
Much more important to be "right".

Or perhaps Grasshopper, you are saying half the time you are right and the other half of the time you are also "right".


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2018)

basilio said:


> I suggest being right on this forum is largely irrelevant.
> Much more important to be "right".




True that, teacher.

I saw an interview today where they discussed the findings that C02 at 405 parts per million [?] is the highest it's been in 800,000 years.

That can't be good. 



basilio said:


> Or perhaps Grasshopper, you are saying half the time you are right and the other half of the time you are also "right".




I just had a Heineken, and even if I didn't, that's too deep for me .


----------



## luutzu (14 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> I don't know,  I'm just trying to "be like water,  my friend".
> 
> Ya know, cups, bottles and tea cups etc




Were you mocking our Chinese sages there Master Sifu?

Remember that in drinking, "... it is better to stop short than fill to the brim." That and use a coaster 

*Tao Te Ching:*
"The highest good is like water.
Water give life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.
It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.

In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.

In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In daily life, be competent."


Recently spent a few weeks finishing my brother's slabs and plumbing so have these audiobook version on repeat. 

I read it at uni but got practically nothing out of it. Though Carl Jung's praise that it's the most insightful book in history a bit much... but man, it's quite something once you have it on repeat.


----------



## Sdajii (14 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> I saw an interview today where they discussed the findings that C02 at 405 parts per million [?] is the highest it's been in 800,000 years.
> 
> That can't be good.




You realise that means you are pointing out that only 800,000 years ago (long before humans existed but recently in the context of the planet's history), the CO2 levels were higher than they are today. This is only the most recent example.

Spoiler alert: It reversed. The world didn't end.

Again, this doesn't mean I am saying we aren't heading into catastrophe, just that the climate is still well within the natural range in every respect (temperature, CO2 levels, rate of change, etc). Everything happening now has happened many times before, and it has all happened to far, far greater extremes many times. And every time, it reversed.

The climate can get bad enough to wipe us out and it will still be reversible. To make it irreversible we would have to go far, far beyond the point at which humans would all be dead.

You are being completely irrational and twisting every piece of information to a ludicrous extent to unconditionally push your agenda, with no regard for trying to make sense.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 May 2018)

Regardless of the causes there's also the question of our ability to adapt.

Considering weather events that have occurred in Australia since we've been keeping accurate records, and that only goes back to the 1800's, the following would all seem very plausible with only a fairly small change in climate needed to bring them about.

Shade temperature in Adelaide reaches 50 degrees
Direct cyclone hit to Brisbane
More fire events of the "it just blew up" variety.
How would we go about coping with any of these?

As was the case with last week's floods in Hobart, there's no time to prepare once it arrives so if we're going to plan for Adelaide getting toasted or Brisbane being blown to bits then we'd better do it now not when it's already happened.


----------



## Sdajii (14 May 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of the causes there's also the question of our ability to adapt.
> 
> Considering weather events that have occurred in Australia since we've been keeping accurate records, and that only goes back to the 1800's, the following would all seem very plausible with only a fairly small change in climate needed to bring them about.
> 
> ...




Curious post. Some of your questions and concerns may well be important, but interestingly, none of it is really relevant to the thread.

Yes, those are some of the more extreme *weather* (not climate) events recorded in the last 200 years or so. They are tiny compared to the most extreme we would have seen if we'd been observing for the last few hundred thousand years.

Obviously, if you observe anything for any amount of time, you will get the most extreme measurements ever recorded during that time! This says nothing about what things were like before you were recording.

Weather/climate fluctuates on cycles ranging from the daily cycle where it gets warmer by day and cooler by night, yearly seasonal cycles, multi year cycles (eg El Nino/La Nina), unnamed but observable cycles over thousands of years (of the magnitude of causing massive sea level changes), hundreds of thousands of years, millions of years, tens of millions of years (eg around 50 million years ago the arctic had a tropical climate!) and perhaps longer, but the planet hasn't been around for long enough to show it.

To try to extrapolate anything from the last 200 years is like taking measurements between 10am and 11am and from that alone predicting what the climate will be like next month. Obviously you'd be predicting armageddon in that timeframe, but you'd be wrong, because you're ignoring the cycles of periods far longer than your reference range.

Even if we were having no impact on the climate and even if the climate was not changing and even if there was a baseline climate which we always stuck to, over the next 300 years, most of the climate/weather records we have taken so far would be broken by greater extremes. This is basic statistics and people on an investment forum should be able to grasp this simple concept.

Since we've only been recording for around 200 years, even if there was zero climate change (I'm not at all saying that's the case by the way), we would recently have seen all manner of records being broken.

Since the climate always changes, always has and probably always will, if you were to start taking measurements at any point over the last billion years, over the following 200 years you would almost always have the climate changing in the same direction over that short 200 year period, so at the end of that period, you would be at the most extreme level ever recorded. You could literally do that for the vast majority of random points over the last billion years. We just happen to have started recording where we did.

It's amazing that even in a forum where statistical analysis is a key focus, most people overlook this basic mathematical reality, and misuse the data to justify playing Chicken Little.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> Since we've only been recording for around 200 years, even if there was zero climate change (I'm not at all saying that's the case by the way), we would recently have seen all manner of records being broken.




Actually, they can go back 800,000 years using ice core samples.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/


----------



## Sdajii (14 May 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Actually, they can go back 800,000 years using ice core samples.
> 
> https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/




Ice cores don't tell us how hot it was on October 7 1232 or whether or not a cyclone hit where Brisbane now is in 51 BC.

Your words are irrelevant and demonstrate that you totally miss the point and fail to understand the concept.

I should have known better than to join a climate change discussion. Have fun, folks! I'm out!


----------



## Tisme (14 May 2018)

Looking at data from CSIRO, the sea level increase has been fairly consistent over the last ~150years @ ~1.5mm/annum.


----------



## Tisme (14 May 2018)

Average rate of increase of average global temperature is 0.007degC/annum over last ~140 years


----------



## SirRumpole (14 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> Ice cores don't tell us how hot it was on October 7 1232 or whether or not a cyclone hit where Brisbane now is in 51 BC.
> 
> Your words are irrelevant and demonstrate that you totally miss the point and fail to understand the concept.
> 
> I should have known better than to join a climate change discussion. Have fun, folks! I'm out!




Don't let he door hit you on the way out.


----------



## basilio (14 May 2018)

_Or perhaps Grasshopper, you are saying half the time you are right and the other half of the time you are also "right".  bas_

I just had a Heineken, and even if I didn't, that's too deep for me .[/QUOTE]

There is right (in reality) and then Right in political views. 
Liked  the Tao Te Ching  quote.  Simple, elegant, timeless, useful.

_______________________________________________________________
Re the question of CC being unstopable.  I opened this thread on the basis that regardless of what is  done in terms of reducing CO2 and other emissions there will be a continued effect on our climate of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. Temperatures will continue to increase but to what level is still open to many  possibilities. The extent of global warming is also open to how much extra greenhouse gases are emitted. Unfortunately we may have lost control of this factor as a number of tipping points in our climate start start to take effect.

Sjaii is quite right in saying "the world won't end" with CC.  But as Smurf points out the world we live in will change drastically and in ways that will certainly undermine our current civilisations.  

Probably the most concrete near term consequence of CC would be the collapse of the Thwaites glacier and subsequent release of the West Antarctic ice  cap. That will change world coast lines for millenia.  Whatever we do to respond to that event can't happen in a decade.

Do we want to know what the risks are or is it easier to keep the blindfolds in place and plead ignorance if/when it all turns over ?

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/11/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-climate-tipping-points/


----------



## luutzu (14 May 2018)

Sdajii said:


> You realise that means you are pointing out that only 800,000 years ago (long before humans existed but recently in the context of the planet's history), the CO2 levels were higher than they are today. This is only the most recent example.
> 
> Spoiler alert: It reversed. The world didn't end.
> 
> ...




No one's arguing about the fact that the Earth and the universe will still be around no matter what level CO2 or if the planet completely freezes over.

Like I said before, the various human races and their recorded history... i.e. they came to be developed and organised enough to form states, pass laws, slaughter each other and know how to write about it... That kind of history has only been, at best, 5,000 years.

Most recorded, formal, history that I'm aware of dates back maybe 3,000 years. Anything before that are guesses, imagined or just made up. 

During the same period - 3,000 years - scientists worked out that sea level rises were practically zero.

But maybe it's just a coincidence. We human are so superior we can take on anything and all live.

Just look at the Pacific Islands... some of them are seeing their island being taken away by the sea, with water lapping at their feet and yet some of them are cracking jokes about it. Oh wait, a few idiot on higher ground did that.


----------



## Tisme (14 May 2018)

Sand deposition offset sea rise?



> *Sinking’ Pacific nation is getting bigger, showing islands are geologically dynamic: study*
> 
> AFP-JIJI
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Were you mocking our Chinese sages there Master Sifu?
> 
> Remember that in drinking, "... it is better to stop short than fill to the brim." That and use a coaster
> 
> ...



Mocking? 

Not in the slightest Grasshopper, merely paraphrasing Bruce Lee's paraphrasing of our friend Lao Tzu. 

FWIW,  I think the TTC is a very interesting document.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2018)

basilio said:


> There is right (in reality) and then Right in political views.




Ah yes,  and of course any person with the temerity to debate the philosophical poison that is postmodernism, is "alt right". Isn't that "right" bas?


----------



## explod (14 May 2018)

Left and right, 
postmodern the frequency, 
there is a wall, 
can we see, 
from which side, 
do we want to?

Uh oh,, getting hard, might lose so throw in some mud as confusion deters and usually wins.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2018)

explod said:


> Left and right,
> postmodern the frequency,
> there is a wall,
> can we see,
> ...




Always happy to debate,  sans mud plod,  if you are


----------



## basilio (15 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> Always happy to debate,  sans mud plod,  if you are




And  there is another thread for that discussion isn't there ?
Good luck


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2018)

basilio said:


> And  there is another thread for that discussion isn't there ?
> Good luck



Not really mate, not while there is the leftist propensity to smear,  rather than debate.


----------



## explod (15 May 2018)

wayneL said:


> Always happy to debate,  sans mud plod,  if you are



What does ..."sans mud plod"... mean wayne ?


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2018)

explod said:


> What does ..."sans mud plod"... mean wayne ?



Sans means "without". So what i am saying is that if everyone is happy to stick to the facts and not resort to smears,  we can have a productive discussion.


----------



## explod (18 May 2018)

Anyway, just plodding along.

*Inquiry says climate warming is greatest threat to security*

"POSTED BY: EDITOR MAY 18, 2018

*Contributed by Ben Wilson
The  Senate inquiry into the implications of climate change for Australia’s national securityhas come to the conclusion that the warming of the climate poses a greater risk to Australia’s security than anything else.

On top of the list is the threat to food and water security. As well as the obvious impacts on Australian society, it raises the risk of regional and global conflict over these precious resources.

The report highlighted that that global warming is not just a possible risk, but a reality right now, which has the potential to imperil life on Earth. Australia and the region around us is being affected. The Asia-Pacific is the “most vulnerable” to the security and humanitarian impacts.

Australia is threatened with a heightening of the severity of natural hazards, increasing the spread of infectious diseases, increasing water insecurity and the impact on agriculture.

According to the Climate Council, which made a submission to the inquiry, climate warming is “already contributing to increases in the forced migration of people within and between nations, as well as playing a role in heightening social and political tensions, flowing onto conflict and violence.”

Given this, and the prior recognition of the Australian government of the threat,  in the seventh national communication on climate change presented to the United Nations in December, which says “already experiencing the impacts of a changing climate, particularly changes associated with increases in temperature, the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events, extreme fire weather and drought,” why is there so little action?

The report noted that Australia does not have a strategy to deal with the threat.

Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration David Spratt, said there was a disconnect between the evidence presented to the inquiry and the recommendations that emerged from it.

Vested interests have been blocking effective action. When the fossil fuel and associated industries are major political donors and have power in the economy, governments resist any movement, and this has been more pronounced in Australia than most other countries.

A consequence is that Australia lags on every front, from embracing alternative energy sources, to investing in the building of a sustainable manufacturing base and overall economy.

But this is not just a problem of the fossil fuel industry. The largest part of it is owned by the banks and other financial institutions, the most prominent of which are major multinational corporations, to a significant extent, operating through the big four in Australia.

Effective action on climate warming involves the will to take on these interests and ensuring that investment is directed to where it is needed.

The problem is so serious that it in addition, it needs to be treated as a national emergency,  involving the whole of society, mobilising and taking part in a national effort to make a change.

In the absense of national leadership, this is not happening."

http://the-pen.co/climate-threat-needs-national-resposnse/
*


----------



## explod (19 May 2018)

And along:-
"April 2018 was the 400th “consecutive month with above-average temperatures” on Earth, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). To clarify, that means December 1984 was the last month the planet had below-average temperatures. It also means we’re headed towards a climate change of 2 degrees Celsius, a number that will have devastating effects on the Earth’s biodiversity.


Not only has Earth reached the milestone of 400 consecutive months of heating up, but last April happened to be the third-warmest April ever recorded globally, according to the NOAA report released Thursday. Carbon dioxide levels also hit another milestone by reaching the “highest level in recorded history at 410 parts per million” last month."
https://www.inverse.com/article/450...hoto&utm_medium=inverse&utm_source=newsletter


----------



## explod (26 May 2018)

http://www.eurasiareview.com/24052018-earths-climate-to-increase-by-4-degrees-by-2084/






1 Environment
*Earth’s Climate To Increase By 4 Degrees By 2084*
 May 24, 2018 Eurasia Review  0 Comments
By Eurasia Review



A collaborative research team from China has published a new analysis that shows the Earth’s climate would increase by 4 °C, compared to pre-industrial levels, before the end of 21st century.

To understand the severity of this, consider the Paris Agreement of the United Nations. It’s a global effort to prevent an increase of 2°C. Nearly every country on the planet–the United States is the only country to withdraw–has agreed to work to prevent the catastrophic effects of two degrees of warming.

The researchers published their analysis projecting a doubling of that increase in _Advances in Atmospheric Sciences _ on May 18, 2018.

“A great many record-breaking heat events, heavy floods, and extreme droughts would occur if global warming crosses the 4 °C level, with respect to the preindustrial period,” said Dabang Jiang, a senior researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. “The temperature increase would cause severe threats to ecosystems, human systems, and associated societies and economies.”

In the analysis, Jiang and his team used the parameters of scenario in which there was no mitigation of rising greenhouse gas emissions. They compared 39 coordinated climate model experiments from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, which develops and reviews climate models to ensure the most accurate climate simulations possible.

They found that most of the models projected an increase of 4°C as early as 2064 and as late as 2095 in the 21st century, with 2084 appearing as the median year.


This increase translates to more annual and seasonal warming over land than over the ocean, with significant warming in the Arctic. The variability of temperature throughout one year would be lower in the tropics and higher in polar regions, while precipitation would most likely increase in the Arctic and in the Pacific. These are the same effects that would occur under 1.5°C or 2°C increases, but more severe.

“Such comparisons between the three levels of global warming imply that global and regional climate will undergo greater changes if higher levels of global warming are crossed in the 21st century,” wrote Jiang.

The researchers continue to investigate the changes associated with 4°C of global warming in extreme climates.

“Our ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive picture of the mean and extreme climate changes associated with higher levels of global warming based on state-of-the art climate models, which is of high interest to the decision-makers and the public,” said Jiang"

I still feel this article is conservative, particularly when we had days 40 celsius above average last winter of the arctic and the now the obvious rate at which underlying ice is melting in Antarctica.  Anyfknolehow, watching the Donns doing well again this week so keep partying.


----------



## Joules MM1 (27 May 2018)

buy gold hoard beans and ...erm, chocolate....yes, lots of chocolate...and some of them fluffy melty things..not straight away ....eventually....one day......someday


----------



## Tisme (28 May 2018)

Joules MM1 said:


> buy gold hoard beans and ...erm, chocolate....yes, lots of chocolate...and some of them fluffy melty things..not straight away ....eventually....one day......someday






I thought the ultra violet rise in solar irradiance added about 34% of global temp rise since the 1970's ?


----------



## basilio (28 May 2018)

Check this out. Certainly makes sense.
Why^ (some)  people don't believe in Climate Science.


----------



## explod (28 May 2018)

Good one Bas, and..

On the news today, more cars being washed away.  Seems once a week now somewhere.  Used to be a few times a decade 20 or 30 years back.  Remember the Thomson River at Longreach about 1977 the first big one I saw.

Anyolefknhow, just keep partying.


----------



## cynic (29 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Check this out. Certainly makes sense.
> Why^ (some)  people don't believe in Climate Science.




Articles of this nature may make sense to ardent believers such as yourself, however, skeptics will likely tune out upon espying fabrications being misreported as facts (e.g. the mythical 97% consensus).


----------



## Tisme (29 May 2018)

explod said:


> Good one Bas, and..
> 
> On the news today, more cars being washed away.  Seems once a week now somewhere.  Used to be a few times a decade 20 or 30 years back.  Remember the Thomson River at Longreach about 1977 the first big one I saw.
> 
> Anyolefknhow, just keep partying.




http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/tas/flood/flood_history/flood_history.shtml


----------



## basilio (29 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Articles of this nature may make sense to ardent believers such as yourself, however, skeptics will likely tune out upon espying fabrications being misreported as facts (e.g. the mythical 97% consensus).




Yeah no surprise here hey Cynic?  

Couple of points
1)  The facts  are that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (97 plus,plus %)  understand and acknowledge the reality of human caused climate change.  End of story. Full stop. 
2) That video had nothing to do with fact one. It was articulating the processes by which all of us (including the 97 plus% Climate scientists) somehow push the reality of climate change off the page. 

That is why it is well worth checking out.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Yeah no surprise here hey Cynic?
> 
> Couple of points
> 1)  The facts  are that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (97 plus,plus %)  understand and acknowledge the reality of human caused climate change.  End of story. Full stop.
> ...




You would think that members on this forum in particular would be skilled in reading a trend graph.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


----------



## Knobby22 (29 May 2018)

explod said:


> Good one Bas, and..
> 
> On the news today, more cars being washed away.  Seems once a week now somewhere.  Used to be a few times a decade 20 or 30 years back.  Remember the Thomson River at Longreach about 1977 the first big one I saw.
> 
> Anyolefknhow, just keep partying.




*"They say this is a once every 1,000-year flood and we've had two of them in two years," Governor Mr Hogan said.*

The flooding swept away parked cars in Ellicott City, set along the west bank of Maryland's Patapsco River and about 20 kilometres west of Baltimore.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-28/baltimore-floods-state-of-emergency-declared/9808448

It was actually worse than the flood two years ago.
If it happens again soon, I think people will just leave the town. I am sure insurance will be possible to get after this.

Also from *FOX NEWS (Getting hard to be a denier -even Fox news are reporting it as global warming.)
*
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/0...-millions-more-at-risk-from-river-floods.html

Researchers in Germany say greater flood defenses are particularly needed in the United States, parts of India and Africa, Indonesia and Central Europe.

River floods are already one of the most widespread and damaging forms of natural disasters around the world.

Using computer simulations, scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research say the number of people affected by the worst 10 percent of river flooding will increase by up to 156 million in Asia alone by 2040.

The study published Thursday in the journal Science Advances concludes that flood risks will rise regardless of efforts to curb climate change because of greenhouse gases already emitted in past decades.


----------



## Tisme (29 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> *"They say this is a once every 1,000-year flood and we've had two of them in two years," Governor Mr Hogan said.*
> 
> ..................
> 
> ...




http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/permits/floodplain/historical-flooding/


----------



## cynic (29 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Yeah no surprise here hey Cynic?
> 
> Couple of points
> 1)  The facts  are that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (97 plus,plus %)  understand and acknowledge the reality of human caused climate change.  End of story. Full stop.
> ...



On the contrary! That is why the integrity, and/or impartiality, of its content, is in serious doubt!


----------



## Knobby22 (29 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/permits/floodplain/historical-flooding/



They relate to the state, not Ellicot City.
I checked USA Today and the weatherman said it was a 1 in a 1000 year flood and they have had two in 2 years but that is caused by small storms with very heavy rainfall and it was just bad luck and he wouldn't like to say that global warming was at all responsible. I understand his reticence.


----------



## cynic (29 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> They relate to the state, not Ellicot City.
> ...



When did Baltimore become "the state"?!!!
(Prior to reading your post, I was of the distinct impression that Baltimore was actually a city in a USA state, namely  Maryland.)


----------



## Knobby22 (29 May 2018)

cynic said:


> When did Baltimore become "the state"?!!!
> (Prior to reading your post, I was of the distinct impression that Baltimore was actually a city in a USA state, namely  Maryland.)



Good point, the examples to say it ain't so relate to Baltimore, not Elicot City which suffered the bad luck of two 1000 year floods.


----------



## cynic (29 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Good point, the examples to say it ain't so relate to Baltimore, not Elicot City which suffered the bad luck of two 1000 year floods.



So they're not really 1000 year floods then, are they?!

And when engaging in discussions about effects that are purportedly impacting our entire planet, how is the splicing of statistics between two cities, less than  20km apart, helpful?


----------



## Knobby22 (29 May 2018)

It's a probability definition created by engineers to design infrastructure. Usually they try to design for 30 year peaks.
It's like calculus, climate is a derivative of weather and weather is a derivative of individual incidents.

True, two individual 1000 year incidents in one place means little, on its own.


----------



## Tisme (29 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> They relate to the state, not Ellicot City.
> I checked USA Today and the weatherman said it was a 1 in a 1000 year flood and they have had two in 2 years but that is caused by small storms with very heavy rainfall and it was just bad luck and he wouldn't like to say that global warming was at all responsible. I understand his reticence.




In Brisbane development had wiped out  much of the impedance to spread and mismanagement resulted in the dam locks being opened on a gamble. As a result the level was lower, but the devastation was much wider than 1974


----------



## Tisme (30 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Good point, the examples to say it ain't so relate to Baltimore, not Elicot City which suffered the bad luck of two 1000 year floods.




You do know that Ellicot City is a small population centre (66k people) within Baltimore metro area?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6c947fd0cb8_story.html?utm_term=.33a0b9950647



> The earliest and most destructive flood recorded came in 1868, when the Patapsco River rose five feet in 10 minutes.
> 
> 
> In fact, as Harper’s Weekly reported at the time, the river at Ellicott City “rose ten feet before a drop of rain had fallen there, and was at one time forty feet high!”
> ...


----------



## Knobby22 (30 May 2018)

It's over 15km though.

Thanks for the article, most interesting:

_According to the National Weather Service, the Patapsco River rose 14 feet in about 90 minutes Saturday evening. 

For so much rain to fall so intensely in any given year works out to be a 0.1 of a percent chance, the National Weather Service said._


----------



## Tisme (30 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> It's over 15km though.
> 
> Thanks for the article, most interesting:
> 
> ...




Given my first hand experience with the 2011 Brissy flood I'll stay on the fence for now, although I am biased towards human error being a real variable in urban catastrophes. 

https://www.livestormchasers.com/ma...behind-devastating-flooding-ellicott-city-md/


----------



## Tisme (30 May 2018)

Rather interesting simulation that shows both ocean drop and rise effects on coastlines

https://calculatedearth.com/


----------



## basilio (30 May 2018)

Fascinating what we can saw at a key stroke about the consequences of global warming.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 May 2018)

Australia get's out of it pretty well over the next 30 years. Inland sea which helps our weather, Sydney is stuffed with regular floodling but as a Melbournian I can enjoy that occurring. (just kidding OK! I would actually be upset for those Sydneysiders, well a little  )

Also beware of real estate salesmen selling land in Miami.


----------



## basilio (30 May 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Australia get's out of it pretty well over the next 30 years. Inland sea which helps our weather, Sydney is stuffed with regular floodling but as a Melbournian I can enjoy that occurring. (just kidding OK! I would actually be upset for those Sydneysiders, well a little  )
> 
> Also beware of real estate salesmen selling land in Miami.




Wow !! What maps are you reading Knobby ? A metre sea rise in Melbourne will make a 'orrible mess of Albert Park, Middle Park, Elwood, Brighton at the very least. If the actual sea level isn't at peoples doorstep you can be certain storm surges will be as will sea water coming under the soil. and travelling inland.

And I'll be most interested to see the plans on making sure the sewage farms are are protected.  Not much joy there either.

Overall I think all  coastal cities will need to doa  proper evaluation of infrastructure at risk in the event of  flooding.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 May 2018)

e







basilio said:


> Wow !! What maps are you reading Knobby ? A metre sea rise in Melbourne will make a 'orrible mess of Albert Park, Middle Park, Elwood, Brighton at the very least. If the actual sea level isn't at peoples doorstep you can be certain storm surges will be as will sea water coming under the soil. and travelling inland.
> 
> And I'll be most interested to see the plans on making sure the sewage farms are are protected.  Not much joy there either.
> 
> Overall I think all  coastal cities will need to doa  proper evaluation of infrastructure at risk in the event of  flooding.




I use to live in Elwood Basilio. It's already below sea level, just a ridge between the original swamp and the sea. I agree it would definitely flood.
Albert Park and Middle park are full of super wealthy people, they will build a sea wall. I worked on the sea wall for St Kilda in anticipation of the sea level rise already.
Also the Maribyrnong is a tidal river and that will flood more easily. I live near there so I am more scared of that. In comparison, Sydney is in massive trouble, wouldn't you say?

Should also say long term all the coastal cities are in trouble, probably talking 50 years though (hopefully though you never know, Greenland melting too fast, permafrost in Russia melting, there are a few scenarios that could quicken this).


----------



## Tisme (1 June 2018)

Coldest start to winter in SE QLD for 12 years.


----------



## basilio (6 June 2018)

All about Global Warming creating hotter oceans and thus more powerful hurricances with huge amounts of rain dumped during storms.


----------



## dutchie (6 June 2018)

Global warming/ Climate change as an issue is dead (like Monty Pythons' parrot)


----------



## basilio (6 June 2018)

dutchie said:


> Global warming/ Climate change as an issue is dead (like Monty Pythons' parrot)




And your evidence /reasons for that statement is ?
 ( The Trump story becasue I say so..)


----------



## explod (6 June 2018)

dutchie said:


> Global warming/ Climate change as an issue is dead (like Monty Pythons' parrot)



Yep, beaches being washed away in WA and raging early season fires in the US as we speak, 

can't stop any of it now, 

so just party.


----------



## basilio (19 June 2018)

I wonder when the insurance companies pull out of these areas ? What about banks and local councils?

 
*Flooding from sea level rise threatens over 300,000 US coastal homes – study *
Climate change study predicts ‘staggering impact’ of swelling oceans on coastal communities within next 30 years

Oliver Milman in New York

 @olliemilman 
Mon 18 Jun 2018 06.00 BST   Last modified on Mon 18 Jun 2018 13.08 BST

*Shares*
2448




Oceanfront homes in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Houses on the US coastline could risk being flooded every two weeks. Photograph: Alamy
Sea level rise driven by climate change is set to pose an existential crisis to many US coastal communities, with new research finding that as many as 311,000 homes face being flooded every two weeks within the next 30 years.

The swelling oceans are forecast repeatedly to soak coastal residences collectively worth $120bn by 2045 if greenhouse gas emissions are not severely curtailed, experts warn. This will potentially inflict a huge financial and emotional toll on the half a million Americans who live in the properties at risk of having their basements, backyards, garages or living rooms inundated every other week.

“The impact could well be staggering,” said Kristina Dahl, a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “This level of flooding would be a tipping point where people in these communities would think it’s unsustainable.

“Even homes along the Gulf coast that are elevated would be affected, as they’d have to drive through salt water to get to work or face their kids’ school being cut off. You can imagine people walking away from mortgages, away from their homes.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-impact-us-coastal-homes-study-climate-change


----------



## basilio (21 June 2018)

Can we suck CO2 out of the atmosphere at a competitive price ?  Perhaps we can ...






Banks of fans blow air through a carbon dioxide–capturing solution in this rendering of a direct air capture plant.

Carbon Engineering
*Cost plunges for capturing carbon dioxide from the air*
By Robert F. ServiceJun. 7, 2018 , 11:25 AM

Pulling carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and using it to make synthetic fuel seems like the ultimate solution to climate change: Instead of adding ever more CO2 to the air from fossil fuels, we can simply recycle the same CO2 molecules over and over. But such technology is expensive—about $600 per ton of CO2, by one recent estimate. Now, in a new study, scientists say future chemical plants could drop that cost below $100 per ton—which could make synthetic fuels a reality in places such as California that incentivize low-carbon fuels.

Those numbers are “real progress,” says Chris Field, a climate scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. That’s because the new study bases its numbers on data and costs from a real pilot facility, whereas others have relied on scientists’ best guesses of how CO2 capture technologies scale up. “These guys actually have something you can measure,” says Stephen Pacala, an ecologist with Princeton University who is chairing a panel on carbon removal technologies for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air


----------



## basilio (29 June 2018)

This is the reality that make Republicians in Florida acknowledge global warming.

* Meet America's new climate normal: towns that flood when it isn't raining *
 Climate change 

In this extract from Rising, Elizabeth Rush explains ‘sunny day flooding’ – when a high tide can cause streets to fill with water


Rising seas: ‘Florida is about to be wiped off the map’
Elizabeth Rush

Thu 28 Jun 2018 11.00 BST   Last modified on Thu 28 Jun 2018 17.56 BST

*Shares*
1080




‘I’ve been here 20 years. When I first moved we used to flood once a year, maybe twice. Now it’s constant.’ Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
I spend the afternoon in Shorecrest, a neighborhood a couple of miles north of downtown Miami. To get there I leave the beach behind and drive past Arky’s Live Bait & Tackle, Deal and Discounts II, Rafiul Food Store, Royal Budget Inn, Family Dollar and Goodwill. As I continue north, the buildings all lose their mirrored glass and their extra floors, until most are single story and made from stucco.

It isn’t raining when I arrive in Shorecrest, and there isn’t a storm offshore; the day is as clear and as blue as the filigree on a porcelain plate. But the streets are still full of water. I watch as a woman wades ankle deep across Tenth Avenue. She has gathered her long russet-colored skirt in her right hand, and in her left she holds a pair of Jesus sandals. When she reaches the bus stop, she sits and puts her shoes on.

“We get flooded with just about every high tide,” the woman tells me. “And if the moon is big it’s worse.”

All along the east coast, from Portland, Maine, to Key West, “sunny day flooding” is increasingly frequent. Many places in the Sunshine State are so low lying that high tide – when coupled with something as innocuous as a full moon – can cause the streets to brim with water. Sometimes the tide simply rises above the seawalls and starts to spill into the roadways; in other cases it enters the neighborhood through the storm-water infrastructure belowground. The very pipes designed to reduce flooding by ushering rain out instead give salt water a chance to work its way in.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/28/rising-elizabeth-rush-extract-towns-flooding


----------



## explod (4 July 2018)

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/95b6b2cfe79613ae8151e095fb8ef8d0
Last month the hottest on record across the globe.

Keep having a good time comrades.


----------



## cynic (4 July 2018)

explod said:


> https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/95b6b2cfe79613ae8151e095fb8ef8d0
> Last month the hottest on record across the globe.
> 
> Keep having a good time comrades.



Is it still 2016 where you live?


----------



## luutzu (4 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Is it still 2016 where you live?




New records are broken every time it's counted. 

The UK is to also have its hottest in recorded history.

*Lower 48 States Just Had the Warmest May on Record*
https://weather.com/news/news/2018-06-06-may-2018-record-hot-temperatures-united-states-noaa-report

*At a Glance*

May 2018 was the hottest in 124 years of May records across the Lower 48.
Eight states broke warmth records and no state was colder than average.
Two states had their wettest Mays.


----------



## explod (4 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Is it still 2016 where you live?



Apologies, mixed the references, the one I wanted it on was June 2018.  Was in the Washington Post but cannot lift it I find.

Anyhow Iuutzu is a step ahead, lol


----------



## cynic (4 July 2018)

explod said:


> Apologies, mixed the references, the one I wanted it on was June 2018.  Was in the Washington Post but cannot lift it I find.
> 
> Anyhow Iuutzu is a step ahead, lol



Thanks for that, I was about to ask you to place some bets for me, on the last two Melbourn Cups.


----------



## luutzu (4 July 2018)

explod said:


> Apologies, mixed the references, the one I wanted it on was June 2018.  Was in the Washington Post but cannot lift it I find.
> 
> Anyhow Iuutzu is a step ahead, lol




When I replied, I actually did paste in that 2016 link. They both said record May temperature. 

We're going to be so stuffed. 

Reading about temperature and record heatwave doesn't really hit us until we're out there in the heat. Like me last summer when I have to watch a few tradies at work. 

I've done work outdoor; have spent quite a few months where I work day in and day out in the heat that I literally turn dark brown. But man, working in +40C temperature... that's going to kill a whole lot of people early.

So yea, policymakers being in AC-ed, high and dry places... Doesn't need much lobbying to not give a damn.


----------



## luutzu (4 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Thanks for that, I was about to ask you to place some bets for me, on the last two Melbourn Cups.




Put it in stocks McFly, Stocks.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2018)

luutzu said:


> working in +40C temperature... that's going to kill a whole lot of people early



I’m not certain but I think that building sites etc at least in some states stop work when the temperature exceeds x.

If heatwaves become more common then there’s a direct economic cost there and that’s just one example.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2018)

Moorland fires in England, and San Francisco burns.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...res-likely-as-climate-changes-scientists-warn

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...wildfire-sacramento-san-francisco-evacuations

Of course these things happen "all the time", but something tells me they are getting worse.


----------



## Tisme (5 July 2018)

Has Russia started building its pontoon nuclear power plants in its new territory...the Arctic? I seem to recall they placed their flag on the bottom of the ocean a while back.


----------



## basilio (5 July 2018)

A conservative approach to dealing with climate change.

* Declare energy independence with carbon dividends *
A carbon tax and dividend system could usher in an era of clean energy independence

......Republican former Secretaries of the Treasury James Baker and George Shultz have called for a carbon dividends strategy, because: 


it avoids new regulation,
it abides by conservative principles of market efficiency, and
it leverages improvements to the Main Street economy to ensure a future of real energy freedom.
...
This is how carbon dividends work. 

A simple, upstream fee, paid at the source by any entity that wants to sell polluting fuels that carry such hidden costs and risk. This is administratively simple, light-touch, economy-wide, and fair to all. 

100% of the revenues from that fee are returned to households in equal shares, every month. This ensures the Main Street economy keeps humming along. 

Because both the fee and the dividend steadily rise, pollution-dependent businesses — and the banks that finance them — can see the optimal rate of innovation and diversification to liberate themselves from the subsidized pollution trap. The whole economy becomes more competitive and more efficient at delivering real-world value to Main Street. 

To ensure energy intensive trade-exposed industries are not drawn away by other nations keeping carbon fuels artificially cheap, a simple border carbon adjustment ensures a level playing field, while adding negotiating power to US diplomatic efforts, on every issue everywhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...are-energy-independence-with-carbon-dividends


----------



## cynic (5 July 2018)

basilio said:


> A conservative approach to dealing with climate change.
> 
> * Declare energy independence with carbon dividends *
> A carbon tax and dividend system could usher in an era of clean energy independence
> ...



And how does this ensure a level playing field for all nations?

How will the further exportation of Australian industry, aid our global environment?

This sounds suspiciously like a policy, cunningly designed for the purposes of duping a nation into economically crippling itself.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2018)

cynic said:


> This sounds suspiciously like a policy, cunningly designed for the purposes of duping a nation into economically crippling itself.




It sounds like an Emissions Trading Scheme which we could have had years ago if it wasn't for the Greens.


----------



## cynic (5 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It sounds like an Emissions Trading Scheme which we could have had years ago if it wasn't for the Greens.



What?!!
Did the Greens truly do something for which Australians can be thankful?!! (Amazin!! Whowouldathunkit?!!)


----------



## ghotib (5 July 2018)

How are those two questions relevant to a policy proposed by two former US Treasury Secretaries for the USA?


----------



## cynic (5 July 2018)

ghotib said:


> How are those two questions relevant to a policy proposed by two former US Treasury Secretaries for the USA?



How do the origins of authorship alter the merits of the proposal?


----------



## basilio (5 July 2018)

ghotib said:


> How are those two questions relevant to a policy proposed by two former US Treasury Secretaries for the USA?




Indeed. The point of highlighting the carbon tax and carbon dividend concept was it's capacity to use market forces to rapidly and fairly redirect economic progress towards to clean energy generation. It isn't about regulation.

That is why many conservative economists and politicians believe it is the most practical free markat approach to dealing with CC.

https://www.clcouncil.org/media/TheConservativeCaseforCarbonDividends.pdf
http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/02/republican-proposed-carbon-dividend-great-sign-progress


----------



## basilio (5 July 2018)

cynic said:


> How do the origins of authorship alter the merits of the proposal?




How about actually reading the proposal and then discussing it's merits ? You will in fact find that it does offer thoughtfull answers to most questions.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2018)

cynic said:


> How do the origins of authorship alter the merits of the proposal?



It seems a reasonable proposal to me.

The only concern I would have, given its origins, is just to make sure they haven't snuck a role for investment banks taxing the entire economy in there somewhere.

That might sound a bit "tin foil hat" but then I've seen how a similar scenario has unfolded with electricity in Australia, in a manner which directly increases emissions in the process, so anything's possible if there's away for someone to siphon off a few $ billion.

So long as there's nothing like that, and there doesn't appear to be so it's just a word of caution on my part there, then it seems a reasonable way forward.


----------



## basilio (5 July 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> It seems a reasonable proposal to me.
> 
> The only concern I would have, given its origins, is just to make sure they haven't snuck a role for investment banks taxing the entire economy in there somewhere.
> 
> ...




There are many fathers to the carbon tax/carbon dividend idea. It is an elegant concept that has drawn support across political divides.

To my knowledge there are no hidden investment bank opportunities to snaffle a few billion in the process. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend

*Hansen to Obama: Support a Carbon Tax | Worldwatch Institute*
www.worldwatch.org/node/5962
Yet Hansen and other _carbon tax supporters_ insist that the debate between the ... in favor of increased fossil fuel taxes, and 44 percent opposed the _proposal_.  (Incorporates  100% dividend distribution of the tax)

*Carbon Fee and Dividend Policy - Citizens' Climate Lobby*
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
A national, revenue-neutral _carbon_ fee-and-_dividend_ system would place a predictable, ... Co-Benefits: Whereas the measures _proposed_ in this legislation will benefit the ... Change (IPCC) to avoid irreversible _climate change_, the yearly increase in _carbon_ ..... and Economic Benefits) · Household Impact Study · _Supporters_ ...

*Exxon Mobil Lends Its Support to a Carbon Tax Proposal - The New ...*
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/science/exxon-carbon-tax.html
Jun 20, 2017 - The company is supporting a _carbon tax proposed_ by the Climate Leadership ... and returning the money to taxpayers as a “climate _dividend_.
*Young Republicans Embrace Carbon Fee Proposal | CleanTechnica*
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/.../young-republicans-embrace-carbon-fee-proposa...
Mar 7, 2018 - In fact, the _sponsors_ prefer to call their _proposal_ a _carbon_ rebate rather .... Tags: ., _carbon dividend_ plan, _carbon tax_, _Climate change_, Climate ...

*The Republican Carbon Tax Is Republican, Say ... - The Atlantic*
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/...proposal...carbon-tax.../516048/
Feb 8, 2017 - But a _carbon tax_-and-_dividend_ scheme really could be an elegant, ... Their _proposal_ is called “The Conservative Case for _Carbon Dividends_. ... a path for Republicans to _support_ the policy without looking like hypocrites.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2018)

Hottest financial year on recording according to BOM.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-05/hottest-fin-year-on-record-bom-data-show/9930606


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 July 2018)

Now I hear there’s a heatwave in Canada which has caused deaths.

Canada, the Middle East, UK & Europe and here in Australia have all seen new temperature extremes in recent years and the trend of being warmer than usual is becoming all to familiar worldwide.

Thinking about it rationally I strongly suspect we’re now past the point where orderly solutions are workable.

My expectation is that there will be some sort of major “incident” in a key country, and realistically that means the US, and a decade later fossil fuels will largely be gone from common use with the transition resembling a full scale war in more ways than one.

Timing is anyone’s guess but it does seem pretty hard to deny that there’s a problem these days.


----------



## basilio (7 July 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Thinking about it rationally I strongly suspect we’re now past the point where orderly solutions are workable.
> 
> My expectation is that there will be some sort of major “incident” in a key country, and realistically that means the US, and a decade later fossil fuels will largely be gone from common use with the transition resembling a full scale war in more ways than one.




That realisation has been understood by climate scientists for the past 15-20 years.  The time for an "orderly" solution response probably closed in the mid nineties.

Critical incidents ? Absolutely certain. But I'm not confident we can get a decent government response from a society that still denies CC is real or a problem or that greenhouse gases have to be drastically reduced  to have any chance of mitigating the effects.

This is what emergency action might look like.
https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/

On a practical level I think Richard Heinberg has a more nuanced approach.

*Why Climate Change Isn’t Our Biggest Environmental Problem, and Why Technology Won’t Save Us*
Richard Heinberg

August 17, 2017

http://www.postcarbon.org/why-clima...ntal-problem-and-why-technology-wont-save-us/


----------



## explod (7 July 2018)

There is nothing more we can do or say.  When we have politicians, working less and being paid more and they cannot understand or relate to the old pensioner who worked diligently for fifty years supporting the community and can no longer afford to rent a property in which to live.   And as a Red Cross volunteer I can sight endless tragedies that are completely ignored, so what hope do we have, and on top we have Mr Rabbit wanting to get more coal fired power going.

Yes power is a problem, elderly going cold because they can no longer afford gas.  Oh, that's right we sold most of it off to the Chinese for $5 a litre.

So climate change has no hope of hitting the quick when there are no brains who understand life and reality on the ground. 

I feel for my children and grandchildren everyday and envy those who never had children.

So just party, if you can


----------



## explod (8 July 2018)

In my last post here it should read for gas to China at "5 cents a litre"


----------



## Tisme (8 July 2018)

Apparently Rangas are an endangered species if global warming does occur ...according to highly esteemed www.councilestate.co.uk that is.


----------



## basilio (8 July 2018)

Japan is in the middle of a monumental flood situation as unpredented rains keep on coming.

*Japan flooding and landslides kill dozens as millions are ordered to evacuate homes*
By North Asia Correspondent Jake Sturmer in Tokyo
At least 66 people have died and many more are missing after heavy rains caused flooding and landslides across much of western Japan.

*Key points:*

In Motoyama, south of Hiroshima, 583 millimetres of rain fell between Friday and Saturday morning
Heavy rains are expected to continue through Sunday
48,000 police, firefighters and Self-Defence Force personnel have responded to calls for help

Hiroshima Prefecture was hit the hardest with numerous landslides that killed at least 15 people and authorities have warned that the death toll will continue to rise.

Many of the dead had ignored evacuation orders, choosing to stay in their homes despite warnings.

Almost 5 million people have been told to evacuate as homes have been destroyed and cars swept away.

Since the downpour began on Thursday, the weather agency has forecast record amounts of rain through Sunday, warning of flooding, mudslides and lightning strikes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-08/japan-flooding-and-landslides-kill-dozens-of-people/9954102


Just another predictable oucome of a warming climate. Check out the 2012 analysis of the effects of CC on Japan
https://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/cc/impacts_FY2012.pdf


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 July 2018)

basilio said:


> Almost 5 million people have been told to evacuate




I've never been to Japan so not overly familiar with it but 5 million is a lot of people to be evacuating from anywhere.

Do they actually have somewhere to put them all? It's a big number.


----------



## explod (8 July 2018)

One report stated 1 million homes destroyed.  Now that is not good and the rain continues


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 July 2018)

explod said:


> One report stated 1 million homes destroyed.



It's hard to comprehend the scale involved.

In Australian terms it's like saying every house in WA, including Perth, has been destroyed.

Or that every home in SA and Tas is gone from the city CBD's to middle of nowhere farms.

Or the whole of Brisbane including all suburbs.

It's somewhat hard to get my mind around the scale of that.


----------



## luutzu (9 July 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's hard to comprehend the scale involved.
> 
> In Australian terms it's like saying every house in WA, including Perth, has been destroyed.
> 
> ...




Yea, just hard to comprehend.

It's also fortunate in that Japan is a very rich country and those residents can afford to move. 

If a similar event hit similarly populated area but its residents, and their gov't, cannot afford to move or rescue. Man.


----------



## Tisme (9 July 2018)

Being a mountainous country, Japan is prone to mud slides. I was rather surprised at how alluvial their hills are compared to eroded Australia, which of course is way older than 15 million yearold Japan and zip volcanoes.


----------



## explod (9 July 2018)

"Ian Dunlop
13 hrs

Extreme Heat in Northern Siberia and Arctic
Profound implications for Australia

This week will see unprecedented heat extremes in Northern Siberia and the Laptev Sea as temperatures soar 20-30 degC higher than normal, accelerating carbon emissions from permafrost melt and methane clathrates, generating even greater warming – one of the dangerous tipping points which have concerned scientists for years. It is now happening.

This is in addition to record heat extremes around the Northern Hemisphere over the last few weeks.

Meanwhile, in the Canberra goldfish bowl, scientifically-illiterate parliamentarians propose massive expansion of coal which would further accelerate this process.

We are more exposed to the impact of this warming than any other continent. Drought is in full swing, farming land is rendered increasingly unproductive; this process will accelerate, with impact across society. We are totally unprepared for what is now developing.

The first priority of government is the security of the people. The political cesspit in Canberra is utterly failing Australians by refusing to wake up to reality. If we want to survive, time for totally diffferent emergency government, not just new policies."

https://wxclimonews.com/2018/07/02/...beria-and-the-coastal-arctic-ocean-this-week/


----------



## explod (10 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> Being a mountainous country, Japan is prone to mud slides. I was rather surprised at how alluvial their hills are compared to eroded Australia, which of course is way older than 15 million yearold Japan and zip volcanoes.



So the planners did a very poor job if they knew (as you do) that the area of these million homes was prone to flooding and landslides on such a scale.

No time for pretending that it is not real anymore.  Our planet is in real trouble and falling apart.  Floods, cyclones, fires, droughts and increasing extremes between hot and cold.


----------



## Tisme (10 July 2018)

explod said:


> So the planners did a very poor job if they knew (as you do) that the area of these million homes was prone to flooding and landslides on such a scale.
> 
> No time for pretending that it is not real anymore.  Our planet is in real trouble and falling apart.  Floods, cyclones, fires, droughts and increasing extremes between hot and cold.




In this example, is there any definitive data to show aberrations aren't just that, or if infact they are aberrations?

A media hysteria filter would need to be applied to make sure skew sensationalism is removed.


----------



## basilio (21 July 2018)

On a more positive note I came across this organisation which believes that if we are prepared to confront what needs to be done to reverse CC -  we can do it. 

Ambitious ?  Certainly.  But if we don't take this seriously then the alternative is Explods vision. - party till we go.

_*Project Drawdown is the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming.* Our organization did not make or devise the plan—we found the plan because it already exists. We gathered a qualified and diverse group of researchers from around the world to identify, research, and model the 100 most substantive, existing solutions to address climate change. What was uncovered is a path forward that can roll back global warming within thirty years. It shows that humanity has the means at hand. Nothing new needs to be invented. The solutions are in place and in action. Our work is to accelerate the knowledge and growth of what is possible. We chose the name Drawdown because if we do not name the goal, we are unlikely to achieve it._
https://www.drawdown.org/


----------



## cynic (21 July 2018)

basilio said:


> On a more positive note I came across this organisation which believes that if we are prepared to confront what needs to be done to reverse CC -  we can do it.
> 
> Ambitious ?  Certainly.  But if we don't take this seriously then the alternative is Explods vision. - party till we go.
> 
> ...



Have you bought and read the book yet? 
If so, how was it, and are there any drawbacks?


----------



## basilio (23 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Have you bought and read the book yet?
> If so, how was it, and are there any drawbacks?




Havn't bought the book.  Did read the website and the scores of solutions they have found and suggested

I can see merit in almost all of the propositions. They are almost entirely "no regret" proposals which will be worthwhile regardless of the effects on CC.
I'm not sure how the maths of actually reducing CO2 in the atmosphere stands up.  It is a monumental ask.  But at least more useful than pretending there is nothing to worry about.
.........................................................................................
My larger concern is that in reality we cannot begin such a huge process from a strong and stable position. The facts are that the problems CC is causing will create their own nightmares and require immediate attention on many fronts. Just for example increasing sea levels will simultaneously threaten population centres around the world. The energy/resources required to address each of these situations will be immense.


----------



## basilio (23 July 2018)

There is a world wide heat wave at the moment creating disasters around the world and record temperatures.  Is it due to CC? Apparently yes-- but not just  CC.
* The big heatwave: from Algeria to the Arctic. But what’s the cause? *
The northern hemisphere is having a baking summer – and it’s not just down to climate change

Robin McKie

Sun 22 Jul 2018 08.00 BST   Last modified on Sun 22 Jul 2018 23.23 BST

*Shares*
808




A wildfire in Sweden last week, one of an epidemic that has led authorities to appeal for international help.
Photograph: Mats Andersson/AFP/Getty Images
Last week, authorities in Sweden took an unusual step. They issued an appeal for international aid to help them tackle an epidemic of wildfires that has spread across the nation over the past few days.

After months without rain, followed by weeks of soaring temperatures, the nation’s forests had become tinderboxes.

The result was inevitable. Wildfires broke out and, by the end of last week, more than 50 forest blazes – a dozen inside the Arctic circle – had spread across Sweden.

A nation famous for its cold and snow found itself unable to cope with the conflagrations taking place within its border and so made its appeal for international help, a request that has already been answered by Norway and Italy who have both sent airborne firefighting teams to help battle Sweden’s blazes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...here-uk-algeria-canada-sweden-whats-the-cause


----------



## SirRumpole (24 July 2018)

Japan is copping a record heatwave.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/deadly-heat-wave-hovers-japan-south-korea-56750471


----------



## basilio (24 July 2018)

An expansion story on the heat wave in Japan.

*Japan heatwave declared natural disaster as death toll mounts*

Japan's weather agency has declared a heatwave sweeping the country a natural disaster, with at least 65 deaths recorded in the past week.

An agency spokesman warned that "unprecedented levels of heat" were being seen in some areas.

More than 22,000 people have been admitted to hospital with heat stroke, nearly half of them elderly, emergency officials say.

The heatwave shows no sign of abating, forecasters say.

On Monday, the city of Kumagaya reported a temperature of 41.1C (106F), the highest ever recorded in Japan.

In central Tokyo, temperatures over 40C were also registered for the first time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44935152


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Japan is copping a record heatwave



As is the US. As is the UK. And much of Europe. And......

One could be excused for thinking the planet was getting warmer or something like that.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> As is the US. As is the UK. And much of Europe. And......
> 
> One could be excused for thinking the planet was getting warmer or something like that.




It's probably just an unlikely coincidence of random events.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It's probably just an unlikely coincidence of random events.



Ah yes, that's it, good to be reassured there's nothing to worry about. 

The lack of intelligence of humans does amaze me sometimes. It's a bit like asbestos - everyone knows it's dangerous but the bit usually omitted from the story is that the dangers were proven beyond reasonable doubt and were known to insurers, medical people, factory inspectors and so on before most of it was used. So the vast majority of it was done with full knowledge of the consequences. 

That about 2 million tonnes per annum of asbestos are still being mined and used overseas today, in many cases with zero effective safety controls, is just sad really. The very same products being removed at great cost in Australia, UK and other developed countries are still being manufactured and installed elsewhere. 

Humans might be clever enough to put a man on the moon and make the internet work but at the same time we do some truly dumb things, not dealing with climate change and that we're still messing about with asbestos in 2018 being among them.


----------



## luutzu (25 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It's probably just an unlikely coincidence of random events.




I think there are some 43 new weather event record being broken around the world so far this year.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2018)

And the honest sceptics are being converted.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406


----------



## Tisme (25 July 2018)

luutzu said:


> I think there are some 43 new weather event record being broken around the world so far this year.





warmth or cold?


----------



## explod (25 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> warmth or cold?



It's a combination of both extremes.

Record cold snaps nearer to the equator and record heat snaps in the polar regions.


----------



## Tisme (25 July 2018)

explod said:


> It's a combination of both extremes.
> 
> Record cold snaps nearer to the equator and record heat snaps in the polar regions.





Yes I was reading the bom report for June (see link)

with my statistician hat on I think the asymmetrical nature of the min/max anomaly readings, the mean calcs are less indicative than median would but that would require the datasets to compare.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml


----------



## basilio (29 July 2018)

There was a story written last year which looked at the unfolding consequences of CC with totally clear eyes.

* The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition *

The facts, research, and science behind the climate-change article that explored our planet’s worst-case scenarios.

By David Wallace-Wells





In the jungles of Costa Rica, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal. And the effect would be fast: Within a few hours, a human body would be cooked to death from both inside and out. Fossils by Heartless Machine


 July 14, 2017 2:06 pm

We published “The Uninhabitable Earth” on Sunday night, and the response since has been extraordinary — both in volume (it is already the most-read article in _New York_ Magazine’s history) and in kind. Within hours, the article spawned a fleet of commentary across newspapers, magazines, blogs, and Twitter, much of which came from climate scientists and the journalists who cover them.

Some of this conversation has been about the factual basis for various claims that appear in the article. To address those questions, and to give all readers more context for how the article was reported and what further reading is available, we are publishing here a version of the article filled with research annotations. They include quotations from scientists I spoke with throughout the reporting process; citations to scientific papers, articles, and books I drew from; additional research provided by my colleague Julia Mead; and context surrounding some of the more contested claims. Since the article was published, we have made four corrections and adjustments, which are noted in the annotations (as well as at the end of the original version). They are all minor, and none affects the central project of the story: to apply the best science we have today to the median and high-end “business-as-usual” warming projections produced by the U.N.’s “gold standard” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html


----------



## explod (29 July 2018)

I can't tick you Bas because I do not like it.

Seeing 100 year wildfires, floods, windstorms happening daily around the planet is alarming indeed.  And a bit of a search indicates that its underreported on our public media.

Pass the whisky.


----------



## Darc Knight (29 July 2018)

explod said:


> I can't tick you Bas because I do not like it.
> 
> Seeing 100 year wildfires, floods, windstorms happening daily around the planet is alarming indeed.  And a bit of a search indicates that its underreported on our public media.
> 
> Pass the whisky.




If you don't like something in the Media you call it Fake News. Get with the program.


----------



## basilio (29 July 2018)

explod said:


> I can't tick you Bas because I do not like it.
> 
> Seeing 100 year wildfires, floods, windstorms happening daily around the planet is alarming indeed.  And a bit of a search indicates that its underreported on our public media.
> 
> Pass the whisky.




Totally fair Plod. I don't like it either. It does scare the xhit out of me.

But if we ignore it, deny it, pretend it isn't real  what are the consequences ? I suppose a relevant example we can relate to is ignoring cyclone warnings, or flood warnings or having a BBQ and bonfire with 50 drunken mates in the bush on a day of extreme fire danger.


----------



## explod (29 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> If you don't like something in the Media you call it Fake News. Get with the program.



When did I do that?


----------



## Darc Knight (29 July 2018)

explod said:


> When did I do that?




You didn't, that's the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Tisme (29 July 2018)

basilio said:


> In the jungles of Costa Rica, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal. And the effect would be fast: Within a few hours, a human body would be cooked to death from both inside and out. Fossils by Heartless Machine




You want to elaborate on that presumption?

http://cms.ashrae.biz/weatherdata/STATIONS/787620_s.pdf


----------



## Tisme (29 July 2018)

Found the cause:


----------



## Darc Knight (29 July 2018)

All you hear on Macquarie Radio is Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Chris Smith and the other clones,  calling climate change a hoax. If they're lying they should be locked up. If it's a clique of (global warming) Academics lying, they should be locked up. It's that serious.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> All you hear on Macquarie Radio is Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Chris Smith and the other clones,  calling climate change a hoax. If they're lying they should be locked up. If it's a clique of (global warming) Academics lying, they should be locked up. It's that serious.




If they are lying then people shouldn't listen to them.


----------



## Tisme (29 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> All you hear on Macquarie Radio is Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Chris Smith and the other clones,  calling climate change a hoax. If they're lying they should be locked up. If it's a clique of (global warming) Academics lying, they should be locked up. It's that serious.




And the clones who regurgitate tall tales to validate their trenchant end of days beliefs?


----------



## Darc Knight (30 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If they are lying then people shouldn't listen to them.




My fourth policy might be a Royal Commission into bias in the Media.  Last week Jones and Hadley were "full throttle" trying to get the Libs over the line in the Longman by-election. This morning Jones has been as bitter as Vinegar due to the loss, it's vicious. He keeps saying "we" when referring to the Liberals, constantly.
I now have the ABC back on, for a bit.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> My fourth policy might be a Royal Commission into bias in the Media. Last week Jones and Hadley were "full throttle" trying to get the Libs over the line in the Longman by-election. This morning Jones has been as bitter as Vinegar due to the loss, it's vicious.




I suppose that there is some entertainment value in listening to them choke on their vitriol.


----------



## Tisme (30 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> My fourth policy might be a Royal Commission into bias in the Media.  Last week Jones and Hadley were "full throttle" trying to get the Libs over the line in the Longman by-election. This morning Jones has been as bitter as Vinegar due to the loss, it's vicious. He keeps saying "we" when referring to the Liberals, constantly.
> I now have the ABC back on, for a bit.




You posting in correct thread or worried about the threat to vinegar due to global warming.


----------



## Tisme (30 July 2018)

Polar winds are causing some havoc with fires and drought conditions in Northern Hemisphere. Must be a big change in plasma generation to cause the easterlies to move so far south.


----------



## basilio (30 July 2018)

Analayis of the Polar Vortex and CC.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-polar-vortex-climate-change-and-beast-from-the-east


----------



## Tisme (30 July 2018)

basilio said:


> Analayis of the Polar Vortex and CC.
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-polar-vortex-climate-change-and-beast-from-the-east




and this one line says it all:




> But the potential link between the climate change, the polar vortex and mid-latitude weather is a complicated, uncertain and – at times – contentious one.


----------



## basilio (30 July 2018)

_"But the potential link between the climate change, the polar vortex and mid-latitude weather is a complicated, uncertain and – at times – contentious one._"

Is that supposed to undermine the reality of world wide climate change? 

Or should we just wait *until it is absolutely certain* we are destablishing our benign climate before considering any action. ?


----------



## Tisme (30 July 2018)

basilio said:


> _"But the potential link between the climate change, the polar vortex and mid-latitude weather is a complicated, uncertain and – at times – contentious one._"
> 
> Is that supposed to undermine the reality of world wide climate change?
> 
> Or should we just wait *until it is absolutely certain* we are destablishing our benign climate before considering any action. ?




No one is stopping anyone from planting their own runner beans, but when you decide to plant them in someone else's back yard you better have a rock solid reason.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 July 2018)

basilio said:


> Or should we just wait *until it is absolutely certain*



I'll simply note that there is no business decision ever made by anyone that involved absolute certainty as to the outcome.

Even a governent owned monopoly will have some risk somewhere and at the other end uncertainty is the very nature of any privately owned business operating in a competitive market (and that's most businesses).

Climate change is uncertain but it's considerably more certain than the basis of a great many other decisions.


----------



## Tisme (30 July 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll simply note that there is no business decision ever made by anyone that involved absolute certainty as to the outcome.
> 
> Even a governent owned monopoly will have some risk somewhere and at the other end uncertainty is the very nature of any privately owned business operating in a competitive market (and that's most businesses).
> 
> Climate change is uncertain but it's considerably more certain than the basis of a great many other decisions.




For a business to last successfully for more than five years, there's a fairly high importance of risk assessment, experience and a rather low gamble factor.  It's when an organisation spreads its decision making process to please the mono task rank and file that hard to kill camels get born.


----------



## basilio (30 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> For a business to last successfully for more than five years, there's a fairly high importance of risk assessment, experience and a rather low gamble factor.  It's when an organisation spreads its decision making process to please the mono task rank and file that hard to kill camels get born.




A lot of gobbly gook there Tisme !?

Smurf is pointing out that the risks CC poses to the whole economic/environmenal system are significant enough to warrant decisive action. I'll go back to the simple day to day example - does a business/organisation wilfully ignore flood warnings or cyclone warnings because they might not amount to much ?

Who needs to take the action ? I suppose only the people  and countries who are going to be affected ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> For a business to last successfully for more than five years, there's a fairly high importance of risk assessment, experience and a rather low gamble factor.



Agreed.

Apply standard business risk management approaches to CO2 and it's hard to find a way that doesn't trigger the "senior management must be immediately informed" clause that's in most risk assessments somewhere for that moment when someone realises they and/or the company really are in very serious trouble. 

Thankfully I've only ever needed to follow that policy once in my working life thus far, and I wasn't the cause simply the one who first observed the situation, but most businesses have it somewhere. 

CO2 would fall into that category due to consequence alone, there being no need to accurately determine probability in order to reach that conclusion since if consequence is drastic enough then even a relatively low probability still puts it in the red zone.


----------



## noirua (31 July 2018)

Ground all aircraft and that will immediately slowdown the erosion of the ozone layer. Too many people go holidaying in this way whilst telling others off for not being green enough. Hypocrites all of them errrr including me.

 ASF share competition: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...g-competition-entry-thread.34114/#post-989958


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2018)

basilio said:


> A lot of gobbly gook there Tisme !?
> 
> ...




Mate don't talk about something you have no idea about. To run a business successfully long term you need a lot of smarts. There is no overarching endless pit of money from taxpayer purses to pay wages, expand, invest, train, etc like you would be all too familiar with being a public servant all your working life.

Many of us private enterprisers don't become leaders because we stepped through personal development training sessions, use three letter acronyms and cliche meta speak, earned public service medals  and got rewarded with pay grade increases for studying useless adjunct degrees that have no bearing on the work proclivities . 

When taking down someone, you need to confine yourself to things you know about and I'm willing to lend you sixpence to buy a clue if that helps.


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Apply standard business risk management approaches to CO2 and it's hard to find a way that doesn't trigger the "senior management must be immediately informed" clause that's in most risk assessments somewhere for that moment when someone realises they and/or the company really are in very serious trouble.
> 
> ...




One of my lines of business is engineering to accommodate the various continual changes, one aspect being in synch with climatic pecadillos.

I already posted an ASHRAE weatherbin data set in response to a sensationalist piece about surviving in a South American jungle inferring it as a metric to the future world in general and of course the poster chose silence in favour or fact. These are higher learning indices that are used to manufacture, develop, innovate, etc twenty to fifty years into the future. The mathematics alone, employed in that sphere is high level stuff, far exceeding high school calculus, S&P, etc.

With CO, NO, CO2, VOCs and vociferous compounds in general the methods of test, the mitigation, the containment, et al are all high importance to manufacturers already. Australia has not been a laggard when it comes to setting frontier standards for imported and locally produced energy consuming equipment e.g. MEPS, which have impacted on production houses in places like Thailand, China, Japan.

We tend to take a cynical almost chicken little Henny Penny view in this country that all is doom unless we start doing things, but we ignore the fact we have been doing and that profit is not the only driver for innovation, infact , not withstanding heirarchial needs, the driver for innovation is an innate desire by dominant competitive cultures to do things better for the triumph and recognition of the society's skills and mind. It's because deep down we are skeptical that ungalvanising our society into sectarian interest groups that we carry the fear and rage that a fix is out of our reach and panic is knocking at our door. We want the good old days, but screw ourselves over with apologies for our past behaviours.


----------



## basilio (31 July 2018)

Does anyone else have a clue what Tisme is sprouting ? If I thought  his first business observations were goobly gook this latest spiel is " goobly gook squared".

So I understand Tisme is saying that businesses (his perhaps ?) are leaders in "setting standards" for energy efficiency in electronic equipment. 

Great.  That is at least a .5% contribution to the overall problem of drastically reducing emissions. But if anyone thinks that is any more than a tiny part of what needs to be done they are in denial. And it doesn't even touch the issues of dealing with the consequences of CC now and into the near term future.


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2018)

basilio said:


> Does anyone else have a clue what Tisme is sprouting ? If I thought  his first business observations were goobly gook this latest spiel is " goobly gook squared".
> 
> So I understand Tisme is saying that businesses (his perhaps ?) are leaders in "setting standards" for energy efficiency in electronic equipment.
> 
> Great.  That is at least a .5% contribution to the overall problem of drastically reducing emissions. But if anyone thinks that is any more than a tiny part of what needs to be done they are in denial. And it doesn't even touch the issues of dealing with the consequences of CC now and into the near term future.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2018)

Unfortunately I think climate change is now feeding on itself.

The fires around the world as a result of CC are now releasing tonnes more CO2, which creates more warming, which creates more fires etc.

So really if that cycle continues I think we are stuffed. I don't really see a way out. Planting more trees would be counter productive if they too catch fire and create more CO2.

So my answer to the topic heading, I'm sorry to say is YES.


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Unfortunately I think climate change is now feeding on itself.
> 
> The fires around the world as a result of CC are now releasing tonnes more CO2, which creates more warming, which creates more fires etc.
> 
> ...




Wait til the northern winter when some idiot US senator will bring a snow ball into the chamber to show there's no warming. And if he says it with a snowball on his desk, it must be true.


----------



## basilio (31 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> View attachment 88629




We understood you perfectly Mr Tisme.  Keep on trolling..


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2018)

basilio said:


> We understood you perfectly Mr Tisme.  Keep on trolling..




You want to add in some of your usual expletives and personal insults to compensate for your lack of visceral and intellectual comprehension?


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 July 2018)

basilio said:


> Does anyone else have a clue what Tisme is sprouting ?



I've interpreted it to mean risk in the sense that a business views risk.

If my "business" were the planet's climate then any risk assessment process I've seen used in any business, privately owned or government, would put CO2 etc emissions very firmly in the red zone and requires an immediate response.

Reason being that once you conclude that the consequences either threaten the ongoing viability of the entire business or result in multiple human lives lost, the probability of occurrence becomes largely irrelevant from that point on. Even if it's very unlikely to occur, it still ends up in the red zone if the consequences really are that drastic.

It's hard to imagine how climate change wouldn't be put into that category in any such process.


----------



## basilio (31 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> You want to add in some of your usual expletives and personal insults to compensate for your lack of visceral and intellectual comprehension?




*Nail.on.Head*  Nothing intelligent in your comments Tisme. Just sophisticated trolling with "gooble gook squared". 

If anyone came to a meeting I chaired with content  like that for general  board understanding I shoot it right back for rewriting and clarification.

But then you're the "big cheese" in your life aren't you ?  You can say what you like and anyone else can madly pretend to nod..


----------



## moXJO (31 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Unfortunately I think climate change is now feeding on itself.
> 
> The fires around the world as a result of CC are now releasing tonnes more CO2, which creates more warming, which creates more fires etc.
> 
> ...



The melting permafrost will be the major calamity.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2018)

moXJO said:


> The melting permafrost will be the major calamity.




Yes, unstoppable sea level rises that will affect most people eventually.


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2018)

basilio said:


> *Nail.on.Head*  Nothing intelligent in your comments Tisme. Just sophisticated trolling with "gooble gook squared".
> 
> If anyone came to a meeting I chaired with content  like that for general  board understanding I shoot it right back for rewriting and clarification.
> 
> But then you're the "big cheese" in your life aren't you ?  You can say what you like and anyone else can madly pretend to nod..




Wot meeting have you ever chaired apart from a staff meeting of chalk boarders?

Make it snappy I have a meeting at 2pm  which I'm chairing for state govt higher upperers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 July 2018)

moXJO said:


> The melting permafrost will be the major calamity.



Yes, largely because in melting it will release a lot of CH4 (methane) which is a potent greenhouse gas.


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, unstoppable sea level rises that will affect most people eventually.




Do we know the current (pun)  sea level rise actual? It was projected to be straight lining  to 175mm from 1900 at one stage.


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2018)

http://www.energy.soton.ac.uk/ccworldweathergen/


----------



## explod (31 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> Wot meeting have you ever chaired apart from a staff meeting of chalk boarders?
> 
> Make it snappy I have a meeting at 2pm  which I'm chairing for state govt higher upperers.



Not doing much good, attack the individual.

State guvmint deniers recruitment club i'd say.

Anyolehow, temperature continues to rise off the arctic so time for a whiskey, hey... maybe go back to the smokes while the party lasts.


----------



## basilio (31 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> Wot meeting have you ever chaired apart from a staff meeting of chalk boarders?
> 
> Make it snappy I have a meeting at 2pm  which I'm chairing for state govt higher upperers.



Then why are you wasting your time with us mere mortals ?
Get along now and stop wasting precious company time on trolling ASF..


----------



## basilio (31 July 2018)

*Factoring the effects of climate change into business.*

* New CBA case a warning: Step up on climate change, or we’ll see you in court *
John Hewson
Despite the scale and urgency of the climate crisis and popular support for action, governments and financiers are failing to act. This will have to change

John Hewson is a professor at ANU and a former Liberal

In a global first, Australian mum-and-dad shareholders Guy and Kim Abrahams have launched a case against the Commonwealth Bank, arguing that the bank has breached the law by not disclosing the risks climate change poses to its business.

Buying their shares over 20 years ago, Guy and Kim were making “an investment in their children’s futures”. A climate-changed world of financial risk, social upheaval and environmental degradation is clearly not the future they signed up for.

Climate change is an immediate threat to the entire global financial system. This was the ominous warning that came from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority earlier this year. And they’re taking it seriously, declaring that they’ll be stress-testing the Australian financial system to force the financial sector to do more to transition to a clean economy. They’re right to do so.

Climate change is the “tragedy of the horizon,” governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney warned in a landmark speech in Berlin last year.

“We don’t need an army of actuaries to tell us that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix”, he said.

....... The Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AODP), which I chaired, has led the world debate by surveying, rating, and ranking the world’s 500 largest investors on climate-risk management with the AODP global climate index over the last decade.

Funds are rated from AAA through to D grade, with an extra X category being added for those funds at the bottom that appear to be doing absolutely nothing to manage this critical risk.

... Institutional investors are growing increasingly impatient with companies dragging their heels. Earlier this year BlackRock Inc, the world’s largest asset manager with about US$5.1tn under management announced, “Investors can no longer ignore climate change”.

“Ultimately the board is responsible for protecting the long-term economic interests of shareholders and we may vote against the re-election of certain directors where we believe they have not fulfilled that duty” BlackRock said.

This echoes statements by APRA’s Geoff Summerhayes earlier this year that directors will be individually responsible for failing to appropriately manage climate change risks, following the release of an influential opinion by barrister Noel Hutely SC. Mr Hutely found that company directors who fail to properly consider and disclose foreseeable climate-related risks to their business could be held personally liable for breaching their statutory duty of due care and diligence under the Corporations Act, warning it’s “only a matter of time” before we see this sort of litigation against a director.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...up-on-climate-change-or-well-see-you-in-court


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> Do we know the current (pun)  sea level rise actual? It was projected to be straight lining  to 175mm from 1900 at one stage.




https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807


----------



## explod (31 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807



This was published over two years ago and probably from research compiled from a bit further back.

In my view there has been accelerating temperature rises across the planet since then, alarmingly up to 40c warmer in the arctic (in their winter just gone).


----------



## moXJO (31 July 2018)

basilio said:


> *Factoring the effects of climate change into business.*
> 
> * New CBA case a warning: Step up on climate change, or we’ll see you in court *
> John Hewson
> ...



Waste of money. 
What exactly is Australia speeding towards a clean economy going to do if all the other nations continue to pollute? 


Food,  energy, border security and risk management funding for extreme weather scenarios. Not wasting cash on "feel good" policies that actually do nothing in the greater scheme of things.


----------



## basilio (31 July 2018)

moXJO said:


> Waste of money.
> What exactly is Australia speeding towards a clean economy going to do if all the other nations continue to pollute?
> 
> 
> Food,  energy, border security and risk management funding for extreme weather scenarios. Not wasting cash on "feel good" policies that actually do nothing in the greater scheme of things.




I think you have misunderstood this story. It is directed to businesses and asking them to examine their exposure to climate change risks. What could be the foreseable impacts on their business operations which a board should be aware of and undertake due diligence ?

One instance could be a energy company that believes it has multi millions of barrels of oil as a resource  but is unwilling to recognise that they may not be able to extract them because of restrictions on fossil fuel use in the near future.
In fact that is a very possible scenario.


----------



## moXJO (31 July 2018)

basilio said:


> I think you have misunderstood this story. It is directed to businesses and asking them to examine their exposure to climate change risks. What could be the foreseable impacts on their business operations which a board should be aware of and undertake due diligence ?
> 
> One instance could be a energy company that believes it has multi millions of barrels of oil as a resource  but is unwilling to recognise that they may not be able to extract them because of restrictions on fossil fuel use in the near future.
> In fact that is a very possible scenario.



Sorry bas I quoted the wrong post.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2018)

I can see the cost of basic home insurance becoming unaffordable soon.


----------



## basilio (31 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I can see the cost of basic home insurance becoming unaffordable soon.




In fact there may well be whole areas that are uninsurable because of flood/rising sea level risk.
Insurance companies may also put a line through homes in high fire rsk areas if they decide the risk of bushfire is too great.
*
So in these circumstances what will be the value of the properties *?  I imagine banks won't lend against them because they are uninsurable.


----------



## basilio (1 August 2018)

The concern about gloabal warming making large areas of the planet uninhabitable for people is growing. This research is about China and affects 400million people.  
I wonder what the results would be  if we did similar research for Queensland or central NSW?

* Unsurvivable heatwaves could strike heart of China by end of century *
The most populous region of the biggest polluter on Earth – China’s northern plain – will become uninhabitable in places if climate change is not curbed

Damian Carrington Environment editor

 @dpcarrington 
Tue 31 Jul 2018 16.28 BST   First published on Tue 31 Jul 2018 16.21 BST

*Shares*
624




Residents cool off at a pool in Jinan in eastern China’s Shandong province. Photograph: Ng Han Guan/AP
The deadliest place on the planet for extreme future heatwaves will be the north China plain, one of the most densely populated regions in the world and the most important food-producing area in the huge nation.

New scientific research shows that humid heatwaves that kill even healthy people within hours will strike the area repeatedly towards the end of the century thanks to climate change, unless there are heavy cuts in carbon emissions.

“This spot is going to be the hottest spot for deadly heatwaves in the future,” said Prof Elfatih Eltahir, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, who led the new study. The projections for China’s northern plain are particularly worrying because many of the region’s 400 million people are farmers and have little alternative to working outside.

....
*The new analysis assesses the impact of climate change on the deadly combination of heat and humidity, which is measured as the “wet bulb” temperature (WBT). Once the WBT reaches 35C, the air is so hot and humid that the human body cannot cool itself by sweating and even fit people sitting in the shade die within six hours. 


A WBT above 31C is classed by the US National Weather Service as “extreme danger”, with its warning stating: “If you don’t take precautions immediately, you may become seriously ill or even die.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...area-could-be-uninhabitable-by-end-of-century*


----------



## SirRumpole (1 August 2018)

Hottest July ever in Southern Queensland, worse to come with with higher humidity and hotter summer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-01/qld-weather-temperatures-break-records-july-maximums/10056288


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

basilio said:


> The concern about gloabal warming making large areas of the planet uninhabitable for people is growing. This research is about China and affects 400million people.
> I wonder what the results would be  if we did similar research for Queensland or central NSW?
> 
> * Unsurvivable heatwaves could strike heart of China by end of century *
> ...




A global rise of about 12 degrees C would be req'd for that scenario.


----------



## basilio (1 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> A global rise of about 12 degrees C would be req'd for that scenario.




Do you want to recheck that statement ?


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Do you want to recheck that statement ?




No I know my oats.


----------



## basilio (1 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> No I know my oats.



Hmmn.. You might know your "oats"  but saying that a global temperature increase of 12C is required to cause unsurvivable heatwaves in China just makes no sense.

Without even going to the original paper (which suggested  local temperature increase of 3-4C) just being aware of the impact of a 6C increase in global temperatures would make on Earth would make you aware of the error of your statement.

How did you come to that conclusion  anyway ?

https://owlcation.com/stem/Mark-Lynass-Six-Degrees-A-Summary-Review
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05252-y


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Hmmn.. You might know your "oats"  but saying that a global temperature increase of 12C is required to cause unsurvivable heatwaves in China just makes no sense.
> 
> Without even going to the original paper (which suggested  local temperature increase of 3-4C) just being aware of the impact of a 6C increase in global temperatures would make on Earth would make you aware of the error of your statement.
> 
> ...




A higher level of understanding thermodynamics, adiabatic cooling, iso sciences and psychrometrics than common people.

Like to share a mug of Clausius-Clapeyron ?


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

Hit the books yet bas?


----------



## basilio (1 August 2018)

Your just hopelessly and utterly wrong Tisme.  I was hoping you might work that out with a small nudge - but apparently not. I'm not even going to try to waste my breath here.

*There is no way in any ecosystem that the worlds temperatures have to rise 12C to create the killer heatwaves described in the Nature paper.* For gods sake the world already approaches these conditions in some areas right now so the threshold is quite close - not another 12C of warming. Read the article I tabled. Use some logic. Find some common sense.


_*Model experiments and evaluation*
Here, we use the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Regional Climate Model (MRCM)26 with lateral boundary conditions obtained from simulations by a carefully selected set of global climate models from among those that participated in CMIP527 (see selection criteria described in the Methods section and Supplementary Table 1 for the list of global climate models and their details). We perform simulations for historical period (1975–2005), as well as future climate (2070–2100) assuming two scenarios of GHG emissions28 (BAU scenario (RCP8.5) and moderate mitigation scenario (RCP4.5)) (see Supplementary Fig. 1, Supplementary Information for simulations domain, and Supplementary Table 2). For the historical and future period, we performed six sets of simulations, with and without irrigation. By comparing the historical period simulations, with and without irrigation, we estimate the impact of irrigation on heatwaves in the historical climate period as described by the TW. The results of these simulations reveal a significant role for irrigation in enhancing the magnitude of extreme TWmax and hence the intensity of heatwaves. (By “extreme” we mean maximum simulated value over this period.) Over the irrigated region and NCP, the extreme TWmax over a 30-year period increases by about 0.5 and 0.3 °C, respectively, as a result of irrigation during historical period. This impact of irrigation is even larger, if we consider the average TWmax instead of extreme values, and more pronounced during the relatively drier months of early summer (May and June) (see Supplementary Figs. 2–4). These are the months when irrigation has the largest impact on land surface conditions.

*Heatwaves due to climate change and irrigation*
The impacts of climate change are significantly larger than those of irrigation. The extreme TWmax over irrigated area and NCP are projected to increase by an additional 3.4 and 3.3 °C, respectively, assuming a BAU scenario of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with irrigation, while increases of extreme TWmax are 2.9 and 3 °C over irrigated area NCP, respectively, without irrigation (Fig. 2). The spatial distribution of TWmax under current and future climate features three regions with significantly warmer conditions: the NCP close to the Eastern coast, the Yangtze river valley, and the Southern coast. All these regions are characterized by relatively low elevation (lower than 50 m) compared to the surrounding area (e.g., Yan Mountain and Yaihang Mountain (Fig. 1a)), which is a major factor explaining occurrence of relatively warm conditions. Over several locations in the NCP and along the Eastern coast of China, such as the areas around Weifang, Jining, Qingdao, Rizhao, Yantai, Shanghai, and Hangzhou under the BAU scenario, TWmax exceeds the critical threshold for human survival of 35 °C, during several episodes over a 30-year period (Fig. 3). Moderate climate change mitigation efforts, represented by the RCP4.5 scenario of GHG emissions, reduce the risk of such heatwaves significantly; however, deadly heatwaves are still projected even under those conditions, though significantly less frequent (Fig. 3). In interpretation of the results of this study, we emphasize that TWmax values as low as 30 °C would qualify as “Extremely Dangerous” according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Weather Service Heat Index (see Supplementary Table 6).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05252-y_


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Your just hopelessly and utterly wrong Tisme.  I was hoping you might work that out with a small nudge - but apparently not. I'm not even going to try to waste my breath here.
> 
> *There is no way in any ecosystem that the worlds temperatures have to rise 12C to create the killer heatwaves described in the Nature paper.* For gods sake the world already approaches these conditions in some areas right now so the threshold is quite close - not another 12C of warming. Read the article I tabled. Use some logic. Find some common sense.
> 
> ...




I'm not debating how temp rises will have adverse affects/effects that's a give and being done to death for so long the corpse is losing it attractiveness.

What I am saying is that bogeys about sustained 35°c wetbulbs, contextualised as a histrionic centerpiece for mass famine and devastation requires understanding e.g. for 35°Cwb something in the order of a sustained 47°Cdb would be expected.


----------



## explod (1 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> I'm not debating how temp rises will have adverse affects/effects that's a give and being done to death for so long the corpse is losing it attractiveness.
> 
> What I am saying is that bogeys about sustained 35°c wetbulbs, contextualised as a histrionic centerpiece for mass famine and devastation requires understanding e.g. for 35°Cwb something in the order of a sustained 47°Cdb would be expected.



Which is what is now occurring


----------



## basilio (1 August 2018)

Tisme, this article describes the temperature extremes that are being reached  in some of the hottest parts around the world in 2017.  They are happening with an average increase of  global temperature of  around  .9C.

If you somehow  still believe* that it will take another 12C degrees increase in world wide temperatures* to cause widespread collapse from heat .... you really shouldn't be running your Oz wide business empire. 

Or perhaps they shouldn't let you.

*How Extreme Heat Could Leave Swaths of the Planet Uninhabitable*
Last year, in Kuwait, the earth’s hottest recorded temperature topped 129 degrees, a tie with Death Valley’s sizzling 2013 high. Recalling his own near-lethal brush with such temperatures—now the leading cause of weather-related fatalities—the author investigates how it could alter Earth forever.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/extreme-heat-global-warming


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

explod said:


> Which is what is now occurring




No it's not. Badgerys Creek came close last year but no cigar. I think it was the UAE that had a 35deg wetbulb and the population survived despite all the apparel they wear.

You have to realise that the Chinese desert is no enclosed in dome. You can't keep pushing the xyz global temp rise on one hand then dispel it on the other when it doesn't suit the argument.

12 degrees cobber....ask around the academic circles if you refuse my smarts.


----------



## explod (2 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> No it's not.
> 
> 12 degrees cobber....ask around the academic circles if you refuse my smarts.



Maybe, but how about 40c above in the arctic circle in their last winter.

Averages are one thing but its the extremes that are starting to knock people out.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...arctic-scientists-concerned-article-1.3845114


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 August 2018)

So far as this 12 degree argument is concerned, an increase of that magnitude would see the all time record for both Sydney and Melbourne being 58 degrees and temperatures in excess of 50 being experienced during most summers.

I'm no expert on what the human limits are but I can assure you that high temperature will cause a lot of problems before it reaches the high 50's.

Air-conditioning and refrigeration systems will start to fail at about 43 degrees and very few will still be running by the low 50's. That's fail as in stopping completely, not just that they aren't adequate to keep the room at 22 degrees etc.

Train lines are likely to have problems at that temperature. Authorities would in practice quite likely slow, or even outright cancel, services rather than take the risk of derailments.

Any machine involving the use of petrol is subject to fail beyond the high 40's.

Electricity transmission and distribution networks suffer a substantial loss of capacity at high temperatures. Exceed that limit and outright failure occurs.

Most means of generating electricity lose capacity at high temperatures. Large thermal (coal, gas, oil) power stations would certainly have major issues in the high 50's. It is also unknown, but highly likely, that we'd see a substantial shutting down of small scale solar generation at those levels due to inverters overheating. That's unproven but probable.

Those machines which escape problems with petrol or electricity itself will have issues with heat dissipation. In simple terms that means they can't be pushed to hard or they'll overheat.

At least some isolated incidents of road surfaces melting, traffic lights failing and so on are probable. It only takes one section of road to be unusable and that makes the rest largely pointless too. Even if all that's OK the odds that someone's car breaks down on a bridge etc and blocks the road are extremely high.

Put that all together and there's a lot of uncertainty about how such a day would actually unfold but what can be said is that by the time it's over:

Pretty much nobody would have functioning air-conditioning.

Electricity supply would likely be hit and miss depending on exact location. 

A lot of communications infrastructure would not be working in practice due to various causes.

With the exception of ferries, ground transport of all types would be substantially inoperable in practice.

It's probable that airlines would ground their fleets in practice due to concerns about both the aircraft and runways operating safely at such a high temperatures. There's a point where concerns would arise and the airlines are likely to take a precautionary approach.

With unreliable transport, communications and electricity plus concerns about human safety government would quite likely order all non-essential businesses to close. Even in the absence of such a decree most would shut down in practice.

If you went into the CBD that afternoon you'd find a few police keeping a watch and that's about it really. Pretty much nothing would be even remotely close to business as usual.

All that's without mentioning fires, effects on farm crops, animals and so on.

I don't know exactly where the tipping point is but the normal functioning of society will come to an abrupt halt well before we're 12 degrees above present hot weather conditions. Even 6 degrees above would bring most things to a halt in practice.


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

explod said:


> Maybe, but how about 40c above in the arctic circle in their last winter.
> 
> Averages are one thing but its the extremes that are starting to knock people out.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...arctic-scientists-concerned-article-1.3845114




Yes that's a different story though. I'd rather see editorials that don't use sensationalist hooks and unlikely science to strike fear .


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as this 12 degree argument is concerned, an increase of that magnitude would see the all time record for both Sydney and Melbourne being 58 degrees and temperatures in excess of 50 being experienced during most summers.
> 
> I'm no expert on what the human limits are but I can assure you that high temperature will cause a lot of problems before it reaches the high 50's.
> 
> ...




It is sustainable for short periods and air cooled air conditioners can easily handle 47 deg if designed with the correct size condensing sets. Those temps are not uncommon in the Pilbra. However it isn't the 47 degrees in isolation, the article proposed a sustained average wet bulb of 35deg which would require at least 47 deg drybulb to maintain the moisture holding at sea level vapour pressure.

If we did see a rise to 35Cwb it would be a very long term event and in that time emmission producing untilities would be cruelled simply because  they would have become unsustainable mechanically, kinetically and latently.

In addition, as the latent temps rose increased heat soak into to the moisture (latent heat of vapourisation) would keep dry bulbs from rising as fast as they would otherwise.


----------



## basilio (2 August 2018)

When Tisme talks of an increase in global  temperatures of 12C  as the necessary precurser for widespread heat related deaths he may be using the following  adaptabity study.
*An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress*
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

It's a good read and in fact highlights the major limiting factor of human or animal survival as the climate warms. Basically when one reaches wet bulb temperatures of 35C we cook within 6 hours. Bodies cannot get rid of their heat load into an environment that is warmer then they are.

The mistake Tisme is making is insisting that this problem is not going to happen until world wide global temperatures have increase by 12C. At 12C the whole world has been well cooked.

The paper I cited at the start of this discussion showed that on current warming trends large areas of China would be experiencing multiple  35C wb  events from 2070 onwards.

In fact it will probably also happen in India, the Middle East and probably Australia.These are just the logical extensions of the extreme weather conditions we are already experiencing

The observations Smurf makes about the capacity of human engineering to work in extreme conditions is also critical. The end result will be that hundreds of millions of people will be at extreme risk of heat stroke at exactly the same time as any  human protective measures fail under the extreme temperatures.

These events don't have to happen all the time to be fatal.. Once is generally enough. But add a few more in the summer and if people/animals managed to survive the first event -  the second/third/fouth would take them out.

It's at this stage we need to look at become cave dwellers.


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

basilio said:


> When Tisme talks of an increase in global  temperatures of 12C  as the necessary precurser for widespread heat related deaths he may be using the following  adaptabity study.
> .




Where did I talk about that? Please explain your need to make up stuff in the face of facts?


----------



## basilio (2 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Where did I talk about that? Please explain your need to make up stuff in the face of facts?




How about 


Tisme said:


> A global rise of about 12 degrees C would be req'd for that scenario.




When referring to  my original story.  

And if you can recall I gave you a nudge and suggested you might want to recheck your facts and just said you "knew your oats" and proceeded to say



Tisme said:


> You have to realise that the Chinese desert is no enclosed in dome. You can't keep pushing the xyz global temp rise on one hand then dispel it on the other when it doesn't suit the argument.
> 
> *12 degrees cobber....*ask around the academic circles if you refuse my smarts.




And by the way if you hadn't made it absolutely clear that you believed we needed an extra 12C temperature to see these problems why did Smurf respond with a detailed analysis of how a 12C increase in temperatures would impact our cities ?  What was he reading ?


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

Chongqing/Chunking 0.4% incidence design condition : 36.4 Cdb/25.8 Cwb.
Brisbane: 31.1 Cdb, 22.5Cwb
Cairns: 32.9 Cdb, 25.3 Cwb
Tokyo : 33.1 Cdb, 25.1 Cwb
Delhi : 42 Cdb, 22.1 Cwb
Port Hedland:40.1 Cdb, 21.5 Cwb


getting a picture here yet?


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

basilio said:


> How about
> 
> 
> When referring to  my original story.
> ...





Smurf did not write a detailed analysis and it's impudent to infer he did and put him in the cross hairs. He wrote what he considered a scenario which is well written and subjective, as it should be. 

I have given you hard scientific/engineering fact and you patently do not have the tools to evaluate them instead trying to poke holes in hard science.


----------



## basilio (2 August 2018)

It is really simple Tisme. You  said repeatedly that the world average temperature needed to increase by 12C to cause the widespread heat stress problems outlined in the China study I referred to.

In fact these heat stresses will happen way before world temperatures rise by 12C.  They will be part of the ever increasing extreme weather events we are seeing.

Black is not White.


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

basilio said:


> It is really simple Tisme. You  said repeatedly that the world average temperature needed to increase by 12C to cause the widespread heat stress problems outlined in the China study I referred to.
> 
> In fact these heat stresses will happen way before world temperatures rise by 12C.  They will be part of the ever increasing extreme weather events we are seeing.
> 
> Black is not White.




Give it up mate, you're shifting goal posts all over the place to defend a flawed article that has obviously been written for suckers.


----------



## basilio (2 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Give it up mate, you're shifting goal posts all over the place to defend a flawed article that has obviously been written for suckers.



And your simply incapable of recognising when you lie through your teeth -  even when it on record for all to see.

Good bye Tisme.


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

Wot rise?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Wot rise?




Lets see 2014- date first.


----------



## Junior (2 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> View attachment 88693
> 
> 
> Wot rise?




Also from BOM.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm no expert on what the human limits are but I can assure you that high temperature will cause a lot of problems before it reaches the high 50's.




Given the fact that many people die in current heatwaves, it wouldn't take much more to increase the death toll rapidly


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 August 2018)

*



			Unsurvivable heatwaves could strike heart of China by end of century
		
Click to expand...


*
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...area-could-be-uninhabitable-by-end-of-century



Tisme said:


> A global rise of about 12 degrees C would be req'd for that scenario.




Noting that there seems to be some significant contention I wish to clarify that my post concerning the effects on cities and infrastructure was in response to the above, in particular the comment regarding the requirement for a 12 degree rise made by Tisme at 3:00pm yesterday.

Regarding the specific impacts I mention, I wish to emphasise that I am referring to present day infrastructure, lifestyles and systems and not to what could theoretically be built. That is, I am referring to things such as present day roads, rail transport, electricity supply, motor vehicles, air-conditioning systems and social arrangements such as typical "office hours" daytime working arrangements, the typical times which schools and shops operate and the like.

In simple terms, in theory yes we could design and install air-conditioning that works at 60 degrees, buses that can be driven safely and reliably at 70 degrees and so on but I am referring to what is actually in existence today. Not one rail line, road, train, bus, car, power station, transmission or distribution line, air-conditioner or building in use today in Australia was designed with any serious thought that outside air temperatures measured in accordance with proper meteorological standards would reach the high 50's. 

The house I've just bought and am about to move in to is presumably wired with cable having a rated limit of 75 degrees for the insulation. Allowing for solar radiation increasing the roof space temperature above ambient plus heat generated by current flow through the wiring (all electrical cables do that, it's unavoidable in practice) it would in practice have a woefully inadequate capacity with an ambient temperature of 59 degrees. Yes the house could be wired differently but that ain't cheap. I haven't investigated it, I'm not living in the place yet, but that's what I'd expect to find.

The typical consumer grade air-conditioner won't be working at that temperature either. I'm not sure exactly at what point it would fail but anything above the low 40's the risk arises. Past extreme heat in Vic and SA is known to have created issues for some systems.

The car I've got now wouldn't have been designed for that. It might survive cruising or going downhill but should I find myself stuck in traffic going nowhere in full sun and with negligible wind then I'd be expecting trouble. If my car doesn't overheat then many others will so either way the road becomes useless as a means of transport and we're all stuck.

That's without even mentioning the human effects or those on wildlife, plants etc. I've spent full days outside previously in SA with maximum temperatures of 44 - 45, I've experienced about 46 in the US and I've experienced low 40's in the Middle East. Considering that, and the differences compared with temperatures approximately 13 degrees lower (ie low 30's), I will simply say that it is a vast difference and I have serious doubts as to the practicality of humans functioning in the high 50's. Even if it's survivable it would be incredibly unproductive doing any manual sort of work that's for sure.


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Lets see 2014- date first.




You know I don't post unless I have something up my sleeve


----------



## Tisme (2 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...area-could-be-uninhabitable-by-end-of-century
> 
> 
> 
> ...




12 degree global rise isn't ever going to be witnessed by humans.

Insofar as current design fatigues, well that's a give.

Simple psychrometric eqtns dictate a 12 Cdb rise to elevate to 35 Cwb ... that's the fact that is being disputed


----------



## basilio (3 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> 12 degree global rise isn't ever going to be witnessed by humans.
> 
> Insofar as current design fatigues, well that's a give.
> 
> Simple psychrometric eqtns dictate a 12 Cdb rise to elevate to 35 Cwb ... that's the fact that is being disputed




Those goal posts have moved a fair bit haven't they "12C" Tisme ?

Whatever gooblegook you cook up the simple, clear facts are :

1) You immediately dismissed the paper discussing the risks of serious overheating in China by saying "
_"A global rise of about 12 degrees C would be req'd for that scenario."_

2) When you  were questioned about such a scenario you doubled down and insisted on producing your graphs to "prove" that :


Tisme said:


> You have to realise that the Chinese desert is no enclosed in dome. You can't keep pushing the xyz global temp rise on one hand then dispel it on the other when it doesn't suit the argument.
> 
> 12 degrees cobber....ask around the academic circles if you refuse my smarts.




The on the ground reality in 2018 is that many areas around the world are getting  closer and closer to reaching 32-35C 100% humidity temperatures that will kill people very quickly.  In fact this has already happened.

So it doesn't take any difficulty to realise that  only a "small" further increase in global temperatures will be sufficient to tip whole areas into a dangerous situation in the event of heat waves where temperatures break records seemingly every year.

It turns out that Chinas Northern Plain is particularly vulnerable because it also uses a lot of water for irrigation which in turn increases water vapour in the air, increases  local warming (water vapour traps more heat) and increases humidity - which of course makes it even harder for mammals to cool off.

The fact is we only need a relatively small increase in global temperatures to reach critical levels.  All of your graphs and "smarts" are mis-direction on a mammoth scale. And attempting to then say that you never actually said 
_
"A global rise of about 12 degrees C would be req'd for that scenario."
_
that is pure Trump talk.


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> 12 degree global rise isn't ever going to be witnessed by humans.
> 
> Insofar as current design fatigues, well that's a give.
> 
> Simple psychrometric eqtns tell that for a 35Cwb requires 12 Cdb rise





Junior said:


> Also from BOM.





not as applicable IMO


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Those goal posts have moved a fair bit haven't they "12C" Tisme ?
> 
> Whatever gooblegook you cook up the simple, clear facts are :
> 
> ...





I thought you had said your farewells after calling me a "liar"?  If I, or any member for that matter, called you the same (plus the filth base language you have called me over various posts) you would running off to mummy complaining how I was picking on you. ...Who's your daddy precious?

And I don't expect you to understand science and engineering ... that takes a skillset and nous, hyperbole requires no thought.


----------



## basilio (3 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> And I don't expect you to understand science and engineering ... that takes a skillset and nous, hyperbole requires no thought.




I'm quite good at understanding logic, mis direction and BS. That usually works out OK.  In particular when someone  attempts to use science or engineering to push a case that is clearly insane ie 



basilio said:


> You immediately dismissed the paper discussing the risks of serious overheating in China by saying "
> _"A global rise of about 12 degrees C would be req'd for that scenario."_


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> not as applicable IMO




To clarify why the diurnal trend, the original report (Uen-Soon, Pal and Elahir) being referred to in this current discussion is predicated on sporadic maximums not averages.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 August 2018)

DRy bulb and wet bulb temperatures are related by relative humidity.

You can use this calculator to play around with the figures.

eg a Wb temp of 34.5C at a RH of 50% equals a dry bulb temp of 45C.

Have fun !

https://www.kwangu.com/work/psychrometric.htm


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

basilio said:


> In particular when someone  attempts to use science or engineering to push a case that is clearly insane ie




You listening to yourself? The article attempted to use science and engineering as the basis for the ramblings and you think personal insults and hysterical then gazump using science and engineering to question the validity of he original article?

We're not in the years of the inquisition anymore and I'm not an heretic.

You might actually learn something if you stopped to ponder the content of my posts instead of flying off the handle. You might even see some good news in what I say.

Because I post stuff about Latham, Trump and climate change doesn't mean I endorse the articles unless I specifically and seriously say so. Most of those post are for entertainment value. But when I say things like 12Cdb global rise to raise to global 35Cwb in a thread captioned as " is *global* warming becoming unstoppable" then consider the various corollaries to that argument.

Lets take the Chinese connection. I already posted the 0,4% data for  Chongqing/Chunking as 36.4Cdb/25.8 Cwb. That's an RH%43 and dewpoint 21.93

holding RH constant and raising the wetbulb to 35C, the drybulb must rise to ~48C  an increase of 12.4C. Dewpoint will rise to 32.1C.

Adiabatic cooling temp is then dewpoint of 32.1. As  drybulbs increase the dewpoint will decrease and adiabatic cooling increase


----------



## SirRumpole (3 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Lets take the Chinese connection. I already posted the 0,4% data for Chongqing/Chunking as 36.4Cdb/25.8 Cwb. That's an RH%43 and dewpoint 21.93
> 
> holding RH constant and raising the wetbulb to 35C, the drybulb must rise to ~48C an increase of 12.4C. Dewpoint will rise to 32.1C.




The simple calculator I posted confirms those calcs.

I don't know if it's realistic to assume that the RH will stay the same though.


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The simple calculator I posted confirms those calcs.
> 
> I don't know if it's realistic to assume that the RH will stay the same though.




Enthalpies come into the works so it's better illustrated as such. Lotsa contiguous variables 

Good news is that the more water in the air the lower the sea level


----------



## basilio (3 August 2018)

Tisme if you cared to read the original paper you would have seen how the CC scientists arrived at the conclusion that if global warming continues at its current pace the food bowl of China would face catastophic heatwaves.

I did post sections from it. It isn't hard to see the whole paper. I'm quite confident they have the smarts to work out the effects of
1) The current climatic conditions
2) The extra heat load from ogoing CC warming under the two scenarios they posited
3) The additional  heat/humidity effects created by the irrigation poured onto the region.

The results are challenging to put it mildly. The paper was* not* examining the whole world environment. It was geographically specific. Unfortunately you chose to say *and  then repeat* that this was  not true because it would take 12C of global warming for the scenario in China to be played out. But what you were actually saying was at 12C extra warming the whole world would be in a near permanent state of uninhabitability.

Again this is pure mis-direction and quite poor logic. The issue about weather *extremes *caused by CC  is not whether we reach 3-4-6 or 12C increases in average global temperature. It is about the impact of hitherto never seen events that go beyond the survival capacity of current eco systems.

In this catergory we now see fire storms fuelled by record high temperatures and exceptionally dry grounds.

There are hurricanes that reach  newly created Catergory 6 levels because the oceans that feed them are so much warmer.

We see rain events which drop unprecedented amounts of water  (because of the extra moisture held in the atmosphere) causing instant floods.

And we now risk seeing heatwaves that take temperatures beyond the survival capacity of people and animals in many parts of the world.

I don't really get much entertainment value from these posts. I'd much prefer a more constructive dialogue that helped move people to demanding whatever effective response we can make to keep some semblance of a functioning eco system for us and our children.



basilio said:


> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05252-y


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

I've already provided you a site specific scenario pertinent to China.  What we choose to read into non peer reviewed articles that are actually Guardian journalistic licence applied to the original works is always going to be contentious. 

Blind Freddy knows we are in climatic anomaly, but we have to sift out the tall tales and true with practical science, not sensationalism and mastheads.

Just look at this and ask yourself why and how do people survive in Darwin..... 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-29/wet-bulb-temperatures.jpg/6658166

What we really know from real data is that design is 33.9Cdb 23.8Cwb and all the air conditioning, cooling towers for power stations, etc are predicated on those figures and they work well.


----------



## basilio (3 August 2018)

Which is why you can read the original peer reviewed article on China and discover that in fact The Guardian did not over egg the story.
This is real stuff  "12C"Tizzie. 

*North China Plain threatened by deadly heatwaves due to climate change and irrigation*

Suchul Kang &
Elfatih A. B. Eltahir 
_Nature Communications_*volume 9*, Article number: 2894 (2018) |  Download Citation 

*Abstract*
North China Plain is the heartland of modern China. This fertile plain has experienced vast expansion of irrigated agriculture which cools surface temperature and moistens surface air, but boosts integrated measures of temperature and humidity, and hence enhances intensity of heatwaves. Here, we project based on an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model simulations that climate change would add significantly to the anthropogenic effects of irrigation, increasing the risk from heatwaves in this region. Under the business-as-usual scenario of greenhouse gas emissions, North China Plain is likely to experience deadly heatwaves with wet-bulb temperature exceeding the threshold defining what Chinese farmers may tolerate while working outdoors. China is currently the largest contributor to the emissions of greenhouse gases, with potentially serious implications to its own population: continuation of the current pattern of global emissions may limit habitability in the most populous region, of the most populous country on Earth.


----------



## basilio (3 August 2018)

Perhaps Darwin won't be that inhabitable in a few decades. A neat short video clip in this story as well.

*Deadly mix of heatwaves and humidity could make some Australian cities virtually ‘uninhabitable’*
WITH temperatures nudging 70C, this CBD has already been dubbed a “river of fire”. Deadly heatwaves could make it a no-go zone.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/f90ff75e2f982e741efc714a1b7cf0a6


----------



## explod (3 August 2018)

What we are witnessing across the planet are extremes.

The monitoring charts/measurements do not account for this.

In the same time/latitude zones, 10 deg in a place, 30 in another, average 20.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 August 2018)

Trees as drought busters.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-03/how-trees-can-be-used-as-drought-busters/10069318


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Perhaps Darwin won't be that inhabitable in a few decades. A neat short video clip in this story as well.
> 
> *Deadly mix of heatwaves and humidity could make some Australian cities virtually ‘uninhabitable’*
> WITH temperatures nudging 70C, this CBD has already been dubbed a “river of fire”. Deadly heatwaves could make it a no-go zone.
> ...





Jebus I can't believe the pig headed nonsense, 70deg C is quoted as surface temperature for goodness sakes. You are just playing to rusted ons and your own entrenched narrative. "12CTizzie" childish taunts speaks heaps on your maturity level.... waste of space really.


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

explod said:


> What we are witnessing across the planet are extremes.
> 
> The monitoring charts/measurements do not account for this.
> 
> In the same time/latitude zones, 10 deg in a place, 30 in another, average 20.




Examples?


----------



## explod (3 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Examples?



https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/july-sees-extreme-weather-high-impacts


----------



## luutzu (3 August 2018)

explod said:


> https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/july-sees-extreme-weather-high-impacts




The Trump admin just got rid of higher fuel efficiency standards. Claiming that higher fuel efficiency is bad for motorists health. Yes, I'm pretty sure I heard that correctly. 

I'm guessing Trump feels the pain of motorist getting stuck in the heat. So if gov't interfere and demand better engines, it'll be.... slower to get home? 

I thought a democratic system like the US was supposed to be fool-proof where any idiot can be in charge and it'll operate just fine. How much damage can one administration do, right?

In the past 18 years, they have 8 of Bush Jr., then Obama kinda not really saved it but didn't really ruin it either... and now Trump.


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

explod said:


> https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/july-sees-extreme-weather-high-impacts




Good article


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2018)

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/78a7f050d66f7065f0beb3d5e2ac923e

Nothing to worry about here. Ask anyone about England and the first thing they'll tell you is the place is stinking hot, that's common knowledge. Oh wait.....

For those who haven't been there, I'll add that one problem they'll be having is that owning any sort of cooling system isn't at all common in the UK since normally there's simply no need to even consider it. Heating yes, they do that far better than we do in Australia with hot water running through radiators just about everywhere, but even in situations like public buildings etc it's not uncommon that there's no form of mechanical cooling system. Add in the reality of people not being used to the heat and it's going to be a rather miserable experience surely.

One incident like this could be readily dismissed as just natural weather variation but this is becoming rather common.


----------



## luutzu (3 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/78a7f050d66f7065f0beb3d5e2ac923e
> 
> Nothing to worry about here. Ask anyone about England and the first thing they'll tell you is the place is stinking hot, that's common knowledge. Oh wait.....
> 
> ...





There's a recent bushfire in Sweden? How is that possible?

Flooding in India last week killed some 500?  New heat records set across Africa, the US, Japan, Canada?

But I guess when it's common enough, it's "normal"


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> The Trump admin just got rid of higher fuel efficiency standards. Claiming that higher fuel efficiency is bad for motorists health.



If that's true then it wins the award for being truly bizarre.

Arguments for or against fuel efficiency standards and for or against all things Trump aside, that one just seems truly ridiculous.

Fuel efficiency is bad for your health?

That's a bit like saying the council has decided to ban nightclubs stamping wrists on Saturday nights because it's causing littering in the botanical gardens on Tuesday afternoons. Or someone's banning the ringing of church bells on Sunday morning in Darwin because the noise might disrupt an outdoor concert in Melbourne that was on the previous day. It makes no sense whatsoever no matter how you look at it and is one of the sillier things I've ever heard really.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> There's a recent bushfire in Sweden? How is that possible?



Part of the trouble with all this is that at a guess people in Sweden probably aren't too good at dealing with bushfires. Lack of experience on what to do, lack of equipment to do it with, etc. That's not being critical but you can't expect them to be experts on dealing with a problem that they haven't had to worry about historically.

When it comes to the heat, well you might go to the Middle East if you want to see how to cope with that but you wouldn't think of asking someone from Scotland. Therein lies a big part of the problem with climate change - consider everything built by man and realise that none of it was built to be suited to a different climate. Some things wont matter, Stonehenge or the Great Wall of China won't likely fall over because it's a bit warmer, but it's a huge problem with everything from water supply to buildings to power.


----------



## luutzu (4 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> If that's true then it wins the award for being truly bizarre.
> 
> Arguments for or against fuel efficiency standards and for or against all things Trump aside, that one just seems truly ridiculous.
> 
> ...




They claim it'll save lives because cars with better safety features will be cheaper. Hey, I didn't say it


----------



## SirRumpole (4 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Part of the trouble with all this is that at a guess people in Sweden probably aren't too good at dealing with bushfires. Lack of experience on what to do, lack of equipment to do it with, etc. That's not being critical but you can't expect them to be experts on dealing with a problem that they haven't had to worry about historically.




The US knows how to deal with bush(forest) fires, but they still need help from Australia and NZ, and of course we can call on them if we need it.

So the conclusion is that the problem is getting beyond the ability of the local authorities to handle. Our firefighters and those in other countries could be working all year round if the situation gets any worse.

Scary stuff.


----------



## Tisme (4 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/78a7f050d66f7065f0beb3d5e2ac923e
> 
> Nothing to worry about here. Ask anyone about England and the first thing they'll tell you is the place is stinking hot, that's common knowledge. Oh wait.....
> 
> ...




You might like to look at Canary Wharf development .... mechanical services are fairly vast and QLD people played a big part in getting it up and running


----------



## basilio (4 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Jebus I can't believe the pig headed nonsense, 70deg C is quoted as surface temperature for goodness sakes. You are just playing to rusted ons and your own entrenched narrative. "12CTizzie" childish taunts speaks heaps on your maturity level.... waste of space really.




Pig Headed nonsense ?   Are you brushing your hair  "12C" Tizzie?

That was a surprisingly good analysis of what is happening Darwin. It looked at the current range of ground temperatures in different environments around Darwin as well as considering an even hotter future. Not surprisingly areas of concrete were  exceptionally hot. Basically the heat island effect produced by big cities which results in urban temperatures being  many degrees higher than the official met. temperatures recorded in protected stevenson screens a metre off the ground.

Engineers everywhere will tell you this heat island effect will put far more pressure on  city infrastructure as very hot conditions turn into completly unbearable.* And that of course was the point of the story wasn't it ?
*
But returning to *pig headed nonsense *..MissDirect. I have stuck you with the moniker of "12C" Tizzie because you* repeatedly *stated that the world  needed to warm by 12C in order for conditions in China to reach catastropohic heat waves levels from 2070 onwards.  And not only did you manange to make a total fool of yourself trying to prove that we needed 12C of global warming to parboil 400 m Chinese (and everyone else ..) but then you tried to deny you ever said it ! And you never even had the grace to respond to the peer reviewed article in Nature journal that I cited.

Honestly Tisme  I just couldn't get in the ring with you for pig headed nonsense. Your way outa my league..


----------



## basilio (4 August 2018)

The stories of the heatwaves around the world and the effect on people, the environment, crops, infrastructure is just chilling. 

We do not need another degree of global warming.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...a/news-story/9945c9e8bfd7f757481f4ac8b31d4001
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/78a7f050d66f7065f0beb3d5e2ac923e


----------



## SirRumpole (4 August 2018)

basilio said:


> The stories of the heatwaves around the world and the effect on people, the environment, crops, infrastructure is just *chilling*.




You have solved the problem then ?


----------



## Tisme (4 August 2018)

GIGO


----------



## Tisme (4 August 2018)

Average global surface temps a have risen 0.9degC and water temps 0.6degC in a century. Water vapour is 50% of greenhouse gas.

European peak temp record from 1976 is 48degC, everyone hoping record will be be broken in 48 hours


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> European peak temp record from *1976* is 48degC, everyone hoping record will be be broken in 48 hours




Emphasis mine and reason is that if you look at the whole climate issue then you'll find that 1976 comes up an awful lot as an extreme or turning point and that applies from Europe to southern Australia. 

I don't know the reason why, just noting that it seems to have been a significant year in all of this and it's amazing how often you'll find either a record or a trend change in which that year is the significant one.

Why? No idea but there seem too many occurrences where that's the significant year for it to be pure coincidence (not impossible but it's unlikely) so _something_ would seem to have happened at that time either natural or man-made.


----------



## explod (4 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Average global surface temps a have risen 0.9degC and water temps 0.6degC in a century. Water vapour is 50% of greenhouse gas.
> 
> European peak temp record from 1976 is 48degC, everyone hoping record will be be broken in 48 hours



Speak for yourself, 

who's hoping


----------



## basilio (4 August 2018)

explod said:


> Speak for yourself,
> 
> who's hoping




It isn't an event to "hope" for is it ?  Fear, Prepare for , pray.. but perhaps not hope for.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 August 2018)

As another random example of why all this matters, termites.

Everyone who owns a house in most parts of Australia has at least a small concern about termites and would prefer to not find them anywhere near their property. Keeping them out is a substantial industry in many places with inspections, sprays, rectifying damage and so on.

Go get yourself the guidelines on how to keep them away and go for a walk around any suburb or town in Tasmania armed with that knowledge. You'll find just about every single house breaks the rules - timber in direct contact with the soil, firewood sitting on the ground up against the house and so on. Not an ant cap or termite barrier to be seen anywhere, nobody does annual or even pre-purchase inspections looking for them and there's no such thing as termite treated timber in Tassie either. And it doesn't matter in the slightest for one very simple reason.

No termites in Tasmania. It's too cold you see. Even the pest inspectors in other states will quote that fact first up if they know you're from Tas. 

Now warm it up just a few degrees and it's not hard to see what's going to happen. Plenty of termites in Vic and plenty of things being shipped back and forth across Bass Strait. They'll be here once the climate is suitable and then half a million people all of a sudden find themselves with a problem they weren't expecting and are totally unprepared for. Odds are nobody will have a clue until something falls down and the cause is discovered. Then there'll be a panic trying to find how far they've spread and pondering what to do about all that unprotected timber in everything from fences to frames and even a few pipelines. None of it's treated against termites, that I can assure you.

So there's just one example that'll end up costing rather a lot. There will be no shortage of such problems nationally and globally for the simple reason that everything humans have built, from dams to aircraft, were designed to cope with past climatic conditions. Some will be just fine in a warmer world but others won't.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 August 2018)

Heat records continue to be broken in Europe.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...ks-records-portugal-nears-47-degrees/10073520


----------



## Darc Knight (5 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> As another random example of why all this matters, termites.
> 
> Everyone who owns a house in most parts of Australia has at least a small concern about termites and would prefer to not find them anywhere near their property. Keeping them out is a substantial industry in many places with inspections, sprays, rectifying damage and so on.
> 
> ...




That's great, imagine the boost to the economy; pest controllers, builders, timber suppliers, demolisher's etc.
Sorry, I was just channelling my inner Alan Jones and Mark Latham.


----------



## Tisme (5 August 2018)

explod said:


> Speak for yourself,
> 
> who's hoping




Everyone less 2 ?


----------



## Tisme (5 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Heat records continue to be broken in Europe.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...ks-records-portugal-nears-47-degrees/10073520




I just reading that article and notice there's mention of bush fires. Seeing as Portugal has vast swathes of Ozzie gums (25% of their trees), like San Francisco/California blue gums, when the fire starts it spread fast.


----------



## Tisme (5 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Emphasis mine and reason is that if you look at the whole climate issue then you'll find that 1976 comes up an awful lot as an extreme or turning point and that applies from Europe to southern Australia.
> 
> I don't know the reason why, just noting that it seems to have been a significant year in all of this and it's amazing how often you'll find either a record or a trend change in which that year is the significant one.
> 
> Why? No idea but there seem too many occurrences where that's the significant year for it to be pure coincidence (not impossible but it's unlikely) so _something_ would seem to have happened at that time either natural or man-made.





I don't think they ever found the cause, but I recall the South Pacific water temps became really warm ....volcanoes?


----------



## Tisme (5 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Heat records continue to be broken in Europe.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...ks-records-portugal-nears-47-degrees/10073520




Hit 43 degC

Reason for heatwave is breeze from Sahara Desert channeling through Europe around mountains and river courses, thus why some parts hot some part cool.

Is it global warming when you take heat from one area and put it somewhere else?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Is it global warming when you take heat from one area and put it somewhere else?




Yes, if there are more warmer places than cooler ones.


----------



## Tisme (5 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, if there are more warmer places than cooler ones.




Well there you go, conservation of energy is a myth afterall


----------



## basilio (5 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Well there you go, conservation of energy is a myth afterall




Not when you understand that the current cause of global warming is the earth steadily retaining more heat because of the extra greenhouse gases we are pumping into the atmosphere.

Pretty obvious if your  a scientist..
http://4hiroshimas.com/


----------



## basilio (5 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Everyone less 2 ?




Perhaps  just one ?


----------



## Tisme (5 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Not when you understand that the current cause of global warming is the earth steadily retaining more heat because of the extra greenhouse gases we are pumping into the atmosphere.
> 
> Pretty obvious if your  a scientist..
> http://4hiroshimas.com/




Face palm moment right there.


----------



## basilio (5 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Face palm moment right there.




Oh so you learnt something... !  Fantastic.  And here I was fearing you were unteachable. My bad..
I just can't understand why some people say engineers are so fixated on their  graphs and equations they can't recognise a bigger picture.


----------



## Tisme (6 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Oh so you learnt something... !  Fantastic.  And here I was fearing you were unteachable. My bad..
> I just can't understand why some people say engineers are so fixated on their  graphs and equations they can't recognise a bigger picture.




Too busy keeping up the professional training and global trends perhaps? Not merely engineering either.

Of course you are assuming no one but yourself understands the big picture thus your penchant for plagiarising journalist's plagiarised scholary articles that tell half truths to sensationalise and muddy the waters of the basic truths and in fact preclude anyone suggesting there is fiction going on.


----------



## basilio (6 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> and in fact preclude anyone suggesting there is fiction going on.




So are you trying to say that the extent and dangers of Global Warming are fictitious ? Is that a follow on from your previous ridiculous efforts at undermining the concerns about global warming  causing widespread deadly heatwaves in China (and elsewhere) by saying global temperatures needed to rise 12C to cause such a problem ?

If you have an argument with Damien Carringtons reporting of the Nature paper which identified the issue how about identifying those points in a post rather than make your sweeping BS comments ? Good journalism pulls together the gist of information and presents it in a way that most educated people can understand. Overall I trust the capacity of Damien Carrington to present a fair picture of the science research around global warming. That is why I  am happy to use his summaries.

With regard to understanding the big picture of GW? I reckon I do understand more than the average punter and with good reason. You might  understand it as well but when you came up with that ridiculous 12C comment and continued to defend it despite the fact it made no practical sense one has to wonder. And your continued efforts to look for fictions in the discussion when at the most we are talking about ranges of possibilities don't inspire confidence.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 August 2018)

> You might understand it as well but when you came up with that ridiculous 12C comment and continued to defend it despite the fact it made no practical sense one has to wonder. And your continued efforts to look for fictions in the discussion when at the most we are talking about ranges of possibilities don't inspire confidence.




Tisme's calculation of a 12C rise was valid based on certain assumptions. Read up on the relationship between dry and wet bulb temperatures and humidity and you'll see he was right.

Whether the assumptions were valid is another matter. Personally I agree that CC is real and dangerous and that something must be done about is ASAP. Judging by the twits in power in certain countries I doubt that much will be done untill it's too late.


----------



## basilio (6 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Tisme's calculation of a 12C rise was valid based on certain assumptions. Read up on the relationship between dry and wet bulb temperatures and humidity and you'll see he was right.
> 
> Whether the assumptions were valid is another matter.




I won't argue with you or Tisme about a theoritical basis for saying world temperatures needed to rise 12C to cause deadly heat waves in China. That is quite irrelevant

*The trouble is that the statement  never made any practical sense in the real world*. I was so amazed at Tismes comment my first response  was a quiet question suggesting he might reassess his comment. But that didn't seem to ring any bells and he continued to double down on saying the world needed to warm by 12C to reach the dangerous levels required for the deadly heat waves.

Lets accept Tisme is a bright guy. Wouldn't it make sense to reconsider that given what is already happening with regard to extreme weather conditions and the hundreds of people who have already died from heat stroke around the globe the 12C figure needed reviewing ? That there were other factors in play? That in fact the CC researchers  knew their stuff and were making good calls? The paper and its figures was there to examine.


----------



## Tisme (6 August 2018)

basilio said:


> I won't argue with you or Tisme about a theoritical basis for saying world temperatures needed to rise 12C to cause deadly heat waves in China. That is quite irrelevant
> 
> *The trouble is that the statement  never made any practical sense in the real world*. I was so amazed at Tismes comment my first response  was a quiet question suggesting he might reassess his comment. But that didn't seem to ring any bells and he continued to double down on saying the world needed to warm by 12C to reach the dangerous levels required for the deadly heat waves.
> 
> Lets accept Tisme is a bright guy. Wouldn't it make sense to reconsider that given what is already happening with regard to extreme weather conditions and the hundreds of people who have already died from heat stroke around the globe the 12C figure needed reviewing ? That there were other factors in play? That in fact the CC researchers  knew their stuff and were making good calls? The paper and its figures was there to examine.




I'm not arguing with any researchers bas, the science is what it is, which is why I recommended you consult with other experts.  

Other factors? Well I think I confined myself pretty well to the wetbulb contention. I also posted a goto ABCTV site that patently got it wrong with wetbulbs, which indicates the lack of media nous and peer review at even highly regarded media sites.

I even gave you a psych. chart to plot the relationships between WB, DB, enthalpy, RH% and dewpoint....

I will finish by saying that China does not exist in a fishbowl of its own, you can't argue isolation then validly argue against the same premise to beat me with a climate change stick.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2018)

My personal thought is that we really don't know exactly what happens at what temperatures.

Even with machinery etc, we don't have good data for what's actually in use beyond big stuff in industrial situations. Eg we can calculate the loss of generating capacity at Jeeralang as temperature goes up but we've really got no idea what % of residential and non-industrial business air-conditioners still work at 45, 48, 50 or whatever degrees. What we can reasonably assume however is that they'll fail at some point which isn't too far above present extreme maximums.

Natural stuff again we're not really sure. What's the maximum temperature rating on a wombat? We could work it out for the animal itself but it gets more complex once you factor in their actual living conditions, health of different animals an so on. In practice x% would be harmed at a certain temperature, more at a higher temperature etc. We can estimate but nobody's 100% certain at what point we'll be surrounded by dead wombats.

What can be said in regard to all this is that everything living evolved / was created (depending on your viewpoint there) based on climate fairly similar to that of the 20th century.

For anything built by humans, from houses to aircraft, they were likewise all designed and built with climate being an influence and typically there's not a lot of margin to accommodate any increase in temperature. Theoretically it can be done yes but in practice anything used by households or small business likely has a pretty minimal tolerance and same goes for large scale infrastructure like power. In practice it has all been designed and built to cope with temperatures not much different from that experienced historically, indeed in the Australian context for some states it's hit and miss whether or not the power supply can in 2018 manage to supply levels of consumption which have actually occurred in the relatively recent past since capability has been reduced.

So I'm not going to say its 12 degrees, 6 degrees or whatever. What I will say though is that if you were to steadily increase the temperature then things will start to break both natural and man-made.

A complicating factor there is short term weather. If climate change increase potential maximum temperatures then we're only going to find out what the impacts are when we actually get weather conditions which produce the now higher potential maximum. So we're not going to see what happens in 0.1 degree increments, more likely we'll go many years seeing nothing and then find out what happens with a whole 1 degree increment.


----------



## basilio (6 August 2018)

So from this discussion is Tisme going back to his original assertion that, according to his calculations, global temperatures will need to rise by 12C in order to create conditions that will cause catastrophic heat waves in China?


----------



## Tisme (6 August 2018)

basilio said:


> So from this discussion is Tisme going back to his original assertion that, according to his calculations, global temperatures will need to rise by 12C in order to create conditions that will cause catastrophic heat waves in China?




Tisme will stay with what he wrote in the context that he wrote it. 

Handbooks which once ran to 4 x 40mm thick are available here and good for getting started. Rather a lot of calculus when doing precision mathematical calculations:

https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/ashrae-handbook/ashrae-handbook-online


----------



## Tisme (6 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> My personal thought is that we really don't know exactly what happens at what temperatures.
> 
> Even with machinery etc, we don't have good data for what's actually in use beyond big stuff in industrial situations. Eg we can calculate the loss of generating capacity at Jeeralang as temperature goes up but we've really got no idea what % of residential and non-industrial business air-conditioners still work at 45, 48, 50 or whatever degrees. What we can reasonably assume however is that they'll fail at some point which isn't too far above present extreme maximums.
> 
> ...




I think you would agree that the designers of power stations take a great deal of care to get it well covered before committing their client to megabucks on sheds, conveyors, fire systems, generators, etc. Maximum demand calcs need to be fairly accurate and predicated on anecdotal and prediction modelling.so that when it fails it becomes Bill Shorten's fault.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> I think you would agree that the designers of power stations take a great deal of care to get it well covered



I have confidence that power stations as a whole will work under the conditions they were designed for.

Using SA as an example (because it’s hotter than Tas and incidentally I’m moving there but that’s another story) what I don’t have confidence in is:

That the air-conditioning in the house I’ve just bought is sized to be adequate for any particular temperature. It might be or someone might have just guessed.

That the A/C would even function, at all, beyond the mid-40’s. It’s a typical domestic unit nothing fancy.

That all aspects of the electricity supply chain would function on a hypothetical 50 degree day. In practice I’d be expecting a failure.

So on a 40 degree day I’m pretty confident that the A/C will work in my new (actually fairly old) house.

If it reaches 50 degrees across SA then the only thing I’m confident in is that the windows should still be openable such that the temperature inside need not exceed 50. I sure won’t be placing any bets on the A/C working at that point - odds are that between power generation, transmission, distribution and the A/C itself something will at least run out of capacity and quite likely fail altogether.

Individual power stations are usually designed well but for everyone to have power requires that you’ve got enough of them and that the networks are also up to the task.

To have a household A/C working also requires that the machine can tolerate that temperature and is adequately sized. Check the specs for a domestic A/C and the upper limit is typically specified as 46 or even 43. It will likely go a bit higher in practice but there’s going to be a limit where it trips.

Put that all together and it should work fine at 40 but will almost certainly fail at 50.


----------



## Tisme (7 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I have confidence that power stations as a whole will work under the conditions they were designed for.
> 
> Using SA as an example (because it’s hotter than Tas and incidentally I’m moving there but that’s another story) what I don’t have confidence in is:
> 
> ...




Certainly if the aircond in your new digs is old then it may well run out of puff. It's the indoor electronics that doesn't particularly like 40C+ indoor temps and condensing humidity. Offshelf units are generally rated 46C, but when designing for higher sustained ambients that's when engineering takes over and eventually mass production follows any trend.

If you compare say a late model R22 air cooled machine with a really good COP ~2.85 to a newer  410A machine with COP ~4.4 there is a substantial improvement (reduction) in energy consumption per KwR. With water cooled the COPs rise to 6 +.

Under supply and over supply is always going to be problematic if political football and accountants get in the mix.


----------



## basilio (7 August 2018)

About 10-15 years ago CC scientists started to talk about feedback loops in the environment which when triggered would speed up the process of global warming. For example when sea ice  disappears  in the Arctic there is no ice to reflect the sun so solar heat is free to be absorbed by the open sea.

I believe about 12 different feedback loops were noted at the time.

The latest research by CC scientists re examines these feedback loops and believes we may have already be on a one way path to a much warmer world.

*'Many parts of Earth could become uninhabitable': Study's grim warning*
Blake Foden7 August 2018 — 9:05am

Send via Email
*Talking points*

Earth is at risk of entering an irreversible "hothouse" climate, according to a new study
Many parts of the planet could become uninhabitable, scientists warn
The point of no return "could be only decades ahead"
Many parts of Earth could become uninhabitable for humans, with the planet at risk of entering an irreversible "hothouse" climate.

That's the alarming warning from an international team of scientists, including Australian National University professor Will Steffen, in a study published on Tuesday.

..Professor Steffen said if temperatures rose to two degrees above pre-industrial levels, it could trigger natural processes that would cause further warming of the Earth, even if all human emissions ceased.

..Professor Steffen said scientists considered 10 natural feedback processes as part of the study, some of which were "tipping elements" that could lead to abrupt changes if a critical threshold was crossed.

Those elements included the reduction of Antarctic sea ice and polar sheets, the release of methane trapped on the ocean floor and Amazon rainforest dieback.

“The real concern is these tipping elements can act like a row of dominoes," Professor Steffen said.

"Once one is pushed over, it pushes Earth towards another.

"It may be very difficult or impossible to stop the whole row of dominoes from tumbling over."

The impacts on arguably Australia's most notable natural attraction, the Great Barrier Reef, would be severe.

"A Hothouse Earth trajectory would almost certainly flood deltaic environments, increase the risk of damage from coastal storms, and eliminate coral reefs ... by the end of this century or earlier," the study says.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/na...ble-study-s-grim-warning-20180807-p4zvwx.html

*(Isn't it a good thing though that Tismes mathematical calculations can assure us it will take a 12C increase  in global temperatures  before we are parboiled. Plenty of time really!)*


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Certainly if the aircond in your new digs is old then it may well run out of puff.



For the majority of "off the shelf" domestic A/C's there will be a specified maximum operating temperature of 43 - 46 degrees. Some "top of the range" domestic stuff goes to 50 degrees.

The detail is somewhat unimportant however since the real point is that these limits for things like A/C's, public transport systems, aircraft, power supply and so on are only marginally above what would in 2018 be regarded as extreme hot weather.

Get a 46 degree day in Melbourne or a 47 degree day in Adelaide, that is equal to the record in both states, and a few things will fail in practice. The world won't end but some A/C's will trip due to either pressure or thermal, some train lines will have issues, the asphalt will go soft here and there, someone somewhere will have their power turned off when supply runs short, etc.

Now push that up even 3 more degrees and we're going to be exceeding rather a lot of limits with all this and "a few" becomes "a lot" in all these contexts. I doubt anyone has pondered the implications or cost but it won't be small.

My point isn't specifically about whether or not someone's A/C is adequate, that's really just an example, but a much broader statement that built infrastructure wasn't built to cope with anything much hotter than we see today.


----------



## explod (8 August 2018)

"_People living in otherwise cool climates in the Northern Hemisphere have suddenly found themselves, day after day, faced with the need to escape the repetitively oppressive heat._

When temperatures in traditionally temperate climates soar day after day to well over 30°C and sometimes over 40°C, the average citizen, whether at work or on vacation, seeks the means to escape the intense heat. Since June, much of the Northern Hemisphere has been undergoing an exceptional heatwave.

We sometimes need to be reminded that the weather should never be confused with the climate, but as one expert explains, “The logic that climate change will do this is inescapable — the world is becoming warmer, and so heatwaves like this are becoming more common.”

https://www.fairobserver.com/more/e...heatwave-climate-change-news-this-week-23903/


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

Incompetence and a bit of hot and wet weather gives this.

How are we going to manage 45C ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...acts-truck-bruce-highway-central-qld/10090650


----------



## luutzu (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Incompetence and a bit of hot and wet weather gives this.
> 
> How are we going to manage 45C ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...acts-truck-bruce-highway-central-qld/10090650




Hope and Prayers?

I actually had a similar, though not as bad, experience with my dad's van some years back. 

Fully loaded the van on a very hot summer day. One of the tyre's side bulge out, deformed. Lucky it didn't pop because I was right on top of it. 

Have to pull over side roads. The bitumen was so hot you just can't touch it without a a sheet or two rolled up. Sweating from both the heat and the thought of a tonne collapsing on you is no fun.

In other news, read that California's current bush fire is the largest in its history. Is expected to keep burning til the end of August. 

Their previous record was set last year I think.


----------



## luutzu (8 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> For the majority of "off the shelf" domestic A/C's there will be a specified maximum operating temperature of 43 - 46 degrees. Some "top of the range" domestic stuff goes to 50 degrees.
> 
> The detail is somewhat unimportant however since the real point is that these limits for things like A/C's, public transport systems, aircraft, power supply and so on are only marginally above what would in 2018 be regarded as extreme hot weather.
> 
> ...




One man's expense is another billionaire's growth opportunity Smurf.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Incompetence and a bit of hot and wet weather gives this.



I don't pay much attention to Qld politics but I've heard the inside story before anything actually melted.

Some years ago there was a big purge at Transport & Main Roads. The kind of purge that is done by reducing headcount no matter what - cost isn't a factor and who goes doesn't really matter either just as long as numbers are cut.

End result is they lost massive technical expertise as people retired early, pursued alternative careers in either the public or private sector, moved interstate / overseas, started unrelated businesses etc and generally got on with their lives.

Last I head they were spending serious $ on consultants trying to plug the knowledge gaps. 

Some chap by the name of Newman was apparently responsible for it all. Cost the state serious $ and will do for many years yet since a lot of the damage is done but not yet broken as such if that makes sense.

That's not the only circumstance of very similar nature I'm aware of. I'm mentioning this one however since I've been assured all the info is in the public domain so there's no issues with confidentiality etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> I actually had a similar, though not as bad, experience with my dad's van some years back



Now there's one I hadn't thought of - tyres. They'll have temperature limits certainly due to the nature of them.

There's going to be an awful lot of things like this that nobody has given any thought to. As I mentioned in a previous post - _everything _done by humans has been done so that it works with the present climate. Some things will adapt just fine, a stone wall is probably going to be fine for example, but many things will fail either immediately or over a period of time if they're exposed to higher temperatures.

If you'd like to experiment then get yourself any old electronic device that you don't want but which still works. Set your oven to 60 degrees and put the device in the oven. See what happens.

I'll save you the time by telling you that the plastic will in most cases deform enough to consider the device ruined. Anything with no mechanical parts will probably still function but any plastic gears or other moving parts will fail as they become too soft. This happens at only 60 degrees and if we consider that in the real world something might be several degrees above ambient due to sitting in the sun or being inside a car, then there's stuff all margin between present hot weather and when the problems start in practice.


----------



## basilio (9 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now there's one I hadn't thought of - tyres. They'll have temperature limits certainly due to the nature of them.
> 
> There's going to be an awful lot of things like this that nobody has given any thought to. As I mentioned in a previous post - _everything _done by humans has been done so that it works with the present climate. Some things will adapt just fine, a stone wall is probably going to be fine for example, but many things will fail either immediately or over a period of time if they're exposed to higher temperatures.
> 
> ...




Doesn't take much thinking to recognise how many critical elements of our society will breakdown in further temperature extremes. I believe our current first world environments are far more fragile than we would like to think. Smurfs observations about A/C, power generation, transport and the capacity of a multitude of devices to fail under extreme temperature loads need a very focused attention - before the heat wave. 

It will be one of the necessary adaptions we need to make for the CC that is already certain to happen.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Doesn't take much thinking to recognise how many critical elements of our society will breakdown in further temperature extremes. I believe our current first world environments are far more fragile than we would like to think. Smurfs observations about A/C, power generation, transport and the capacity of a multitude of devices to fail under extreme temperature loads need a very focused attention - before the heat wave.
> 
> It will be one of the necessary adaptions we need to make for the CC that is already certain to happen.



That's one reason I have a pool at my house.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2018)

basilio said:


> I believe our current first world environments are far more fragile than we would like to think



As a broad comment just contemplate what would have occurred if SA's big blackout had lasted longer than it did.

At first it's just a nuisance.

Then it's a bigger nuisance because you can't cook dinner or do the washing etc.

Then you've got issues with not being able to buy petrol and things like communications networks failing as their batteries run down.

Then you realise you also can't buy food and that everything you had in the fridge is now unsafe to eat.

Then the water supply stops working.

And all that would happen just due to a technical failure, no extreme weather required unless it happens to coincide.

We're all far more dependent on this stuff than most like to admit.


----------



## sptrawler (9 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> As a broad comment just contemplate what would have occurred if SA's big blackout had lasted longer than it did.
> 
> At first it's just a nuisance.
> 
> ...




That's why everyone should have a water tank attached to the house, you never know when you will need a bucket of water to flush the toilet, it might sound funny but try turning off your water mid summer and see how you go.
Living on a rural block, without mains water, soon makes you realise the importance of electricity or gravity.


----------



## basilio (13 August 2018)

We have had this conversation about the impact of regular bouts of 50C temperatures  and the effects on people, the infrastructure, the  survival capacity of eco systems.  There is an excellent article in The Guardian that explores these issues and points out where it is already happening and how close many other cities are to reaching these critical levels.

 Sweltering cities 
* Halfway to boiling: the city at 50C *
In a city at 50C, the only people in sight are those who do not have access to air conditioning. Illustration: Kevin Whipple
It is the temperature at which human cells start to cook, animals suffer and air conditioners overload power grids. Once an urban anomaly, 50C is fast becoming reality

by Jonathan Watts and Elle Hunt



Cities is supported by




About this content
Mon 13 Aug 2018 06.00 BST   Last modified on Mon 13 Aug 2018 09.55 BST

*Shares*
1659

Imagine a city at 50C (122F). The pavements are empty, the parks quiet, entire neighbourhoods appear uninhabited. Nobody with a choice ventures outside during daylight hours. Only at night do the denizens emerge, HG Wells-style, into the streets – though, in temperatures that high, even darkness no longer provides relief. Uncooled air is treated like effluent: to be flushed as quickly as possible.

School playgrounds are silent as pupils shelter inside. In the hottest hours of the day, working outdoors is banned. The only people in sight are those who do not have access to air conditioning, who have no escape from the blanket of heat: the poor, the homeless, undocumented labourers. Society is divided into the cool haves and the hot have-nots.

Those without the option of sheltering indoors can rely only on shade, or perhaps a water-soaked sheet hung in front of a fan. Construction workers, motor-rickshaw drivers and street hawkers cover up head to toe to stay cool. The wealthy, meanwhile, go from one climate-conditioned environment to another: homes, cars, offices, gymnasiums, malls.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/aug/13/halfway-boiling-city-50c


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2018)

basilio said:


> We have had this conversation about the impact of regular bouts of 50C temperatures  and the effects on people, the infrastructure, the  survival capacity of eco systems.  There is an excellent article in The Guardian that explores these issues and points out where it is already happening and how close many other cities are to reaching these critical levels.
> 
> Sweltering cities
> * Halfway to boiling: the city at 50C *
> ...




How can the wealthy stay in a climate controlled environment? I thought this forum's experts had established AC would fail?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2018)

basilio said:


> We have had this conversation about the impact of regular bouts of 50C temperatures  and the effects on people, the infrastructure, the  survival capacity of eco systems.



I think the key point is that the problems start at temperatures not far above that which has already been experienced. So we don't need 10 or even 5 degrees more to start seeing the effects.

I recall the day Hobart set it's all time record of 41.8 and quite a few dramas resulted. In contrast I can recall previous summers where it hit 39.x with no real incident.

The record for Adelaide is about 47 and suffice to say I'm pretty sure there would be some issues at 50.

Same everywhere. Things are built to suit whatever is "normal" locally and it goes wrong beyond that point. So Hobart will in pratice have problems at a lower temperature than Adelaide would for that reason and same concept everywhere.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2018)

Not a good look on the drought predictions for the next 4 years.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...h-points-to-warmer-years-20180814-p4zxgk.html


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

The westerlies and low morning temps rising to mid 20degs came in smack on cue with the Ekka show. Howse that for climate anarchy?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> The westerlies and low morning temps rising to mid 20degs came in smack on cue with the Ekka show.



Any chance you could send some warmth down to Melbourne airport? The heating would seem to be not working and it’s rather chilly inside waiting to board a plane.


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Any chance you could send some warmth down to Melbourne airport? The heating would seem to be not working and it’s rather chilly inside waiting to board a plane.




You know fully well that Melbourne is exempt from any kind of predictable weather system. Joh is no longer with us, so the spare sunshine that used to shine out of his a4se is not resold anymore.


----------



## explod (16 August 2018)

ABC news just now,

USA, huge fires across one side of the country and extremely bad floods on the other.

Sydney, fires everywhere and it's winter.


----------



## basilio (17 August 2018)

Looking at efforts to adapt to a hotter climate - particularly with regard to creating wheat crops that will survive the heat.
* Wheat in heat: the 'crazy idea' that could combat food insecurity *
 Food security 

Durum wheat varieties can withstand 40C heat along the Senegal River basin, and could produce 600,000 tonnes of food

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...lerant-durum-wheat-crazy-idea-food-insecurity

Still thinking about the insurance bill on the fires and floods around the world.


----------



## explod (17 August 2018)

That's at 40c, what about at 50 and probably more soon.


----------



## basilio (17 August 2018)

explod said:


> That's at 40c, what about at 50 and probably more soon.



Yeah  I know... Probably more relevant to whatever parts of the earth won't reach those extremes.

Just trying to find small glimmers.


----------



## brty (17 August 2018)

A bit over 20 years ago I drove a petrol/LPG truck from just outside of Adelaide to Southern Victoria in mid 40's heat, early January. I did the entire trip on LPG, even though the tank full should have run out early (I had the option to switch over to petrol when it ran out of gas).

I get to my local service station and go to fill the LPG tank, but the pump wouldn't work, would not put in any gas at all. I had to spray cold tap water on the tank for about 10 minutes for it to reduce the internal pressure of the tank, for it to accept the refill.

To me this has always been an indication of just how close to the wind we sail on many things unexpected. If those temperatures that day had been a few degrees warmer, LPG tanks everywhere would have been giving a lot more trouble.


----------



## Tisme (17 August 2018)

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html


----------



## Tisme (17 August 2018)

Interesting truth from WA

"
_The West Australian colony's earliest known meteorological analysis is The Climate of Western Australia 1876-1899 (PDF 25.4mb) compiled in 1901 by then Government Astronomer William Ernest Cooke. This document contains raw, unregulated data that is considered unreliable.

As the Government Astronomer explains in this historic document: "... it may be safely assumed that the results in this document give a close approximation to the truth; sufficiently so for all practical purposes, but scarcely to be considered quite accurate enough for the scientist."


_


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 August 2018)

brty said:


> To me this has always been an indication of just how close to the wind we sail on many things unexpected. If those temperatures that day had been a few degrees warmer, LPG tanks everywhere would have been giving a lot more trouble.



There's an example I hadn't thought of.

That's the issue really. There are just so many things that are potentially affected. Everything from expansion joints on bridges through to lawnmowers were all designed to work in a particular temperature range that's fairly limited.

There's going to be 1000's of things like that.


----------



## basilio (17 August 2018)

A  few days ago a scientific paper was released called The Hothouse earth. Basically indicated how a number of postive feedback mechanisms were threatening to move the earths climate to a far hotter space in a far shorter time than we had imagined.  CC is happening *Now *not sometime in  the future.

It seems that the paper has struck a nerve. Whether it is enough to create its own tipping point for widespread, immediate mobilisation to decarbonise our society
and drawdown atmospheric CO2 is the next question.

Because the ugly facts are that whatever pleasant future we want to believe is likely in the next 5-10-15 years ain't happening.

* World is finally waking up to climate change, says 'hothouse Earth' author *
Report predicting spiralling global temperatures has been downloaded 270,000 times in just a few days

Jonathan Watts

Fri 17 Aug 2018 20.29 AEST

*Shares*
25




Johan Rockstrom, director of Stockholm Resilience Centre. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
The scorching temperatures and forest fires of this summer’s heatwave have finally stirred the world to face the onrushing threat of global warming, claims the climate scientist behind the recent “hothouse Earth” report.

Following an unprecedented 270,000 downloads of his study, Johan Rockström, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, said he had not seen such a surge of interest since 2007, the year the Nobel prize was awarded to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“I think that in future people will look back on 2018 as the year when climate reality hit,” said the veteran scientist. “This is the moment when people start to realise that global warming is not a problem for future generations, but for us now.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-reality-climate-change-hothouse-earth-author


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2018)

explod said:


> USA, huge fires across one side of the country and extremely bad floods on the other.
> 
> Sydney, fires everywhere and it's winter.



Meanwhile in Tasmania, which is not _that_ far from the fires in NSW, flow rates in the River Derwent have peaked at over 30 million litres per minute.

In rough terms that's enough water coming down in one day to supply Sydney for a month. All going out to sea......

The Pieman, Mersey-Forth, Lake Margaret, Trevallyn and Derwent hydro catchments have all spilled water despite running the associated power stations flat out 24/7 and most of those are still spilling right now. There's a pretty high chance the King scheme will spill within the next few weeks also, the only ones that are sure not to spill being Lake Gordon, Great Lake / Arthurs Lakes and Lake Echo.

So a very uneven distribution of weather in Australia at the moment. I keep hearing about the "drought" but there's no sign of that in Tas at the moment indeed it's persistently wet (though not so much in Hobart itself).


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> So a very uneven distribution of weather in Australia at the moment. I keep hearing about the "drought" but there's no sign of that in Tas at the moment indeed it's persistently wet (though not so much in Hobart itself).




Lucky you.

Send some up to Central NSW please.


----------



## Tisme (18 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Meanwhile in Tasmania, which is not _that_ far from the fires in NSW, flow rates in the River Derwent have peaked at over 30 million litres per minute.
> 
> In rough terms that's enough water coming down in one day to supply Sydney for a month. All going out to sea......
> 
> ...




Yes the persistent rain days in SE QLD spoiled the preferred dry winter that is an envy of the world...my lawn didn't go crusty brown at all!

I blame China and their insatiable capitalist greed for stuffing up our winter, but so far our spring is perfect as usual.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2018)

I thought about putting this in the energy thread but I think here's more appropriate.

In short if we view SA, Vic and Tas collectively then there's solar, wind and hydro going to waste due to lack of demand for power and transmission from Vic to NSW already running at maximum. The sun is shining, the wind is blowing, it's been raining in the hydro catchments, consumption is down = over supply. Electricity at the wholesale level is also worthless at the moment, indeed the price has been negative.

The coal-fired generators have ramped down but are still running so as to avoid shutting down. Can't do that because just a few hours from now they'll be needing to run flat out during the evening peak demand which also happens to be at a time when there's no solar generation.

Then in Vic and SA at 11pm rather a lot of water heaters will turn on all about the same time with that power being supplied from fossil fuels in practice. In Tas they're on right now but not in the others.

So apart from ideas of big infrastructure like batteries or pumped hydro there's also a gain to be had by changing how consumers use energy. 

In Vic they've already spent serious $ on smart meters but failed to take advantage of any actual "smart" function to switch water heating loads on and off. So we end up with electricity trading at negative prices, solar farms shut down and so on then a few hours later we're ramping up gas turbines to heat water. Switching remotely and operating at times when it makes sense, which has no impact on consumers since the water is simply stored for later use anyway, would make far more sense.

SA and Tas don't have that infrastructure in place but simply choosing appropriate times to operate things like off-peak water heaters is an imperfect but overall not bad workaround. Technically that's dead easy, just change the time settings, but suffice to say there's a lot of institutional barriers in the way for both Vic and SA. In Tas virtually all off-peak loads already include supply during the afternoon so that box is already ticked. 

So there's potential for emissions savings and costs savings that are going to waste here and it's technically dead easy to do it with no losers whatsoever unless you count burning less fossil fuels and saving money as a loss.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> So there's potential for emissions savings and costs savings that are going to waste here and it's technically dead easy to do it with no losers whatsoever unless you count burning less fossil fuels and saving money as a loss.




Are the State and Federal governments and energy regulators aware of this or is it just too much of a fiddly detail to bother their giant brains with ?


----------



## luutzu (18 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I thought about putting this in the energy thread but I think here's more appropriate.
> 
> In short if we view SA, Vic and Tas collectively then there's solar, wind and hydro going to waste due to lack of demand for power and transmission from Vic to NSW already running at maximum. The sun is shining, the wind is blowing, it's been raining in the hydro catchments, consumption is down = over supply. Electricity at the wholesale level is also worthless at the moment, indeed the price has been negative.
> 
> ...




From management perspective, the "smart" meters are just to get rid of meter readers. i.e. reduce cost on themselves.

The other bid about saving consumers money and stuff... that's someone else's problem. There will actually be less revenue if your great ideas were implemented Smurf. So that's smart but isn't smart smart.


----------



## explod (18 August 2018)

For the "unstoppable" on first count over 1000 people dead after sudden floods in India today.

On current general news.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Are the State and Federal governments and energy regulators aware of this or is it just too much of a fiddly detail to bother their giant brains with ?



It's the kind of thing they'll "know" about a decade after they should have known if that makes sense. Not because nobody tried to tell them but because it's just too far a departure from the status quo to be readily accepted. There's a lot of "human factors" stuff there - an inability to accept that something which has been the case for longer than they've been alive isn't the case anymore. 

Looking at the past 24 hours, Queensland, SA and WA all experienced their minimum electrical loads on centralised generation during the early afternoon and small scale (rooftop) solar is the reason for that. It's an even bigger issue when you factor in that some of the centralised generation is now itself solar in the form of big solar farms which, of course, work when it's sunny. Factor those in and you can add NSW to the list along with Qld, SA and WA.

So it's a here and now issue in some states and one that will come in due course to the others. Say "off-peak electricity" and everyone thinks of sometime when most people are sleeping and historically that has been true but we've now reached the point where the lowest demands are being seen early of an afternoon. Then just a few hours later we're flat out burning fossil fuels as demand comes up of an evening (as it has always done) and the sun goes down.

So it's an electrical thing but it's also a climate thing. I've posted it here as it's an example of institutional inertia in getting things done to gain some "easy" wins with emissions reduction. It's just crazy to have solar, wind, hydro or for that matter even the more efficient fossil fuel plants being underutilized when there are things which could be time shifted to make good use of it which we're presently doing at a different time with higher emissions.

There's some low hanging fruit going rotten on the tree here whilst our politicians argue about what sort of ladders to use to reach the top. Grab the easy stuff first in my view.

Same with anything really. It's just silly to not be taking the cheap and easy ways to cut emissions and adapt to climate change whilst spending so much time arguing over things which are far more difficult anyway.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2018)

The current temperature in my dining room is 43 degrees.

The cat is lying flat on its back, legs stretched out, thinking it's all rather nice.

I think I've put enough wood on the fire already..... 

PS - That's not a joke, the thermometer does actually say 43. So if you're going to light a fire then you may as well do it properly, right?


----------



## Knobby22 (19 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The current temperature in my dining room is 43 degrees.
> 
> The cat is lying flat on its back, legs stretched out, thinking it's all rather nice.
> 
> ...



You must be sitting around in hour undies[emoji1]


----------



## Knobby22 (19 August 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> You must be sitting around in your undies[emoji1]




Correction


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2018)

The cat's naked actually. Always is though apart from normal fur. 

It's down to 34 degrees now. Oddly feels a bit chilly after 43.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The cat's naked actually. Always is though apart from normal fur.
> 
> It's down to 34 degrees now. Oddly feels a bit chilly after 43.




So get it up to 46 and see if your aircon still works.


----------



## explod (19 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The current temperature in my dining room is 43 degrees.
> 
> The cat is lying flat on its back, legs stretched out, thinking it's all rather nice.
> 
> ...



Prep is everything.
Your posts are most appreciated and informative.

In fact it is beyond correction and unstoppable.

Join my party, happy to shout anyone anytime.  But sorry that no one will be left in the future to remember our fkn brilliance.

But its on at my place anytime, Frankston


----------



## Tisme (19 August 2018)

Walking home half an hour ago I can smell rain coming.. my guess a wet weekend... usual expectation if it comes to pass.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So get it up to 46 and see if your aircon still works.




I can confirm that the cat didn’t spontaneously combust or anything like that and is now eating.

Cats are actually fireproof I think. Sits way too close to the fire but it doesn’t seem to cause any issues. 

Fireproof cats may be valuable in a warmer world......


----------



## cynic (19 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...
> 
> Fireproof cats may be valuable in a warmer world......



Doubtless that will be ...


----------



## moXJO (20 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> .
> 
> Cats are actually fireproof I think. Sits way too close to the fire but it doesn’t seem to cause any issues.
> 
> Fireproof cats may be valuable in a warmer world......




I had a cat that would sit too close to the fire and start to burn. Instead of getting up to move he would hiss and growl at the fire. I would physically have to pick him up and move him.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> I had a cat that would sit too close to the fire and start to burn. Instead of getting up to move he would hiss and growl at the fire. I would physically have to pick him up and move him.



Had a dog set himself alight once. 

Dog backed up to the kero heater in the garage which was used as a workshop, poked his tail through onto the burner and caught fire. First I realised was the stink and I think the dog realised there was a problem about the same moment.

Thankfully the dog remained calm whilst I extinguished his tail. Didn't seem to be any skin burns thankfully - had him checked by the vet just to be sure.

Suffice to say the dog took considerably more care around the heater after that. Wasn't frightened of it as such, still sat in front of it, but kept his tail out of the burner. Plus I modified the guard in front of the burner just to make sure it was dog proof.

PS - nothing stinks quite like burning dog hair.


----------



## orr (20 August 2018)

Crude oil was once refined and the gasoline/petrol was burnt as a waste product(to volatile) for the age.
When electricities wholesale price is zero or negative but avaliable at times, as it is now. It's just a little to volatile for it's current circumstances.
Any sizeable pumped hydro plans in train for Tasmanias existing dam network?


----------



## explod (20 August 2018)

*Take unprecedented action or bear the consequences, says eminent scientist and advisor*

By *David Spratt* and *Ian Dunlop*






“Climate change is now reaching the end-game, where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action, or accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences.”

Those are the challenging words from Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, for twenty years the head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and a senior advisor to Pope Francis, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the European Union.  In the foreword to a new report, Schellnhuber says the issue now "is the very survival of our civilisation, where conventional means of analysis may become useless”.

The report, *What Lies Beneath: The understatement of existential climate risk*, is released today by the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration. 


https://www.climatecodered.org/2018/08/take-unprecedented-action-or-bear.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 August 2018)

orr said:


> Any sizeable pumped hydro plans in train for Tasmanias existing dam network?



"Battery Of The Nation" is the marketing term being used for a large number of pumped hydro projects being investigated in Tas at the moment.

How far it progresses will be heavily influenced by national politics but the Tas projects do have the advantage of being able to be built in stages, it's not an all or nothing scenario, so most likely at least some will end up going head but what goes in in Canberra is ultimately a very key factor there.

Also needs the Vic government on side given the whole point of it is about supplying power into Vic not locally into Tas.


----------



## explod (22 August 2018)

The party continues unabated.:-


*"Arctic’s strongest sea ice breaks up for first time on record*


Usually frozen waters open up twice this year in phenomenon scientists described as scary..."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...st-sea-ice-breaks-up-for-first-time-on-record


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> "Battery Of The Nation" is the marketing term being used for a large number of pumped hydro projects being investigated in Tas at the moment.
> 
> How far it progresses will be heavily influenced by national politics but the Tas projects do have the advantage of being able to be built in stages, it's not an all or nothing scenario, so most likely at least some will end up going head but what goes in in Canberra is ultimately a very key factor there.
> 
> Also needs the Vic government on side given the whole point of it is about supplying power into Vic not locally into Tas.




Abbott and Matthias will have legislated a couple of coal fired stations before xmas, relegating water storage dams.

I was thinking about the use of "battery" and I wonder when did we start talking in adjectives, verbs, etc instead of nouns .... very aboriginal language style


----------



## explod (22 August 2018)

_"It is time to acknowledge that climate change is real and to start healing our planet._

The entire Northern Hemisphere has been in the grips of an unprecedented heat wave this year. Asia, Europe, Africa and North America saw several countries reeling under record-breaking temperatures. In 1977, Athens recorded the highest ever temperature in continental Europe at 48°C. That record may very well be broken by the extraordinary heat wave currently sweeping the Iberian Peninsula.

In Japan, the deadly heat wave killed 96 people in July alone — a number that is likely to increase 170% by 2080. Kumagaya, near Tokyo, has seen temperatures rise above 41°C(106°F) for the first time in the country’s history, with more than 22,000 people, predominantly elderly, seeking medical attention across Japan. Heat stroke from sustained high temperatures has claimed the lives of 29 people in South Korea, where temperatures reached the highest point in 111 years in the capital Seoul.

In Quebec province alone, more than 34 people have lost their lives on account of the heat wave, with an estimated 70 deaths attributed to the scorching temperature and high humidity across Canada. The United States celebrated its Independence Day with blistering temperatures across the Northeast and 80 million people in 14 states under a heat advisory warning. The Death Valley in the Mojave Desert in California holds the record for the highest ever temperature measured on planet Earth at 56.7°C (134°F). While that record set in 1913 still holds, Death Valley has seen the hottest July to date, with the monthly average temperatures above 42°C (107°F), with the mercury topping 52.7°C (127°F) four days in a row."...

https://www.fairobserver.com/region...e-2018-climate-change-environment-news-71621/


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2018)

explod said:


> _"It is time to acknowledge that climate change is real and to start healing our planet._
> 
> The entire Northern Hemisphere has been in the grips of an unprecedented heat wave this year. Asia, Europe, Africa and North America saw several countries reeling under record-breaking temperatures. In 1977, Athens recorded the highest ever temperature in continental Europe at 48°C. That record may very well be broken by the extraordinary heat wave currently sweeping the Iberian Peninsula.
> 
> ...




Bruce Leigh died of heatstroke too.

1896, 1908, 1939... now they were heat stroke years!

https://www.climatescience.org.au/sites/default/files/Heatwave fatalities_Coates, Haynes et al.pdf


----------



## explod (22 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Bruce Leigh died of heatstroke too.
> 
> 1896, 1908, 1939... now they were heat stroke years!
> 
> https://www.climatescience.org.au/sites/default/files/Heatwave fatalities_Coates, Haynes et al.pdf



On what is actually happening now the article is pretty useless as it only records to 2010.

And on deaths heat related, if we accept this report we have better cover these days.  In fact a very good one is to hop in the car with the aircon on.

Just the last few years heat deaths have gone through the roof, recently hundreds at a time within weeks of each other.


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2018)

explod said:


> Just the last few years heat deaths have gone through the roof, recently hundreds at a time within weeks of each other.




Remember that Japan has an aging population too. But I'm open to any legit counter stats you have.

e.g. 1980 in USA was a doozy compared to 2015


----------



## cynic (23 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Have a look out the xxxking window Wayne and see what CC reality looks like.
> 
> *The research on the reality of CC happening as a result of GG emissions is over*. All the research now is how fast this is happening, what could be the consequences and what can we do to survive.
> 
> But don't worry mate.  Your favourite good 'ol boy is still busily destroying anyhthing with the word CC on it to pretend nothing is happening. He'll take care of you..



Recently someone made the daring decision to make mention of CC in another thread, thereby inadvertantly (or so I presume) prompting a discussion around that theme.

I suspect a few of us here at ASF, may wish to share their views about the bolded section of this post, which was made (during the ensuing discussion) to the TDS thread.

Due to the propensity of such themes, to overwhelm otherwise worthwhile discussions, I believe that it might be better to redirect the CC aspects of that discussion to this thread.

So to keep things moving along, a general question for bas, or anyone sharing similar views, about the, somewhat, curious claim, being made in that bolded section.

Is the research, in an absolute sense, truly over, or is it only truly over in  the minds of the more zealous of adherents to AGW and/or ACC philosophy?

If you are claiming it to be over, in absolute terms, what is your basis for arriving at that particular belief?


----------



## fiftyeight (23 August 2018)

Instead of getting bogged down in semantics cynic it would be nice if you started this discussion by stating what your position is on climate change?

Not the definition of of truth or truly or belief or absolute or majority just in simple laymen terms explain terms your position, to get the thread going.


----------



## moXJO (23 August 2018)

Heres my position:
Too many people.
To much pollution.
And in the grand scheme of things the planet is up the creek no matter how much Australia cuts down. We want to have meaningful effect then stop exporting coal.

In saying that, I  would like to see a shift towards renewables on a sensible plan.

I don't think mines should be under water catchments or on ag land. 
I'm fine with a reduction of pollution and plastics. 
I'm fine with the majority of eco friendly measures.

But I would rather see money spent on fortifying against climate change then save the planet wankery.
Water and food security being the main ones. But the effects of heat and city studies and millions of other things need attention before we get to the crunch.


----------



## cynic (23 August 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Instead of getting bogged down in semantics cynic it would be nice if you started this discussion by stating what your position is on climate change?
> 
> Not the definition of of truth or truly or belief or absolute or majority just in simple laymen terms explain terms your position, to get the thread going.



My position is:

I believe that the climate has been continually changing, since inception, and that those changes are largely in accordance with natural cycles.

Correlations are often hastily conflated with causation, leading to unreliable conclusions.

The objective practice of science, has long since left the laboratory. 

Mankind has simply created yet another apocalyptic religion, one which, like numerous others before it, is accompanied with a height of hysteria, that has rendered it unhelpful to the objective practice of scientific research.

Some idealists, recognising an opportunity in the confusion, have weaponised the apocalyptic ideology, in order to employ it in their covert war against Western capitalism.

Objective scientific research, free from political influence, is what is ideally required, in order to have confidence in answers to the what, why and how questions (i.e. What is happening?, Why is it happening?, How is it a problem?).


----------



## luutzu (23 August 2018)

cynic said:


> My position is:
> 
> I believe that the climate has been continually changing, since inception, and that those changes are largely in accordance with natural cycles.
> 
> ...




All those climate scientists sold out did they?

Since it sure ain't the fossil fuel industry's that did the buying, who did they sell out to? George Soros and other Hollywood liberals? The Chinese? 

"Why" would climate change be a problem? Did you seriously just asked that?

Saw a news clip where a grown Indian man was in tears telling the reporter how his home was simply swept away without a trace. How his daughter is now at an orphanage, their clothes and food are donated by passerby because everything got freakin swept away. 

Why is climate change a problem?

Well, if these largest flood in a century; worst bush fire in decades; biggest cyclone season; decade, hundred year "natural" event keep happening worst and worst each year... I guess that's just life.


----------



## luutzu (23 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Heres my position:
> Too many people.
> To much pollution.
> And in the grand scheme of things the planet is up the creek no matter how much Australia cuts down. We want to have meaningful effect then stop exporting coal.
> ...




Whether or not climate change exist...  Just transition towards renewable.

Clean air, clean water... that two alone are pretty good things to have. 

Then there's the new jobs, new industry, cutting back on transporting the fuel... rail or pipeline or sea lane... We got the Sun delivering all the potential energy right to our door step each day, literally. 

But if the sun don't shine, there's the wind. if the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine, take a break from work. It'll be back soon enough. 

It is just ridiculous to rely on something that's not renewable when a clear alternative is right there.


----------



## Tisme (23 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> All those climate scientists sold out did they?




They certainly got rewarded for effort.

The problem is armchair experts hunting down outlandish articles to believe in and reparrot them ... you know like unachievable average global wetbulbs and mean dry bulb rises that don't correlate with hard science e.g. NASA and National Geo.


----------



## cynic (23 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> All those climate scientists sold out did they?
> 
> Since it sure ain't the fossil fuel industry's that did the buying, who did they sell out to? George Soros and other Hollywood liberals? The Chinese?
> 
> ...



Luutzu, those interested in understanding the reality, from a scientific perspective, need to look a lot further than sensationalised headlines, and faulty statistics.

Until you are willing to do so, I see little point in debating your religious choices.


----------



## basilio (23 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> he problem is armchair experts hunting down outlandish articles to believe in and reparrot them ... you know like unachievable average global wetbulbs and mean dry bulb rises that don't correlate with hard science e.g. NASA and National Geo.




Ok I bite back Mr 12C Tizzie. 

I appreciate that you regularly repackage reality to suit your particular purpose but  let's be clear about why I rode you into the dust and would do so again and again on your absurd  statements about the world needing to warm up an average of 12C to cause catastrophic heat strokes.

I opened discussion on a peer reviewed scientific paper that noted that some of the most populated parts of China would face catastophic heatwaves from 2070 onwards with the current continuation of global warming. The paper focused on this region... just because it did.  That didn't mean that many other areas of the world aren't facing similar or perhaps worse situations.

Somehow, somehow.. 12cTizzie comes up with a mathematical basis for stating with *total  mathematical certainty *that the world will need to see a 12C increase in temperatures for this scenario to occur.

Never mind that we are already seeing examples  of this today in a number of regions. Never mind that  the temperature extremes that would see heatwaves produce these situatiosn are on the horizon in many situations. Never mind the clear absurdity of postulating *anyone human actually being around if the world does warm up by 12C. *Nope discussion over. The books, accoording to Tizzie, say this figure.  Ignore what is happening on teh ground.  Don't ask any questions.
_______________________

There is nothing outlandish in the scores of scientific papers looking at the current effects of CC and trying to consider how future increase in temperature will affect everything in the world.

What is outlandish is a ignoring the window on the world that we have and disregaring  the work of every expert in the field in favour of a sliver of  crocks in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## luutzu (23 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Luutzu, those interested in understanding the reality, from a scientific perspective, need to look a lot further than sensationalised headlines, and faulty statistics.
> 
> Until you are willing to do so, I see little point in debating your religious choices.




So all the new record breaking weather events; the ever increasing average temperature over the past two decades; the worst floods here, the worst drought there; the 100+ bush fire in the US; the wildfire in Canada; the couple bushfire in Winter in NSW... those are just normal weather event then?

If you say so.


----------



## IFocus (23 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Luutzu, those interested in understanding the reality, from a scientific perspective, need to look a lot further than sensationalised headlines, and faulty statistics.
> 
> Until you are willing to do so, I see little point in debating your religious choices.




You are kidding surely

WA has absolutely irrefutable stats showing climate change since white settlement.

No one in this state....no one argues falling rain fall/water issues since white settlement .....no one.

1974 is the cut off year with no more outlier years.

https://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply/rainfall-and-dams/streamflow

Rising CO2 will affect climate this basic science FFS


----------



## cynic (23 August 2018)

IFocus said:


> You are kidding surely
> 
> WA has absolutely irrefutable stats showing climate change since white settlement.
> 
> ...



Ifocus, when seeking to identify the causative influences underlying water related issues, before automatically blaming CO2, perhaps first consider what happens, when a large population of organisms, mostly composed of water, approximately doubles in under a century.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 August 2018)

IFocus said:


> WA has absolutely irrefutable stats showing climate change since white settlement.
> 
> ...
> 
> 1974 is the cut off year with no more outlier years.



It's less severe but the same pattern also exists in Tasmania. That of no more wet years and occurring as abrupt "steps" with the first one in the mid-1970's.

So you can rule out any purely local things as the cause given that south-west WA and Tasmania are quite some distance apart and separated by the sea.


----------



## fiftyeight (24 August 2018)

cynic said:


> My position is:
> 
> I believe that the climate has been continually changing, since inception, and that those changes are largely in accordance with natural cycles.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the reply cynic, much appreciated.

Science has of course left the lab where it was easy to isolate an area of interest and the run repeatable and reproducible experiments. We have advance our knowledge and are now studying large complex systems.

As far as I have read there is little debate that GG have risen or that we are currently experiencing some kind of long term climate change. The messy bit comes when establishing causation.

In such a large complex system, with many feedback loops it is likely that there will never be irrefutable evidence that proves causality or if we do wait for it to be conclusive it is likely too late if we want to try and change it. Bit like trading, if you wait for too many confirming signals you will wait too long and miss the boat.

In my view though, I just do not see enough negatives for trying to reduce GG now.

Fossil fuels will run out at some stage, it is a matter if not when we need to switch to renewables or we crack the fusion problem  
Fossil fuels are yuk, they do cause smog and many other nasties and as the population continues to grow I can only assume it will get worse
There is limited downside to starting the switch to renewables. Just like having insurance, my house did not burn down this year but I am glad I insured against it
Long term with enough investment and hopefully a few technology leaps, energy will actually become cheaper
I am sure there are many more but I do need to go to work
I do find the "covert war against Western capitalism" a bit sketchy, huge amounts of money and resources need to piled in to renewables. Not sure how renewables are attacking Western capitalism, if there were a war I would of assumed the energy giants would of done a much better job at defending it self from a few lefty idealists.


----------



## wayneL (24 August 2018)

IFocus said:


> Rising CO2 will affect climate this basic science FFS



Actually its not basic science at all.  That's the problem,  its complicated.


----------



## wayneL (24 August 2018)

Re 1974: Yep,  something changed at that point, no doubt about that.  But as to causation, as noted above, is in no way clear. 

Perhaps pre 74 was the anomoly,  perhaps there is a greater cycle at play.  These things we don't know.


----------



## Tisme (24 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> So all the new record breaking weather events; the ever increasing average temperature over the past two decades; the worst floods here, the worst drought there; the 100+ bush fire in the US; the wildfire in Canada; the couple bushfire in Winter in NSW... those are just normal weather event then?
> 
> If you say so.




I didn't hear you whining about the worst everything when the Maunder Minimum hit in the 1600s. 

Why aren't you doomsday brothers getting worried about the up coming solar grand minimum that will hit sooner than later in one of 11 year solar cycles. The stratosphere will thin and the north polar cap will warm up too sending sub zero winds all over the northern hemisphere.

I remember almost annual bush fires on the Darling Range escarpment in Perth, big Jarrah and Tuart fires down south. You could set your calendar clock on a summer being red hot and winter being fricken cold.


----------



## Tisme (24 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Re 1974: Yep,  something changed at that point, no doubt about that.  But as to causation, as noted above, is in no way clear.
> 
> Perhaps pre 74 was the anomoly,  perhaps there is a greater cycle at play.  These things we don't know.




Was that when they invented El Nino?

A drop of 0.5deg between the 1940s and the 70's might have had something to do with it....wot!! a drop!! the Guardian didn't me about that !!!

Might also be a 12degC mean/median (50%Rh) change in wetbulb, coz that's physically possible every other day of the week.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Ifocus, when seeking to identify the causative influences underlying water related issues, before automatically blaming CO2, perhaps first consider what happens, when a large population of organisms, mostly composed of water, approximately doubles in under a century.




I agree, either way it's doomsday, population growth / economic growth are like a virus it is the same problem same out come earth's resources needed to sustain get exhausted or are changed and become toxic to the very environment that we need for freshwater clean air and food.

Going on about oceans the great heat balance / CO2 absorption / weather machine of the earth the tipping point is not all that high it's well before conclusive proof that the tribal conservatives and their sponsors will accept action is required.

I am actually resigned to the fact that we are going to fail and that future generations will get smashed "such is life".........and death.


----------



## explod (24 August 2018)

This is the real La La  Land.  Just party folks:-

"The Liberal Party is destroying itself because a few politicians cannot bring themselves to act to protect people and nature from climate damage. They have repeatedly wrecked efforts to cut pollution – and now want Australia to abandon the global Paris Agreement.

The new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, was the man who laughed as he tossed a lump of coal in Parliament. The dirty prop was supplied by industry lobby group, the Minerals Council of Australia.







Enough. This must stop. *The decade of wrecking must end.*

*1600 winter bushfires* raged across Queensland and NSW last week, leaving experts “_gobsmacked_”."


----------



## orr (24 August 2018)

IFocus said:


> I am actually resigned to the fact that we are going to fail and that future generations will get smashed "such is life".........and *death*.




I've had my time arguing with imbeciles, and it can be mortifying. But take heart Focus. Even as we speak in the back blocks of retro grade  bumfuk_ Duttonville _Qld, Darling downes(obviously there are a few of them out there that can count)... $6 billion dollars of investment in renewable energy is approved and of that $1.2billion is being put into capital. There is of course the  rump of coal juggling parliamentarians hoping against hope that jesus will descend from the heavens to re-anoint mans right to rail against reason and to live happily in delusion and poverty ever after, but the direction of the money isn't on their side. Funny that.

Cretins and Credlin only the thickness of a Talio Paper between them and not even that.... 
(ps  focus...I'm much less like than u)


----------



## Knobby22 (25 August 2018)

*Maersk sends first container ship through Arctic route*

Stine Jacobsen

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - A Maersk vessel loaded with Russian fish and South Korean electronics will next week become the first container ship to navigate an Arctic sea route that Russia hopes will become a new shipping highway.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ainer-ship-through-arctic-route-idUSKCN1L91BR


----------



## Tisme (26 August 2018)

orr said:


> I've had my time arguing with imbeciles, and it can be mortifying. But take heart Focus. Even as we speak in the back blocks of retro grade  bumfuk_ Duttonville _Qld, Darling downes(obviously there are a few of them out there that can count)... $6 billion dollars of investment in renewable energy is approved and of that $1.2billion is being put into capital. There is of course the  rump of coal juggling parliamentarians hoping against hope that jesus will descend from the heavens to re-anoint mans right to rail against reason and to live happily in delusion and poverty ever after, but the direction of the money isn't on their side. Funny that.
> 
> Cretins and Credlin only the thickness of a Talio Paper between them and not even that....
> (ps  focus...I'm much less like than u)




You could always switch off the coal fired electrical power to your home in protest and conservation? If everyone did that the companies would go broke and that would be a good thing for the environment ... not so good for humans and the animals slaughtered for food by feral gangs of starving, diseased ridden people, but who cares when imbeciles won't do as they are told by the all seeing eye doomsday oracles of society

Parasites are like that, they feed off the host while killing or retarding i's growth potential.


----------



## IFocus (26 August 2018)

orr said:


> I've had my time arguing with imbeciles, and it can be mortifying. But take heart Focus. Even as we speak in the back blocks of retro grade  bumfuk_ Duttonville _Qld, Darling downes(obviously there are a few of them out there that can count)... $6 billion dollars of investment in renewable energy is approved and of that $1.2billion is being put into capital. There is of course the  rump of coal juggling parliamentarians hoping against hope that jesus will descend from the heavens to re-anoint mans right to rail against reason and to live happily in delusion and poverty ever after, but the direction of the money isn't on their side. Funny that.
> 
> Cretins and Credlin only the thickness of a Talio Paper between them and not even that....
> (ps  focus...I'm much less like than u)




Thanks Orr.....


----------



## IFocus (26 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> You could always switch off the coal fired electrical power to your home in protest and conservation?




If we didn't have so many tossers that came from that "bunfuk" place playing political motivated ideological games but had instead  had solid energy policies that gave certainty business could invest capital that may or may not include coal.

You would of course base the policies on the endless reports/research and consult with business with capital.

Instead we have fu(king morons making up BS. 

At the moment there nothing.


----------



## Tisme (26 August 2018)




----------



## sptrawler (30 August 2018)

Well it might be hot over East, but it is bloody freezing in Perth, it is like a winter from the 1970's bloody cold.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-29/perth-august-rain-record-falls-wettest-in-26-years/10178884

I see Tassie is getting a cold snap also.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-30/tasmania-freezes-as-record-low-broken-in-overnight/10182274


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Well it might be hot over East, but it is bloody freezing in Perth, it is like a winter from the 1970's bloody cold.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-29/perth-august-rain-record-falls-wettest-in-26-years/10178884
> 
> I see Tassie is getting a cold snap also.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-30/tasmania-freezes-as-record-low-broken-in-overnight/10182274




It cold here ... really cold mornings for QLD. 

Oz itself is coldest for long time , the press citing >~10 years, which probably means since measurements began, but that would wreck the conversation.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2018)

Little rain in spring either according to BOM.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-30/dry-times-ahead-as-bom-releases-spring-outlook/10177842


----------



## explod (30 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> It cold here ... really cold mornings for QLD.
> 
> Oz itself is coldest for long time , the press citing >~10 years, which probably means since measurements began, but that would wreck the conversation.



Not at all, that's just where many doubters seem to get it wrong.

Global warming is pushing the extremes at both ends.  It "the displacement effect" and I've posted about it here for years.  In the past the north and south poles were so cold that little moved weather wise.  As it warmed air began to rise, bringing with it more moisture than normal.  This also increased the movements of air, ie., increased winds and storms which began to move things south and north from each end respectively.  So away from the poles, new records for heat, cold and storms.

I have read and studied these aspects for years now and there is just so much.  Do yourself a favor and have a real THINK about it overall, and do some objective study.  Wish the pollies would fill their (now proven) empty spaces between ears with some real learning.  But no, they fly flags at the fancy schools and unis who hand out degrees as long as they behave, play good horse hockey. pay a fortune and have the right family pedigree so believe they are right up there near their God (FFS).


----------



## sptrawler (30 August 2018)

explod said:


> Not at all, that's just where many doubters seem to get it wrong.
> 
> Global warming is pushing the extremes at both ends.  It "the displacement effect" and I've posted about it here for years.  In the past the north and south poles were so cold that little moved weather wise.  As it warmed air began to rise, bringing with it more moisture than normal.  This also increased the movements of air, ie., increased winds and storms which began to move things south and north from each end respectively.  So away from the poles, new records for heat, cold and storms.
> .



So new records for heat, cold and storms.
That should cover all eventualities.


----------



## Junior (31 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> It cold here ... really cold mornings for QLD.
> 
> Oz itself is coldest for long time , the press citing >~10 years, which probably means since measurements began, but that would wreck the conversation.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2018)

Junior said:


>





Oranges and apples comparo


----------



## Darc Knight (6 September 2018)

Does anyone know what happened to @basilio Did she get sick of Tis flirting with her?
Forum needs more posters with a social conscience. You can't have Ying without Yang or something.


----------



## Tisme (6 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Does anyone know what happened to @basilio Did she get sick of Tis flirting with her?
> Forum needs more posters with a social conscience. You can't have Ying without Yang or something.




I think she's warming herself on a sun soaked beach somewhere


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Does anyone know what happened to @basilio Did she get sick of Tis flirting with her?
> Forum needs more posters with a social conscience. You can't have Ying without Yang or something.




He/she comes and goes. Maybe they are on holiday.


----------



## basilio (9 September 2018)

Found a website that is focusing on the rapid increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Ties it in with the equally rapid increase in global temperatures.








https://www.co2.earth/


----------



## basilio (9 September 2018)

Also found this science site that examines a range of global warming elements in the environment. This piece looks a  a number of historical events where there was a big injection of CO2 into teh atmosphere.

When you get to the fine print however we discover that none of these events had anywhere near the amount of CO2 we are currently adding to atmosphere.

*Hyperthermals - insights into our warm future from past rapid changes in climate*
September 04, 2018




There are few, if any, direct analogues for anthropogenic climate change in the geological record.  This is because it is occurring at a pace that is rarely seen naturally, short of those rare times when the Earth is hit by an asteroid (e.g. 66 million years ago). There are events that occur natural that are however relatively similar - these are known as the “hyperthermals”.  These are geological rapid, relatively short events (<1 million years) characterised by rapid warming and caused by the injection of carbon to the climate system – typically a doubling or more of CO2 (see table below for a list of the most recent ones).

http://www.thefosterlab.org/blog/20...arm-future-from-past-rapid-changes-in-climate


----------



## Tisme (9 September 2018)

I seem to recall someone carrying on like a mad women with set free underpants when I used the word "analogue".


----------



## explod (9 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> I seem to recall someone carrying on like a mad women with set free underpants when I used the word "analogue".



Could you clearly explain the meaning of the word "analogue" in your intended context here?


----------



## Tisme (9 September 2018)

explod said:


> Could you clearly explain the meaning of the word "analogue" in your intended context here?




Why? You are more than capable of learning the different uses without having me tutor you on wordsmithing spatial concepts.


----------



## explod (9 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> Why? You are more than capable of learning the different uses without having me tutor you on wordsmithing spatial concepts.



Typical deniers rhetoric, bla bla for confusion.  and endeavour to belittle down those in opposition.

Answer the question put to you Tisme


----------



## Tisme (9 September 2018)

explod said:


> Typical deniers rhetoric, bla bla for confusion.  and endeavour to belittle down those in opposition.
> 
> Answer the question put to you Tisme





Do you need time to confer with Bas and come up with a different game plan? A few drone "likes" to each other to bolster the old hate and ego problem?

I repeat you can educate yourself without trying to bait me into one of the games you two like to play poorly.


----------



## explod (10 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> Do you need time to confer with Bas and come up with a different game plan? A few drone "likes" to each other to bolster the old hate and ego problem?
> 
> I repeat you can educate yourself without trying to bait me into one of the games you two like to play poorly.



Simply answer the question and we can then move on in the debate.

 Your meaning of the word "analogue"?


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2018)

explod said:


> Simply answer the question and we can then move on in the debate.
> 
> Your meaning of the word "analogue"?




You're behaving like a petulant child who demand his parents answer to him. It's not going to be a debate when it's patently obvious you intend to ambush me with some left field snipe.

Here's a few variations of analogue algorithms I use frequently :

















Does that satisfy your insatiable desires?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2018)

> Your meaning of the word "analogue"?




If you ever watched Mythbusters, "buster" was a human analog; ie an object that provided human characteristics in some respect without actually being one.


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If you ever watched Mythbusters, "buster" was a human analog; ie an object that provided human characteristics in some respect without actually being one.




There's medical analogues, industrial analogues, time based control analogues, electrical analogues, continuous variable analogues, etc even climatic analogues as it turns out from the article I referenced. 

To know one is to love one.


----------



## basilio (10 September 2018)

"There are few, if any, direct *analogues* for anthropogenic climate change in the geological record"

This means there few if any *direct comparisons* for what humankind is doing to the climate compared to what has occured through a range of non human CC situations.

Tizzie is just doing his normal sxxx of being as obscure as possible. 

Also manages to divert discussion from the  paper I quoted e.g
_ "Also found this science site that examines a range of global warming elements in the environment. This piece looks at a number of historical events where there was a big injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.
(and the outcomes) 
When you get to the fine print however we discover that none of these events had anywhere near the amount of CO2 we are currently adding to atmosphere._


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2018)

basilio said:


> "
> Tizzie is just doing his normal sxxx of being as obscure as possible.
> 
> _._




No he's not, he's avoiding having to school negative agenda pedants and the inevitable squeals that come from finding out they aren't as clever as they think they are.

Here's a freebie: analogue signal = real world proportional variable, usually a continuous signal. In fact guess what "analogue" derives from .......... ta da it's a derivitation of the Greek word for proportional.... shock horror. You see analogues everyday e.g. a dial faced clock or watch, you car has an analogue engine, when you wind your light dimmer switch you are winding an analogue, swinging your arms, temperature, humidity, pressure, light levels, etc.

The algorithms I previously posted are P+I+D outputs = proportional + integral+ derivative. But you knew that because you know more than I do about something I've been doing for over 45 years.


----------



## Junior (15 September 2018)

Elon Musk covers off on climate change in his interview with Joe Rogan recently. As someone who is super intelligent, and with wide ranging connections in the science community, his view carries substantial weight in my view. I know many do not like him, but his track record speaks for itself.

He indicated that there is now near 100% consensus and overwhelming evidence showing link between warming of the planet and burning of fossil fuels. It’s that simple. Debating this fact is simply detracting from the debate about what can be done and how fast. Ie accelerating the move away from internal combustion engines and electricity generation from fossil fuels is already happening so this is where the focus should be.


----------



## IFocus (15 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> No he's not, he's avoiding having to school negative agenda pedants and the inevitable squeals that come from finding out they aren't as clever as they think they are.
> 
> Here's a freebie: analogue signal = real world proportional variable, usually a continuous signal. In fact guess what "analogue" derives from .......... ta da it's a derivitation of the Greek word for proportional.... shock horror. You see analogues everyday e.g. a dial faced clock or watch, you car has an analogue engine, when you wind your light dimmer switch you are winding an analogue, swinging your arms, temperature, humidity, pressure, light levels, etc.
> 
> The algorithms I previously posted are P+I+D outputs = proportional + integral+ derivative. But you knew that because you know more than I do about something I've been doing for over 45 years.




Are you a instrument tech or process engineer?...............might explain a lot


----------



## Tisme (16 September 2018)

IFocus said:


> Are you a instrument tech or process engineer?...............might explain a lot




Across quite a few disciplines .. digital automation, logic and telemetry is one that semi grandfathered in this country and used to lecture actually and I keep my hand in now and again out of suit and into jeans to keep my brain active.


----------



## basilio (16 September 2018)

Be interesting to see at which point the reality of climate change in Australia, particularly in the rural sectors, hits home with the current government.

* Drought-stricken farmers challenge Coalition's climate change stance in TV ad *

‘We need to stick to the Paris agreement, we need to stop burning coal and we need to commit to more renewable energy,’ Longreach farmer says

“This drought has really hit our family hard,” says Longreach farmer Jody Brown. “Climate change is making the droughts more severe"
Those two sentences are the opening lines to a new advertisement challenging the federal government’s stance on climate change and the drought in Australia’s eastern states.

The 30-second ad will begin airing on commercial channels this week and will be beamed into politically important suburban areas of Australia’s three largest capital cities during the NRL grand final on 30 September.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nge-coalitions-climate-change-stance-in-tv-ad


----------



## sptrawler (17 September 2018)

In times of adversity, people can still see a funny side, never lose your sense of humour.

https://thewest.com.au/news/offbeat...-channels-embarrassing-coverage-ng-b88963543z


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2018)

sptrawler said:


> In times of adversity, people can still see a funny side, never lose your sense of humour.
> 
> https://thewest.com.au/news/offbeat...-channels-embarrassing-coverage-ng-b88963543z




Brave commentators caught in micro-climates


----------



## Knobby22 (18 September 2018)

Near the end of the north pole melt.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

You can see from the picture why the Chinese are building a fleet of ships to transverse the northern route to Europe. it's quite a bit shorter and relatively ice free.
Russia like China has had no blind spot to global warming unlike the USA which has pretended it's not happening. One US general said it's a joke, they have soldiers and defences designed to fight over ice that's not there. It's mostly slush or water now.

Russia have set up six bases and are claiming much of the territory which has oil and as the ice melts becomes more accessible. http://theweek.com/articles/614075/how-russia-fortifying-arctic

The USA have only just woken up to the fact, they have let domestic politics overrule the science. They have no decent bases. "The US Coast Guard currently has just two working icebreaker ships in service, and even those need to be fitted with hardened hulls and better insulation if they are to operate in the icy waters of the Arctic." https://www.rt.com/usa/us-wants-arctic-resources-154/
Canada has started a defence spend as Russia is claiming most of the arctic and have the ships, troops and ports to claim it at present. https://www.rt.com/news/240741-canada-arctic-resources-military/

When this and the previous thread was started I pointed out this was happening and was told I was believing corrupt scientists  and it was all rubbish.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Near the end of the north pole melt.
> ..............
> 
> When this and the previous thread was started I pointed out this was happening and was told I was believing corrupt scientists  and it was all rubbish.




I think you are confusing windups with self evident emergent truths.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2018)

The inevitable result of climate change is rising sea levels and the flooding of coastal cities. 
And if people can't grows fins and gills they will drown or move.

The process is happening around the world including the US. Sobering read. Many implications.

* 'We're moving to higher ground': America's era of climate mass migration is here *
Illustration: R Fresson for the Guardian
By the end of this century, sea level rises alone could displace 13m people. Many states will have to grapple with hordes of residents seeking dry ground. But, as one expert says, ‘No state is unaffected by this’

After her house flooded for the third year in a row, Elizabeth Boineau was ready to flee. She packed her possessions into dozens of boxes, tried not to think of the mold and mildew-covered furniture and retreated to a second-floor condo that should be beyond the reach of pounding rains and swelling seas.

Boineau is leaving behind a handsome, early 20th-century house in Charleston, South Carolina, the shutters painted in the city’s eponymous shade of deep green. Last year, after Hurricane Irma introduced 8in of water into a home Boineau was still patching up from the last flood, local authorities agreed this historic slice of Charleston could be torn down.

“I was sloshing through the water with my puppy dog, debris was everywhere,” she said. “I feel completely sunken. It would cost me around $500,000 to raise the house, demolish the first floor. I’m going to rent a place instead, on higher ground.”

Millions of Americans will confront similarly hard choices as climate change conjures up brutal storms, flooding rains, receding coastlines and punishing heat. Many are already opting to shift to less perilous areas of the same city, or to havens in other states. Whole towns from Alaska to Louisiana are looking to relocate, in their entirety, to safer ground.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/americas-era-of-climate-mass-migration-is-here


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

And now for something new..
Did you know that in 2018 with "global warming"  ice sheets can move real quick ? 
*Like 82 feet in a day ! *
It's all happening baby..*

Consensus - the 97% 
 Climate change 
 New research shows the world’s ice is doing something not seen before 

Do you know how an ice sheet can move? You’ll find out below.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...worlds-ice-is-doing-something-not-seen-before

*


----------



## explod (28 September 2018)

Yep, you are right Bas, we are stuffed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-28/japan-braces-typhoon-trami-life-threatening-impacts

Day after day they come in increasing numbers, storms around the world that is. 

However, my life is gone and I can sit back, as tonight, Grand Final tomorrow and soak myself in alcohol and feel good. But no I cannot (but I am soaked) or I would not be doing this.

Bloody conscience, gave God away years back but thinking of others never goes away for me. 

We could save our planet, lets go


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2018)

explod said:


> Yep, you are right Bas, we are stuffed.
> 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-28/japan-braces-typhoon-trami-life-threatening-impacts
> 
> ...




The burden of knowledge and sympathies there explod.


----------



## basilio (1 October 2018)

*World 'nowhere near on track' to avoid 
warming beyond 1.5C target *
Exclusive: Author of key UN climate report says limiting temperature rise would require enormous, immediate transformation in human activity

Oliver Milman

 @olliemilman 
Thu 27 Sep 2018 15.00 AEST   Last modified on Fri 28 Sep 2018 06.00 AEST

*Shares*
6569




Avoiding a temperature increase of more than 1.5C will be ‘extraordinarily challenging’, says the report’s author. Photograph: Matt Brown/AP
The world’s governments are “nowhere near on track” to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.

A massive, immediate transformation in the way the world’s population generates energy, uses transportation and grows food will be required to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5C and the forthcoming analysis is set to lay bare how remote this possibility is.

“It’s extraordinarily challenging to get to the 1.5C target and we are nowhere near on track to doing that,” said Drew Shindell, a Duke University climate scientist and a co-author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which will be unveiled in South Korea next month.

“While it’s technically possible, it’s extremely improbable, absent a real sea change in the way we evaluate risk. We are nowhere near that.”

In the 2015 Paris climate pact, international leaders agreed to curb the global temperature rise to 2C above the era prior to mass industrialization, with an aspiration to limit this to 1.5C. The world has already warmed by around 1C over the past century, fueling sea level rises, heatwaves, storms and the decline of vulnerable ecosystems such as coral reefs.

Shindell would not share exact details of the IPCC report, but he said that the more ambitious 1.5C goal would require a precipitous drop in greenhouse emissions triggered by a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, particularly coal, mass deployment of solar and wind energy and the eradication of emissions from cars, trucks and airplanes.

Even then, emerging technology will be required on a global scale to capture emissions at the source and bury them in the ground or remove carbon directly from the air.

“The penetration rate of new technology historically takes a long time,” Shindell said. “It’s not simple to change these things. There aren’t good examples in history of such rapid, far-reaching transitions.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report


----------



## explod (2 October 2018)

Are well, step up the party, some ice in that?

"After the biggest football weekend of the year, it's the Federal Government who deserves the wooden spoon.

Last Friday night, the Federal Department of Environment and Energy discreetly released news that deserved front page attention: *Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution levels have risen yet again. *Worse, this is the third year running. 

*The data should have been released months ago, but instead, it seems the Government has waited for an opportune moment to slip this worrying news under the table.*

*And if this sounds familiar, it most certainly is.*

It’s a tactic that’s been used time and again, as the Government has repeatedly tried to conceal the fact that *emissions have been rising since March 2015*. They have released reports on Australia’s rising emissions on Christmas Eve, on weekends, during holiday periods or major events, hoping that no one is paying attention.

Unfortunately, the* Federal Government has no credible climate policy *to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. And the stakes are deadly serious. 

*Australia has just experienced its driest September on record *(1), with farmers desperately waiting for rain. With the bushfire season starting early in many local government areas in NSW, and large areas of Queensland and most of NSW in drought, Australians are already feeling the acute impacts of rising greenhouse gas pollution levels.

But *we’re not letting the Government get away with these sneaky climate censorship tactics.*

Over the long weekend, *we were out in the media* *making sure the Australian public gets the facts it deserves* about climate change.

*Will you share this article with your friends and family to show the Government that no matter what tactics they try, they can’t smother the truth on climate?** We need to get this news to as many people as possible so that they know the truth about Australia’s emissions scorecard.*

At a time when credible Federal Government climate policy remains missing in action, the need for transparent greenhouse gas pollution information has never been more important.

Together, we can hold the Government to account and keep pushing for positive change with the bountiful renewable energy and storage solutions that we have on hand.







Dr Martin Rice

Acting CEO and Head of Research"


https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/rainfall-tallies-plummet-after-australia-s-driest-september-on-record-20181001-p50732.html


----------



## basilio (3 October 2018)

The Trump administration expectation of Global Warming..

*Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100*

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.

The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly four degree Celsius or seven degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.

The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming, the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.5e16ea0bb1ee


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2018)

Bad news for summer.



BOM issues El Nino alert.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-09/bom-declares-el-nino-alert/10356724


----------



## sptrawler (9 October 2018)

Obviously time to move on from this thread, it is unstoppable, time to just enjoy what time is left.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Obviously time to move on from this thread, it is unstoppable, time to just enjoy what time is left.




And sell Australian agriculture stocks.


----------



## sptrawler (9 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And sell Australian agriculture stocks.



I wouldn't write off Australian agriculture, it really is the only sustainable industry we have, other than H2.
If we can get irrigation happening in the North of Australia, then get a handle on the issues(pests etc), we will have plenty of demand for our product.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 October 2018)

explod said:


> After the biggest football weekend of the year, it's the Federal Government who deserves the wooden spoon.



I’d give environmental groups a pretty hard smack with the spoon too.

As a general rule I’m not keen on “I told you so” stuff but I’ll make an exception.

Environmentalists got their wish and Hazelwood power station is now permanently closed. Alglesea, Northern, Morwell, Playford B, Redbank and Wallerawang C are shut too.

Meanwhile emissions went up and environmental groups who pushed for the closure of Hazelwood and others are suspiciously silent on the issue.

If it was up to me then I’d remove politicians and green groups alike, neither grasps the issue properly, and put professional scientists and engineers in charge of coming up with a workable national plan and implementing it.

To do that I’d set up a properly structured Commission, with the authority to own and operate businesses, enter contracts with the private sector and to raise funds. I’d give parliament a simple yes / no role in approving major investment decisions but with no ability to alter the details.

That approach built the energy system we’ve got today and would have a far better chance of delivering what we need going forward when compared to what we’re actually doing now.

Note that this approach doesn’t necessarily mean natuonalising anything although that is an option if needed.


----------



## CanOz (10 October 2018)

What kind of world will my kids have to grow up in, or raise thier kids in?


----------



## explod (10 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I’d give environmental groups a pretty hard smack with the spoon too.
> 
> As a general rule I’m not keen on “I told you so” stuff but I’ll make an exception.
> 
> ...



https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ct-failure-its-time-for-a-publicly-owned-grid


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

explod said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ct-failure-its-time-for-a-publicly-owned-grid




Good article plod.

A government owned retailer would keep the private companies honest like Medicare does to the private health  funds.


----------



## basilio (10 October 2018)

This is  the intensity of the fires  in California last summer.  It is what will be facing us this summer and even more so as temperatures increase.
*Hellfire*
by John Vaillant • Photography by Tim Hussin

The worst case scenario plays out the same way everywhere, whether you are in southern California or northern Alberta. A nascent wildfire – driven by extreme heat, high winds, drought conditions and a century of largely successful fire suppression – explodes into a juggernaut and takes over the countryside.

Any houses in the way are simply more fuel. Preheated to 500C by the 100ft flames of the advancing blaze, homes don’t so much catch on fire as explode into flames. In a dense neighborhood, many homes may do this simultaneously. The speed of ignition shocks people – citizens and firefighters alike – but it is only the beginning.

Because the temperatures achievable in an urban wildfire are comparable to those in a crucible, virtually everything is consumed as fuel. What doesn’t burn, melts: steel car chassis warp and bend while lesser metals – aluminum engine blocks, magnesium wheels – will liquify.

In turn, the ferocious heat generates its own wind that can drive sparks and embers hundreds of meters ahead of the fire. Conflagrations of this magnitude are virtually unstoppable. Ordinary house fires often leave structures somewhat intact; things can be salvaged. But no one is prepared for the damage caused by a wildfire when it overruns their town – not the scale of it, nor its capacity to wipe out everything they have worked for.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/n...-will-happen-hellfire-california-forest-fires


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I’d give environmental groups a pretty hard smack with the spoon too.
> 
> As a general rule I’m not keen on “I told you so” stuff but I’ll make an exception.
> 
> ...



Add to that 640MW of coal shut down in W.A, with Muja A/B, Kwinana A & C, wow we really are having a real effect. 
I think not, the only effect we are having is on the reliability and cost of electricity.
If we can't transition to a completely 'green' electricity supply in Australia, in the next 15 years, we will become a third world economy.
 Just my opinion, but we have pushed all the chips in, I hope we win.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 October 2018)

Going back to the original post Global Warming if it exists is not unstoppable.

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

basilio said:


> This is  the intensity of the fires  in California last summer.  It is what will be facing us this summer and even more so as temperatures increase.
> *Hellfire*




Scary stuff allright

Lets hope people heed the warnings and put safety first.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Good article plod.
> 
> A government owned retailer would keep the private companies honest like Medicare does to the private health  funds.



FFS another NBN, please no, another taxpayer funded bail out to supply what we already paid for.
Christ I need to get onto the age pension, I'm sick of paying for these brain farts.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Scary stuff allright
> 
> Lets hope people heed the warnings and put safety first.




What a silly post.

Of course people are going to do that you muppet.

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What a silly post.
> 
> Of course people are going to do that you muppet.
> 
> gg






I hope you are right but people still die in bushfires you muppet.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> People still die in bushfires you muppet.



You are a silly person.

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> FFS another NBN, please no, another taxpayer funded bail out to supply what we already paid for.
> Christ I need to get onto the age pension, I'm sick of paying for these brain farts.




No one complained about power prices before privatisation did they ?

The power just appeared at reasonable prices.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You are a silly person.
> 
> gg




Just someone who doesn't live in Disneyland.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> No one complained about power prices before privatisation did they ?
> 
> The power just appeared at reasonable prices.




Right to put it in simplistic terms, the Power Stations Make the money, They produce the goods.
The network just costs money, because all it does is take the product from the generator, and give it to the user.
And you think it is a great idea, to become the owner of the non income generating backbone at the tax payers cost, well that probably goes without saying, you have to be a tax payer to be pissed off.
The NBN was a typical example of that, the telco's got an upgraded system at the taxpayers expense, so the telco's could charge you more for a better service you paid for. FFS
Didn't you read how much renewables has to be put in, in the near future 100GW, how the fluck does the tax payer fund that? And find enough money for welfare? They won't find it from SMSF's trust me.
All this rah rah socialist $hit works well, while you have someone else's money to pay for it.
Where Australia has chosen to go, can't be funded through taxes, it is an enormous excercise and the Government needs to oversee it not become involved in it. IMO
As smurp says, it needs to handed over to engineering, not politics.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Right to put it in simplistic terms, the Power Stations Make the money, They produce the goods.
> The network just costs money, because all it does is take the product from the generator, and give it to the user.
> And you think it is a great idea, to become the owner of the non income generating backbone at the tax payers cost, well that probably goes without saying, you have to be a tax payer to be pissed off.
> The NBN was a typical example of that, the telco's got an upgraded system at the taxpayers expense, so the telco's could charge you more for a better service you paid for. FFS
> ...




I stand by my original comment. All this stuff about power prices only happened after the grid was privatised.

Do you deny that ?

You can rant all you like, but it was a cr@p decision to sell the stuff off in the first place.

So a few government owned gas power stations and pumped hydro providing baseload is a rubbish idea is it ?

What do you think of Snowy Hydro 2.0 ? Do you object to your taxes going into that ?


FFS your hero Abbott was saying we the taxpayers should buy Liddell back. Great idea to buy a power station that 's falling apart, but I guess you approve of that ?


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Right to put it in simplistic terms, the Power Stations Make the money, They produce the goods.
> The network just costs money, because all it does is take the product from the generator, and give it to the user.
> And you think it is a great idea, to become the owner of the non income generating backbone at the tax payers cost, well that probably goes without saying, you have to be a tax payer to be pissed off.
> The NBN was a typical example of that, the telco's got an upgraded system at the taxpayers expense, so the telco's could charge you more for a better service you paid for. FFS
> ...




It's called socialised expense but privatised profit. Or, Capitalism 

Tax collection for the purposes, as claimed, "for a civil society" is socialism. Just that in practise, tax do get collected but its distribution goes to the top with hope that it'll trickle down.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I stand by my original comment. All this stuff about power prices only happened after the grid was privatised.
> 
> Do you deny that ?
> 
> ...




Talking to my brother in law the other day from the UK. He said the gov't there is planning to privatise the rail network, again.

The same network Virgin and Co bought a couple decades ago when it was privatised. Branson milked the crap out of the network, firing people in a drive for "efficiency", cut back on maintenance and paying themselves crapload of dividends... Soon enough the system goes to heck so it's socialised again.

Sounds like the gov't, using taxpayers cash, have fixed it up good and proper. Now it's time to talk about gaining efficiency by giving it away to entrepreneurs.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I stand by my original comment. All this stuff about power prices only happened after the grid was privatised.
> 
> Do you deny that ?



No, but you seem to imply it was only the LNP that did it, when both Parties did.
The other thing is, in hind sight with the advent of renewables, the taxpayer would have been left with stranded assetts if it wasn't privatised. Imagine trying to sell a coal fired Power Station now?
You have a one dimensional take on it all, probably from lack of knowledge of how the Power System works.
If all the of the power generation was owned by the taxpayer, they would have to fund the transition to renewables, from consolidated revenue or from higher electricity charges.




SirRumpole said:


> You can rant all you like, but it was a cr@p decision to sell the stuff off in the first place.




Both sides of politics sold off, or made Government Power Generation an impost, rather than a service. You try and imply it is was only done by the LNP, when both sides have done it.




SirRumpole said:


> So a few government owned gas power stations and pumped hydro providing baseload is a rubbish idea is it ?




Don't try and degrade my input, I worked in the industry and as you know, I have said endlessly that base load is the problem.
Quoting the obvious doesn't in any way, show you understand the underlying issues, it just shows you can parrot other people's knowledge with none of your own.



SirRumpole said:


> What do you think of Snowy Hydro 2.0 ? Do you object to your taxes going into that ?



That doesn't deserve an answer, you already know my thoughts on Pumped Hydro and H2 storage, you really are proving GG was right.



SirRumpole said:


> FFS your hero Abbott was saying we the taxpayers should buy Liddell back. Great idea to buy a power station that 's falling apart, but I guess you approve of that ?




If you don't have enough gas available over East, to supply the 2,000MW Liddel supplies, of course it makes sense, you muppett.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> No, but you seem to imply it was only the LNP that did it, when both Parties did.




I did not mention either Party you are seeing things that don't exist.



sptrawler said:


> Both sides of politics sold off, or made Government Power Generation an impost, rather than a service. You try and imply it is was only done by the LNP, when both sides have done it.




See previous answer.



sptrawler said:


> If you don't have enough gas available over East, to supply the 2,000MW Liddel supplies, of course it makes sense, you muppett.




Well lets get the opinion of an *expert* shall we ?



			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> *Turnbull tries to keep Liddell open.
> *
> He'll need a lot of luck to make that work.
> 
> ...




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...eration-and-storage.29842/page-90#post-958544



			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Liddell power station has attracted much attention in recent times.
> 
> Just thought I'd mention that unit 3 hasn't been running for a while and unit 4 failed suddenly whilst at full load last night.
> 
> ...




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...ration-and-storage.29842/page-122#post-992028



			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> I don't doubt the technical competence of the owners (AGL) but ultimately Liddell is already at the point where it's worn out and struggling to keep going.
> 
> They did a patch up last year but still struggled to keep it going when the weather got hot. Half the plant failed outright, the other half couldn't get up to full capacity, and load shedding in NSW was the result.
> 
> ...




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...eration-and-storage.29842/page-90#post-958544

Liddell will be a great investment won't it ?

It will be running untill 2022 anyway, and after that it's stuffed.

Kermit.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Liddell will be a great investment won't it ?




If they are going to blow it up, it will cost Fluck all, the generators will still be good, the only problem will be the boilers and they can be replaced.
The civil ground works, cement footings etc will still be used, so it will just be a boiler swap out. That will cost a lot less than replacing everything.
ASK smurph.
North Power Station at Port Augusta, was relatively young by coal fired standards, it was blown up.
Because of stupid ideology, it represented the past, so it had to go how dumb was that? It was offered to the Labor Government of SA for nothing, they said blow it up.
Like I've said, the only way that renewables will be viable as base load, is through hydro and H2.
Batteries are a stop gap, but we have been through that endlessly.
At the moment, we are ffking 80GW short in renewables, do you realise how much that is?
Yet just blow up another 2GW Power Staion, because it seemed like a good idea at the time. FFS

By the way I noticed you didn't address my comment on stranded assetts, that the taxpayer would have to ffking cop, and the fact they would have to foot the whole bill, for the transition to renewables.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> At the moment, we are ffking 80GW short in renewables, do you realise how much that is?




Do you realise I didn't mention renewables ?

I said gas and pumped hydro.

And I did make a mistake, I said retailer when I should have said generator(s).


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you realise I didn't mention renewables ?
> 
> I said gas and pumped hydro.
> 
> And I did make a mistake, I said retailer when I should have said generator(s).




Like I said, it just shows your lack of depth of knowledge, luckily Karma will happen. IMO


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Like I said, it just shows your lack of depth of knowledge, luckily Karma will happen. IMO




Oh dear me I said the wrong word by mistake, so velly solly. 

But it indicates a lack of comprehension on your part when you assumed things I didn't say.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh dear me I said the wrong word by mistake, so velly solly.
> 
> But it indicates a lack of comprehension on your part when you assumed things I didn't say.




I just wish, the politics would get out of the generation issue, I worked in generation from 15 years old, to retirement through most aspects of it.
To see it degenerate to a sideshow, where everyone and his dog has an opinion and knows the answers, is really sad.
I thought it would have been better, to have stayed in Government hands, but now with hindsight and the advent of renewables, it would have cost the taxpayer a massive amount of money.
Selling the assetts, to those who could afford them when they were at their most valuable, was probably a good move. They wouldn't be able to get the same return now.
Like I have said before, there are Government Dept's looking 25 years ahead, I would think this sell off was pre emptied.
Also I probably shouldn't have called you a muppett, just get the rusted on jacket off.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

I can appreciate your passion about the subject. Any harsh words on my part are withdrawn.

Two quick wickets have fallen, we are stuffed. 

PS on reading the Immigration thread I see you called me a muppet again.

Withdrawall withdrawn.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I can appreciate your passion about the subject. Any harsh words on my part are withdrawn.
> 
> Two quick wickets have fallen, we are stuffed.
> 
> ...




If you can't vent on friends, what's the World coming to, I like your posts they make me go back to basics.
Like I said, if the Governments had kept all the assetts, it would be a disaster worse than the NBN. IMO
When I was a lot younger, I was told to install a diesel power station in a remote town, the generating equipment was absolute $hite.
 I complained to the point of being told, "if I don't shut up and make it happen, I would be sacked", well 20 years later I went through the town with the caravan and the diesel station had gone.
Skid mount compact gas turbines are there, I wouldn't have complained about the shite I had to install if I had known, like I said they are well ahead of the game.
By the way if i don't vent on you, I'll probably vent on the missus that ends up worse.
Now we are over the warm feel good $hit, ATM there is no way they can keep shutting down the coal fired plant, the storage and renewable generating capacity is way behind what they are shutting down. IMO
But having said that, I live in W.A which is an island, thankfully.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 October 2018)

I have no ideological agenda with public versus private ownership but I do see one huge problem that cuts across most of this.

Competition has become an article of faith and an objective in itself rather than the means to an end it should properly be.

Competitive markets are of benefit if, and only if, they drive efficiency gains. That’s the bit being overlooked in Australia and which will ultimately lead us to recession. There’s no point in a competitive market if the outcome is less efficient then a natural monopoly which is exactly where all this has ended up.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 October 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I have no ideological agenda with public versus private ownership but I do see one huge problem that cuts across most of this.
> 
> Competition has become an article of faith and an objective in itself rather than the means to an end it should properly be.
> 
> Competitive markets are of benefit if, and only if, they drive efficiency gains. That’s the bit being overlooked in Australia and which will ultimately lead us to recession. There’s no point in a competitive market if the outcome is less efficient then a natural monopoly which is exactly where all this has ended up.




Ideological agendas were put in place with privatisation (and SA's big renewable push) and they both failed.

Give it back to the scientists and engineers.


----------



## explod (11 October 2018)

On the news this morning,

Spanish floods washing everything away; and

Florida cyclone worst to ever hit the area.

Ok,  who's coming to the party,  LNP missing


----------



## PZ99 (11 October 2018)

explod said:


> On the news this morning,
> 
> Spanish floods washing everything away; and
> 
> ...



It's too late - we're stuffed. The party's over. 

Long term the planet will be OK after it consumes us and rebuilds itself.

The only choice we have is how we witness the inevitable destruction.


----------



## Tisme (11 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> If you can't vent on friends, what's the World coming to, .....
> .





Refer to the thread titled "_Is ASF a racist, homophobic and misogynistic forum?" _ 

My interpretation :- Rumpole readjusted his collar and cuffs after getting a gee up because he didn't want to **** the complaining mob and add fuel to the fire for diminution of the discussion lounge. 

Robust debate and non conformist opinions are a endangered concepts these days and even infecting the greatest group of contrarians ever = (traitor) baby boomers


----------



## Tisme (11 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Ideological agendas were put in place with privatisation (and SA's big renewable push) and they both failed.
> 
> Give it back to the scientists and engineers.




Not scientists and engineers directly but to must needs "build from scratch" nation builders of old like the Forrest family and post war reconstruction eras. The currency of present day governance nation building has brakes and accelerator applied in response to political popularity which is endemically inefficient and wasteful of resource and finances.

We need big thinkers, strong leadership, pride and a can do population that is more interested in moving ahead instead of novelty distractions like plastering rainbow stickers on car windows and protesting for compensation of hurt feelings.


----------



## Tisme (11 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> It's too late - we're stuffed. The party's over.
> 
> Long term the planet will be OK after it consumes us and rebuilds itself.
> 
> The only choice we have is how we witness the inevitable destruction.




If the population was reduced the problem would go away in proportion for demand. Feed the world they said.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> If the population was reduced the problem would go away in proportion for demand. Feed the world they said.




What we need now is a nice little nuclear war. 

Bye bye US, Russia and China, that should reduce the population a bit, and the nuclear winter will account for a lot as well.


----------



## PZ99 (11 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> If the population was reduced the problem would go away in proportion for demand. Feed the world they said.



That would be true if humans were causing the problem in the first place.
Trouble is so many of us are denying even the existence of warming - let alone the causes.

I've renovated my man cave in preparation for this summer in West Sydney. 
11m underground, cool, free power... silent as the grave. Temp range 16 to 22 degrees


----------



## CanOz (11 October 2018)

I've got a man cave in our new place, it's also sub terranian....should be quiet and cool. Our whole house is electric and we'll be covering the roof with panels...now if I could just get that tesla...


----------



## Knobby22 (11 October 2018)

I've got a pool, it will save my life one hot day when the power fails.


----------



## explod (11 October 2018)

"On the news this morning,

Spanish floods washing everything away; and

Florida cyclone worst to ever hit the area.

Ok, who's coming to the party, LNP missing"

So further to the news this morning we just saw on this evenings news a very intense storm in Queensland.  Heavy hail and extreme winds.  Vic 7 news

We must party while we can.


----------



## Tisme (11 October 2018)

PZ99 said:


> That would be true if humans were causing the problem in the first place.
> Trouble is so many of us are denying even the existence of warming - let alone the causes.
> 
> I've renovated my man cave in preparation for this summer in West Sydney.
> 11m underground, cool, free power... silent as the grave. Temp range 16 to 22 degrees




Who's denying it?

My man cave 10m x 4.5m, is at ground level on bottom floor facing the water, sound proofed, heavily insulated, Jason recliners, 7.2 sound system with 1970 bigarse speakers, fridge, big screen, air cond, etc. Xp Coupe sits in the room next door same size room. ....... now I'm thinking of bringing excavator in seeing as you and Canoz have endorsed subterranean = three caves!!!


----------



## explod (11 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Who's denying it?
> 
> My man cave 10m x 4.5m, is at ground level on bottom floor facing the water, sound proofed, heavily insulated, Jason recliners, 7.2 sound system with 1970 bigarse speakers, fridge, big screen, air cond, etc. Xp Coupe sits in the room next door same size room. ....... now I'm thinking of bringing excavator in seeing as you and Canoz have endorsed subterranean = three caves!!!



Ya need a party entertainer, handyman or trooper to keep watch?

I'm available.


----------



## Tisme (11 October 2018)

explod said:


> Ya need a party entertainer, handyman or trooper to keep watch?
> 
> I'm available.




You can join all the other males in the area who help themselves to my digs, fridge and tools.


----------



## explod (11 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> You can join all the other males in the area who help themselves to my digs, fridge and tools.



Are you fair dinkum.

Did you see the size of those Qld hail stones.  They had some nearly that size in Sydney a few years back which we thought was just a fluke. But this adds to my festival mentality.  And yes, lets get together.

Maybe we could make a killing for Joe by turning this site into an escape, enjoyment, (silver coin counting) and ignoring anything contrary to what we feel endangers our fidelity.


----------



## basilio (14 October 2018)

Thse underground digs sound "cool" - in every way.    Just hope they don't turn into crypts folks. 
But on the thread topic this analysis offers an insight into the latest UN Climate Report.

*How to Understand the UN’s Dire New Climate Report*
It tries to find hope against a backdrop of failure.

Robinson Meyer  Oct 9, 2018





Men perform a ceremony on the drought-stricken bed of Poopó, a lake in Bolivia.David Mercado / Reuters

People must be burned out on major climate reports, and can you really blame them? Every year, it seems, yet another group of scientists compiles what we know about climate change. And every year, with few exceptions, the broad outlines of that knowledge seem worrying. But nothing ever really changes—and so our ongoing apocalypse becomes not only all the more terrifying, but also all the more tedious.

That burnout is understandable, but I urge you to pay attention to—yes—a new report released this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN-convened coalition of climate scientists from around the world. Whereas previous assessments have warned of our hideous overheated future, this one does something different: It tries to sketch a better one.

The report articulates what seems, from the vantage point of 2018, like a best-case scenario for climate change. It describes what the world will look like if it warms by only 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius, by the end of this century. Meeting that target would require humanity to abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the next decade or two—an economic transition so abrupt that, in the IPCC’s words, it “has no documented historic precedents._”_
 
This lukewarm world would still suffer many of the consequences of climate change. There would be more deadly heat waves, more heavy rainstorms, and more intense and frequent droughts. Yet some of the phenomenon’s most catastrophic symptoms, including dozens of feet of sea-level rise and planet-wracking extinctions, might be averted.

The report, in other words, lays out humanity’s last best hope for managing climate change. But it does so against a backdrop of generational failure.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...stand-the-uns-dire-new-climate-report/572356/


----------



## basilio (14 October 2018)

And one way to get on with the business of averting a hot house planet.

*Clean up climate change? It’s just good for business.*



An ominous report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that government policies alone will not ensure the “unprecedented” societal changes needed over the next decade to stem climate change. (Rob Griffith/AP)
By  Steven Mufson ,
 Brady Dennis and
 Chris Mooney
October 12
If the world’s largest companies live up to the promises they’ve made to slow climate change, together they could reduce emissions by an amount equal to those of Germany.

The corporate pledges gained new attention this week after an ominous report was issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said that government policies alone won’t ensure the “unprecedented” societal changes needed over the next decade to stem climate change.

That puts the onus on the business sector to clean up a mess it helped create.

To a greater extent than ever before, the best interest of many businesses and those of the planet are aligned.

“We’ve gone from saying ‘it would be nice to do, but it would cost us’ to saying ‘if we don’t do it, we won’t be able to grow, we won’t be able to have tomorrow’s economy,’ ” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute (WRI). “Business leaders, they realize that.”

As Feike Sijbesma, chief executive of the Dutch multinational company Royal DSM, put it: “We need to future-proof ourselves.”

The report said that holding the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — as set forth in the Paris climate agreement — will require creating entire new industries to remove carbon from the air as well as the overhaul of the vast energy infrastructure that has been built over more than a century.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.356059bccc4a


----------



## basilio (24 October 2018)

*Climate change and compassion fatigue*
Posted on October 12, 2018

I’m a climate scientist, and I don’t worry about climate change very much. I think about it every day, but I don’t let it in. To me climate change is a fascinating math problem, a symphony unfolding both slowly and quickly before our very eyes. The consequences of this math problem, for myself and my family and our future, I keep locked in a tiny box in my brain. The box rarely gets opened.

https://climatesight.org/2018/10/12/climate-change-and-compassion-fatigue/


----------



## basilio (24 October 2018)

If anyone is interested in understanding some of the mechanics of how the ice is melting in Antartica as a result of climate change this blog is for you.

Clear, interesting,  not overley technical.  Personal and accessible. The above post is the most recent on her blog site.
_______________________________________________________________
_Dr Kaitlin Naughten is an ocean modeller at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK.

She became interested in climate science as a teenager on the Canadian Prairies, and increasingly began to notice the discrepancies between scientific and public knowledge on climate change. She started writing this blog at age sixteen to help address this gap in public understanding, and it slowly evolved into a record of her research as a young climate scientist.

Kaitlin’s first research experience came during her undergraduate degree at the University of Manitoba. Each summer she travelled somewhere new to work as a research assistant: to the University of Toronto with Prof Steve Easterbrook, the University of Victoria with Prof Andrew Weaver, and the University of New South Wales in Australia with Prof Katrin Meissner. 

She returned to Australia for her PhD, supervised by Prof Meissner as well as Dr Ben Galton-Fenzi and Prof Matthew England. At point she began to specialise in ice-ocean modelling: simulating the interactions of Antarctic ice shelves with the surrounding Southern Ocean, and the potential consequences for sea level rise. This theme has continued into Kaitlin’s first postdoc at the British Antarctic Survey, where she is focusing on the Weddell Sea region of Antarctica and the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf cavity._
*
https://climatesight.org/about/*


----------



## SirRumpole (25 October 2018)

Company directors now care about climate change.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10...-started-caring-about-climate-change/10423658


----------



## basilio (29 October 2018)

If we want to slowdown/stop runaway CC  we have a terrifying short time frame left to stabalise and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

It has now reached the stage that scientists are saying we have to develop crash programs to actively suck CO2 out of the air and store.

So what will happen after the new Brazilian Government turns the remaining parts of the Amazon jungle into cattle ranches and soy bean fields ?

_WASHINGTON — With time running out to avoid dangerous global warming, the nation’s leading scientific body on Wednesday urged the federal government to begin a research program focused on developing technologies that can remove vast quantities of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in order to help slow climate change.

The 369-page report, written by a panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, underscores an important shift. For decades, experts said that nations could prevent large temperature increases mainly by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and moving to cleaner sources like solar, wind and nuclear power.

But at this point, nations have delayed so long in cutting their carbon dioxide emissions that even a breakneck shift toward clean energy would most likely not be enough. According to a landmark scientific report issued by the United Nations this month, taking out a big chunk of the carbon dioxide already loaded into the atmosphere may be necessary to avoid significant further warming, even though researchers haven’t yet figured out how to do so economically, or at sufficient scale.

And we’ll have to do it fast. To meet the climate goals laid out under the Paris Agreement, humanity may have to start removing around 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year by midcentury, in addition to reducing industrial emissions, said Stephen W. Pacala, a Princeton climate scientist who led the panel. That’s nearly as much carbon as all the world’s forests and soils currently absorb each year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/climate/global-warming-carbon-removal.html?action=click&module=In Other News&pgtype=Homepage&action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage_


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2018)

basilio said:


> If we want to slowdown/stop runaway CC we have a terrifying short time frame left to stabalise and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.





I'm afraid that we are stuffed.

If people keep electing far right governments around the world there is little hope of achieving anything meaningful.

We will go the way of the dinosaurs, as the saying goes, "it won't happen overnight but it will happen".


----------



## explod (29 October 2018)

Sadly I've held this view for some time now Rumpy.   Most people are too preoccupied with day to day survival to focus and the (big business) news media caps it.

A sad PARTY


----------



## basilio (5 November 2018)

Some very concerning new  research on the amount of extra heat in the oceans cause by global warming.
*Far, far more than previously believed.*  It indictaates an acceleration of global temperatures as warmer oceans temperatures also warm the atmosphere.

*Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming*

*The findings mean the world might have less time to curb carbon emissions.*
 Chris Mooney and
 Brady Dennis
October 31
The world’s oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.

Over the past quarter-century, Earth’s oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by Earth’s atmosphere — the yearly amount representing more than eight times the world’s annual energy consumption.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...warming/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c159479cc477


----------



## Darc Knight (5 November 2018)

I don't know what or who to believe.

The scary thing is our entire existence is at stake. A Royal Commission into G.W.?

Imagine if Human Beings (and alot of other species) become extinct because of Right Wing idealogy!


----------



## basilio (6 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I don't know what or who to believe.
> 
> The scary thing is our entire existence is at stake. A Royal Commission into G.W.?
> 
> Imagine if Human Beings (and alot of other species) become extinct because of Right Wing idealogy!




I think that could be really good idea Darc . We are dealing with an issue that will challenge the existence of our society. It will take a monumental effort to address it. It has been scarred by political idiocy for years.

Perhaps the public forensic capacities of a judge and support staff can look at the evidence and come to a formal conclusion on what we are facing and what we could/should do.

(cough) It would also give some cover for politicians to change their current views


----------



## explod (10 November 2018)

Huge uncontrollable fires in California today reported on ABC 24 this evening.

Party away, no one cares.


----------



## Ann (10 November 2018)

explod said:


> Huge uncontrollable fires in California today reported on ABC 24 this evening.
> 
> Party away, no one cares.




Geez Explod why do you keep editing your posts? Don't be shy. I saw your post in the Melbourne Cup thread before you deleted it and you were so right with your comments. No one is "partying" no one has "no care". Wildfires happen when there is fuel and heat. Nothing to do with global warming or any special event other than dangerous fire conditions.


----------



## luutzu (10 November 2018)

explod said:


> Huge uncontrollable fires in California today reported on ABC 24 this evening.
> 
> Party away, no one cares.




It's almost their winter isn't it. 

How do you get bushfire in autumn? We are so stuffed.


----------



## Ann (10 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> It's almost their winter isn't it.
> 
> How do you get bushfire in autumn? We are so stuffed.




Why are we so stuffed? Autumn can be one of the hottest seasons and if there is fuel to burn and someone flicks a flame or there is lightning....burn, baby burn!


----------



## luutzu (10 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I don't know what or who to believe.
> 
> The scary thing is our entire existence is at stake. A Royal Commission into G.W.?
> 
> Imagine if Human Beings (and alot of other species) become extinct because of Right Wing idealogy!




According to Chomsky, the current GOP in the US is the world's most dangerous group of politician in the history of the world, ever.

1. They're ignoring the science behind Climate Change. Going so far as to ban the use of the word CC in any gov't correspondence/studies [namely Florida state gov't]. There's one GOP who believe in CC, but he said it's no biggie, nothing should be done about it.

2. Ramping up the next generation of nuclear weapons. Fun-sized it. Risking its frequent use... and worst, risking retaliation with a bigger, deadlier sized nuke that'll sure to lit the whole place up.


----------



## luutzu (10 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Why are we so stuffed? Autumn can be one of the hottest seasons and if there is fuel to burn and someone flicks a flame or there is lightning....burn, baby burn!




It snow in their winter there or is that part of Cali too far south? 

Their Thanksgiving and Xmas is just round the corner. I always imagine it'd be too cold for bush fire. 

Bushfire rages in summer... theirs this year had been quite bad. Now it's almost winter and there's still fuel to burn.


----------



## Ann (10 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> d, ever.
> 
> 1. They're ignoring the science behind Climate Change. Going so far as to ban the use of the word CC in any gov't correspondence/studies [namely Florida state gov't]. There's one GOP who believe in CC, but he said it's no biggie, nothing should be done about it.






luutzu said:


> It snow in their winter there or is that part of Cali too far south?
> 
> Their Thanksgiving and Xmas is just round the corner. I always imagine it'd be too cold for bush fire.
> 
> Bushfire rages in summer... theirs this year had been quite bad. Now it's almost winter and there's still fuel to burn.




OMG IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING! WE ARE ALL DOOOOMED!


----------



## Ann (10 November 2018)

I just hear they were blaming the fires on dry conditions and dead trees.

(OMG IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING!)


----------



## luutzu (10 November 2018)

Ann said:


> OMG IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING! WE ARE ALL DOOOOMED!




There's a thread on CC. 

If CC is anywhere near as bad as scientists are warning, yes, organised human society as we know it is doomed.

You can see plenty of examples of how society is doom right now, all over the world. 

Drought, famine will force people to migrate. When they migrate from the country to the city en mass, the city's infrastructure will not be able to cope. So they'll either be locked up, beaten up, or riots will start.

Syria suffered a serious drought some 7-10 years ago. Farmers flee to the city... soon enough forming factions and rebels rises up, international powers move in to divvy up the place. 

Similar migration are happening all over Africa. Bangladesh/India. 

In Americas, there's a "caravan" of South Americans fleeing both dictators, military regimes and climate change. 

When enough Africans heads into Europe; S/Americans into the US; Indonesians into Australia... can't really shoot or imprison all of them can we?

----

Then there's fish stocks, grazing, food. For those in rich countries, the bills will just rises. Those in poorer countries will starve when drought or flash floods or typhoon/hurricanes destroy crops and livelihood.

Already certain species of fish are moving deeper and further away from their usual/shallower breeding ground. 

The sea is getting warmer, certain species prefer colder water... so jobs will do, catch will be fewer using current capital equipments etc. etc.

Then there's the frequent "100 year", decade, thousand year event happening almost yearly. 

Know how surveys showed that the average Americans cannot afford $500 emergency? 

What will they have left after a bushfire or a hurricane or a flood wipe out everything they own? 

During last summer alone, there's some 500 [?] bushfires happening at almost the same time across California and various other mid-west states. 

Hurricanes floods and disappear towns and entire neighbourhood. 

The cost to rebuild will not be the same. Where once you could simply nail down timber studs onto a slab, or get any cheap old windows to keep out the flies... after each disaster council regulation will demand tougher/costlier standards; insurance rates will rise. 

That's not going to be good for those who just lost everything, didn't have much savings to begin with. 


I know for a fact that in Cabramatta, Sydney... Fairfield Council had already demanded higher foundations to certain areas on all new development approvals. The existing properties there now were built at "normal" height. Now, a builder friend of mine said council require a $20K flood survey with any DA. He know a client nearby not bothering to build because she can't afford the survey and the new raised slab. The one granny flat he just built was raised about 2m high off the ground. Compare that to the "normal" 500mm for the old front house. 

----

Then there's all the ports, rail and other infrastructure around the world having been build at sea level. 

Won't be cheap to upgrade. Won't be cheap to rebuild roads that's been washed away either. 

So if there's any chance that the climate scientists could be right, maybe something ought to be done about it.

But the most powerful political body in the world all deny it. At least their policy does anyway. Personally, they all know, they just don't gives a f[k. 


Take Trump for example... he know climate change is real. Just look at him applying to the gov't of Ireland to build sea walls around his golf resort there. He's building it to protect against the rising sea. 

So when it's their assets and livelihood at stake, CC is real and needs to be taken seriously. When it's millions of other people's problem, meh... God will save us.


----------



## luutzu (10 November 2018)

Ann said:


> I just hear they were blaming the fires on dry conditions and dead trees.
> 
> (OMG IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING!)




What causes them to be so dry and so dead?

Heard that a few years ago Cali has its worst drought in some decades. 

Drought follow by lots of rain, too much rain in fact.

During the drought, big trees die off. I'm guessing.

When the heavy rain comes back, the trees are mostly dead... but the grass and brushes thrived. Then the dry season comes again. 

Lots of dead grass around lots of dead trees... a spark and whoooshhh.


----------



## explod (11 November 2018)

In the last winter in the arctic temperatures were hitting zero celsius when normally they should run between 40 and 60 celsius below.

Similar is occurring down south.  The warmer polar regions is global warming and it is creating more moisture and cloud that is turning into more intense storms.  This is pollution in action and with the melt of the permafrost we now have escaping methane multiplying the problem even more.  

And in better times our rain came from the cycling of moisture from our trees.  The destruction of our forrest have stopped this natural rainmaking.  We are in trouble Anne on so many climate fronts that to Party is all I see left.

Yes, horse racing is shocking on ther animals and the gambling is on our community also.  However I had second thoughts on actually driving it home on ASF member just having a bit of fun.  Contradiction maybe but that's it.


----------



## Darc Knight (11 November 2018)

Ann said:


> OMG IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING! WE ARE ALL DOOOOMED!




You listen to 3AW in Melbourne do you Ann? Or News Ltd.?
I listen to Macquarie too - Jones, Hadley, Price & Bolt. But I try to take a balanced approach and separate how they make their money (through being an advocate for their Advertisers and Business in general, cash for comment sort of) and what is truth/fact.


----------



## Ann (11 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> You listen to 3AW in Melbourne do you Ann? Or News Ltd.?
> I listen to Macquarie too - Jones, Hadley, Price & Bolt. But I try to take a balanced approach and separate how they make their money (through being an advocate for their Advertisers and Business in general, cash for comment sort of) and what is truth/fact.




I don't listen to the radio DK, I rarely watch television other than documentaries or now sometimes the new business channel. I do read non-fiction books. I was shocked into investigating CC after my adult son began speaking of CC in the manner of a fundamentalist belief system. My (then) uneducated argument to him was it is too one sided, there is no debate from both sides of science, there is too much propaganda associated with it. Plus when the "science" makes me laugh, then I know for sure it is a con (farting cows). I am pretty good at spotting a con and it had all the ingredients of a con for my taste. I have now read a few books on the subject and am happy it is a con.


----------



## Darc Knight (11 November 2018)

I don't know what to believe. All I know and believe is that whoever is lying (the Academics or Right Wing media) should be locked up.


----------



## Ann (11 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I don't know what to believe. All I know and believe is that whoever is lying (the Academics or Right Wing media) should be locked up.




Rest assured DK we are getting the best scientists that money can buy, working on climate change!........


----------



## Darc Knight (11 November 2018)

Lol


----------



## luutzu (11 November 2018)

Ann said:


> I don't listen to the radio DK, I rarely watch television other than documentaries or now sometimes the new business channel. I do read non-fiction books. I was shocked into investigating CC after my adult son began speaking of CC in the manner of a fundamentalist belief system. My (then) uneducated argument to him was it is too one sided, there is no debate from both sides of science, there is too much propaganda associated with it. Plus when the "science" makes me laugh, then I know for sure it is a con (farting cows). I am pretty good at spotting a con and it had all the ingredients of a con for my taste. I have now read a few books on the subject and am happy it is a con.




What are they conning us into Ann?

Finding renewable alternatives? Switch over now is better than switching over later when all the current prominent fossil-based source runs out?

Cleaner air to breathe? Less pollution and disasters from by-products, spillage, accidents.

The transition will mean more jobs, more R&D, higher tech that would be competitive to manufacture in the West. 

Not to mention the adoption of solar or wind or wave, or all of the above will mean less, a lot less, demand for stationing troops in oil-rich countries to protect and civilised the natives.

When energy can be generated from sources mother nature deliver right to your roof... that could save a fair few hundred billions a year on the military to make sure the other guys didn't get it. 

If it's a con, I gotta tell ya, it's a whole lot different to smoking tobacco being good for you... if not good, it definitely does not cause cancer or ill health, at all, promise.


----------



## basilio (11 November 2018)

Ann said:


> I don't listen to the radio DK, I rarely watch television other than documentaries or now sometimes the new business channel. I do read non-fiction books. I was shocked into investigating CC after my adult son began speaking of CC in the manner of a fundamentalist belief system. My (then) uneducated argument to him was it is too one sided, there is no debate from both sides of science, there is too much propaganda associated with it. Plus when the "science" makes me laugh, then I know for sure it is a con (farting cows). I am pretty good at spotting a con and it had all the ingredients of a con for my taste. I have now read a few books on the subject and am happy it is a con.




Interesting... So which books have you read on the subject of CC which have convinced you it's a con Ann ?

And as far as cows causing CC. Actually they are one of the contributers and the amount they contribute is actually quite high. IN fact there are major efforts in place to chnage the diets of  cows to reduce the farts.
*Scientists Underestimated How** Bad Cow Farts Are *
 
 Sam Lemonick  Contributor
 Science 
*Tweet This*

Animal farts and poop are major contributors to global warming. It turns out we might have been underestimating just how much.






Shutterstock

New research finds that previous estimates of methane emissions from livestock were off by as much as 10%. The new calculations take into account changes in the ways people are using and keeping livestock.

Methane is a natural byproduct of digestion, made by that microbes in an animal’s gut that breakdown and ferment the food we eat. A gas, methane is a principle component of farts, though it’s not the one that makes them smell—sulfur-containing molecules are the biggest culprit there.

Farts are funny. Global warming is not.Unfortunately, methane is a big contributor to the greenhouse effect, helping to trap heat within Earth’s atmosphere and contributing to climate change. Carbon dioxide usually gets the blame for global warming, but methane is about 85 times more powerful when it comes to trapping heat, although it breaks down faster than carbon dioxide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samlem...estimated-how-bad-cow-farts-are/#53c322fe78a9


----------



## Ann (11 November 2018)

The CC groups are well funded and well organized to the point of monitoring and responding to CC threads and disparaging anyone with alternative views on any forum. As I said to my son, you need to follow the money trail. We need to work out who has the deepest pockets and with the most self interest.  I have worked it out. Have a look at the posts that preceeded mine, they are clearly geared to contradict and disparage any comment made contrary to the accepted propaganda of the day.  It is an evil and dangerous place we have come to. However it is good you have been flushed out. I am watching you now.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2018)

Ann said:


> As I said to my son, you need to follow the money trail. We need to work out who has the deepest pockets and with the most self interest.




You are so right there Ann.

It wouldn't be the coal and oil companies would it ?


----------



## Ann (11 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You are so right there Ann.
> 
> It wouldn't be the coal and oil companies would it ?




No Rumpy, it isn't.


----------



## Ann (11 November 2018)

Try again Rumpy...


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I don't know what or who to believe.
> 
> The scary thing is our entire existence is at stake. A Royal Commission into G.W.?
> 
> Imagine if Human Beings (and alot of other species) become extinct because of Right Wing idealogy!




A Royal Commission into global warming? you do realise we contribute 1.8% to Global Warming.
You do realise if we shut down Australia completely, switched everything off, went and lived in caves.
It would do fluck all, to the global warming outcome, or do you think it would work some sort of fairy dust magic?

I don't mind that we make changes, but I do mind when it puts my kids and grandkids into poverty, for no benefit.
To me that is passing on the costs of my warm feel good I'm a great human, to the detriment of my kids and grand kids, for no good reason other than my self esteem. It is a it like kicking the ball down the road, we make life changing decision for the next generation, I just hope they are happy with them.
Just my opinions.


----------



## Ann (11 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> A Royal Commission into global warming? you do realise we contribute 1.8% to Global Warming.



Royal Commisions, gotta love talk fests! Of course nothing to do with the recent ice age we are moving out of?


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Royal Commisions, gotta love talk fests! Of course nothing to do with the recent ice age we are moving out of?



While we are talk festing on this, no one is asking how the next government is going to change their lives, I guess that is the new facebook generation.
It absolutely amazes me.


----------



## Ann (11 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> While we are talk festing on this, no one is asking how the next government is going to change their lives, I guess that is the new facebook generation.
> It absolutely amazes me.




Geez sptrawler I always thought it was up to the individual as to how one changes one's life. I never have had the victim mentality. I also don't have facebook. If my friends decide to die without notifying me first then, tough just another funeral I don't need to go to!


----------



## luutzu (11 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Try again Rumpy...




Hippies? 

Elon Musk? China? 

Not making fun of you alright. Just at the ideas I heard floating around about CC being fake, bought and paid for by leftist, socialist, communists, fake scientist...


----------



## luutzu (11 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> A Royal Commission into global warming? you do realise we contribute 1.8% to Global Warming.
> You do realise if we shut down Australia completely, switched everything off, went and lived in caves.
> It would do fluck all, to the global warming outcome, or do you think it would work some sort of fairy dust magic?
> 
> ...




Well, each one of us contributes very little, a very insignificant amount to the CC issue. By that logic, why should each one of us do anything. 

On a per capita basis, Australians is pretty much up there though. 

btw, did you know that the Trump admin recently follow the same line of logic in not giving a damn about their cars emission standard? Well, they actually went a lot further...

Their argument goes like this... Meh. CC might be real, might not be. If it's real, the rate the world's going we're all stuffed anyway, so what's the use of curbing emission? 

Seriously. 

Cheaper fuel? Less pollution so it choke those living near highways less? Just general economy? 

Meh.


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Geez sptrawler I always thought it was up to the individual as to how one changes one's life. I never have had the victim mentality. I also don't have facebook. If my friends decide to die without notifying me first then, tough just another funeral I don't need to go to!



Snap, I'm with you, don't have facebook and hate funerals.
The stories a mate of mine, tells me about what his kids put on facebook scares the hell out of me.
Apparently they put on pictures of what they are cooking on the BBQ, I mean who gives a $hit what they are cooking on the BBQ, but apparently it gets a lot of "likes".
Obviously the 'new' generation have very little to worry about in their lives. lol


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Well, each one of us contributes very little, a very insignificant amount to the CC issue. By that logic, why should each one of us do anything.
> 
> On a per capita basis, Australians is pretty much up there though.
> 
> ...




Well we are trying to reduce our emissions, as you have probably noticed.

But if we become a third world nation doing it, the emissions will probably end up like Bali or Ho Chi Minh, and that wouldn't be good either. lol

I suppose it is a case of " be careful what you wish for". lol

If clean energy, comes at the cost of a first world economy, I guess welfare could go out the window. lol

Life's a balance, Life's a compromise, you get nothing for nothing.


----------



## Ann (11 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Hippies?
> 
> Elon Musk? China?
> 
> Not making fun of you alright. Just at the ideas I heard floating around about CC being fake, bought and paid for by leftist, socialist, communists, fake scientist...




You are on probation with me Luu, I am watching you.

Not Hippies ( I was here when they invented hippies), leftists, socialists, communists, fake scientists. (Not fake just available to the highest bidder)

Elon Musk=Wanker with potential
China= axe to grind and massive potential to eff the world if they so choose.


----------



## luutzu (11 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Well we are trying to reduce our emissions, as you have probably noticed.
> 
> But if we become a third world nation doing it, the emissions will probably end up like Bali or Ho Chi Minh, and that wouldn't be good either. lol
> 
> I suppose it is a case of " be careful what you wish for". lol




Might make our kids richer though. New industries, new higher tech manufacturing jobs; new projects to build them solar/wind farms.

Imagine how much more gas we can sell to Asians if we kept none of it back at all? Alright, not that much more than we do currently, but we'd be able to make a few more bucks out of it


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2018)

Ann said:


> China= axe to grind and massive potential to eff the world if they so choose.




China and Asia, was the go to areas to offshore manufacturing, the result was inevitable.
The Companies that off shored the manufacturing, made huge profits, the shareholders and executives made huge money.
Now Trump has popped the bubble, the multinationals aren't happy. lol


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Might make our kids richer though. New industries, new higher tech manufacturing jobs; new projects to build them solar/wind farms.
> 
> Imagine how much more gas we can sell to Asians if we kept none of it back at all? Alright, not that much more than we do currently, but we'd be able to make a few more bucks out of it



No it is just a sad ending. IMO
But I'm happy, my grandson's best mate at school is chinese, he is teaching my grandson mandarin.


----------



## luutzu (11 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> No it is just a sad ending. IMO
> But I'm happy, my grandson's best mate at school is chinese, he is teaching my grandson mandarin.




There's Chinese where you live? Geez man, it is true that where there's smoke there's Chinese.


----------



## luutzu (11 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> China and Asia, was the go to areas to offshore manufacturing, the result was inevitable.
> The Companies that off shored the manufacturing, made huge profits, the shareholders and executives made huge money.
> Now Trump has popped the bubble, the multinationals aren't happy. lol




Trump said he pops the bubble. But not really though. 

The corporations affected by either get exempts [Apple], or get to pass on the tariffs to consumers but get subsidised back for any losses. That's how they look after their bosses. And that should give these multinationals enough time to start diversifying away from China... and into other Asian cheap labour.

Something they're already considering anyway as China is getting a bit more "expensive" than other more desperate people nearby.


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> There's Chinese where you live? Geez man, it is true that where there's smoke there's Chinese.



In the suburb I'm in there is only two " European" style kids, in the granson's class, and he is one of them.


----------



## sptrawler (12 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Trump said he pops the bubble. But not really though.
> 
> The corporations affected by either get exempts [Apple], or get to pass on the tariffs to consumers but get subsidised back for any losses. That's how they look after their bosses. And that should give these multinationals enough time to start diversifying away from China... and into other Asian cheap labour.
> 
> Something they're already considering anyway as China is getting a bit more "expensive" than other more desperate people nearby.




He might not have popped the bubble, but he certainly has put a rocket up the multinationals ar$e.
Which is a good thing, even you complain about the multinationals exploiting third World Countries, for their cheap labour.
Trump love him or hate him, has said if you want to off shore manufacturing to exploit cheap labour, we will put a tarrif on the imports.
Australia has had all our value added manufacturing shut down, because cheap overseas labour undercut us, yet we somehow have to fund the welfare system that the manufacturing supported.
Now we have the weird attitude, to say that Trump is wrong, what so the mutinational's are right to maximise profits by outsourcing and exploitng cheap labour?
People really need to work out what they are supporting. IMO
Just my opinion, and it as been proven wrong on numerous occassions.


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> In the suburb I'm in there is only two " European" style kids, in the granson's class, and he is one of them.




What's "European" style kids? 

A family friend of ours live in Perth. He moved there some years ago during the mining boom. Found some babe and started a family there.


----------



## sptrawler (12 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> What's "European" style kids?




Well answering that would be a mine field. lol

I worked for the U.S Navy a long time ago, in the early 1980's, I made a lot of African American friends.
Well one day I asked one of them, WTF do I call you people Negro, Black American, Coloured?
He said mate, we're Black, your White, get over it. lol
But it really was awkward trying to work out what wouldn't offend them, and that was back in the early 80's.
What seems to have happened now, is everyone has realised we piss on ourselves, to facilitate everyone else.
I think it is a British origin thing, they are always trying to excuse themselves, which eventually everyone has picked up on. lol
Even you used it. lol


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> He might not have popped the bubble, but he certainly has put a rocket up the multinationals ar$e.
> Which is a good thing, even you complain about the multinationals exploiting third World Countries, for their cheap labour.
> Trump love him or hate him, has said if you want to off shore manufacturing to exploit cheap labour, we will put a tarrif on the imports.
> Australia has had all our value added manufacturing shut down, because cheap overseas labour undercut us, yet we somehow have to fund the welfare system that the manufacturing supported.
> ...




Trump's just a politician. He can't decide or run anything without being approved by those who actually own and run the place. i.e. those who are actually richer and much smarter than he is.

So all his talk of this and that to control offshoring of jobs, fighting for the American plebs... to use your words... feeding the chooks.

Saw a recent interview with a Marxist [leftist professor of economics]... he was discussing Keynes and his economics. Basically, Keynes a capitalist [I know]... but his ideas was an enlightened one. In that, if capitalists want to keep all their assets and their heads, they better make sure that the peasants are well looked after else they have way too much time on their hands, sharpening pitchforks. 

Western/American capitalists are fast coming to a point where those around them have more to gain by an uprising rather than keeping on taking it. 

Unlike places like China or Vietnam or Africa... Western plebs can't really be forced march into labour camps or executed if they peacefully disobey and peacefully assemble.


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Well answering that would be a mine field. lol
> 
> I worked for the U.S Navy a long time ago, in the early 1980's, I made a lot of African American friends.
> Well one day I asked one of them, WTF do I call you people Negro, Black American, Coloured?
> ...




Most poms are just too polite. But then it's always the polite one isn't it? 

It's just a social norm to call people by their name unless you're pal with them right? 

Only friends can call each other nick names and curse and stuff. 

That and you're only allowed to use racial slurs when you're that race.


----------



## sptrawler (12 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Trump's just a politician. He can't decide or run anything without being approved by those who actually own and run the place. i.e. those who are actually richer and much smarter than he is.
> 
> So all his talk of this and that to control offshoring of jobs, fighting for the American plebs... to use your words... feeding the chooks.
> 
> ...




At least he is rattling the 'can'.
He might not be achieving much.
But the multinationals, sending manufacturing to cheap labour, has been going on for decades.
Whether people like it or not, it has been improving those third World Countries lifestyles and it will need reigning in otherwise it will overshoot. Like it or not.lol


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> At least he is rattling the 'can'.
> He might not be achieving much.
> But the multinationals, sending manufacturing to cheap labour, has been going on for decades.
> Whether people like it or not, it has been improving those third World Countries lifestyles and it will need reigning in otherwise it will overshoot. Like it or not.lol




Not sure how Trump managed to bs his way into the WH, but yea, he did it. Maybe the American public are too fed up with political insiders bs, too desperate that they figured this guy's so full of it he can't possibly be lying. That and he's "an outsider" who's an entrepreneur and deeply love America 'cause he hates anyone who isn't one. 

Anyway, his daughter just got granted a few more trademarks in China. That's on top of the dozen or so her companies got during daddy's first year in office. 

So much for keeping it American. I bet she's getting those trademarks so her firm can go over to China to teach them how to empower women and love real estate. 

------------

Offshoring of jobs to third world ["emerging"] economies did benefit those countries. BUT...

But the vast benefits goes to US/Western/Foreign corporations and a few handpicked local elites who know a guy who runs the politburo. 

A guy I know, and I consider him a friend even though I haven't spoke to him for years now. He's in VN, got odd jobs here and there... and one of the jobs was a labourer at a new resort/golf course they're building. 

Work like dogs in the sun for $100AUD a month. 

So I guess they benefit in that they have a job and could buy food. Not exactly raking it in you know.


----------



## sptrawler (12 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Offshoring of jobs to third world ["emerging"] economies did benefit those countries. BUT...
> 
> But the vast benefits goes to US/Western/Foreign corporations and a few handpicked local elites who know a guy who runs the politburo.
> 
> ...



Well you could sponsor him to Australia, if he is a friend and a good worker, he will get more than that on the dole. 
There are heaps of jobs in the outback mining and in the Riverena fruit picking, he probably just needs a sponsor to get here.
Come on man up and do the right thing.


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> At least he is rattling the 'can'.
> He might not be achieving much.
> But the multinationals, sending manufacturing to cheap labour, has been going on for decades.
> Whether people like it or not, it has been improving those third World Countries lifestyles and it will need reigning in otherwise it will overshoot. Like it or not.lol




The thing about China's comrades, and I think this has a lot more to do with the fact that their plebs would overthrow them otherwise... but they are not selling out their country's interests to foreigners. 

I mean, sure, they allow their exploitation, relax environmental controls to zero, let a few get (of their friends and family to really, seriously) rich first... but they don't dare offload the "national interest" the way the waning Qing mandarins did during the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

In this sense they're like Meiji Japan. Luring in Western industrialists, let them share in the profit but do not permit them control of any national corporations or strategic footing. 

Steal their technologies, adapt to Western best practises... then soon enough start to expand and "civilise" other Asians and Africans and South Americans and Australians.


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Well you could sponsor him to Australia, if he is a friend and a good worker, he will get more than that on the dole.




I "lend" him some cash a while back. He started some business with it and might be doing alright now.


----------



## sptrawler (12 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> I "lend" him some cash a while back. He started some business with it and might be doing alright now.



Well get him here, we could do with workers, people who try.


----------



## Darc Knight (12 November 2018)

@Ann this follow the money principle doesn't really hold water. The money flows to the so called climate change deniers via big business such Coal and Oil. Right wing media is funded moreso by business.
If you mean Elon Musk I'd consider it as he's starting to look like a bit of a grub now too. Universities/Academics seeking more funding perhaps.

But more money goes to the so called "climate change deniers" - Coal, Oil, Macquarie, News Ltd etc.


----------



## basilio (12 November 2018)

Following the money re responding to CO2 created climate change.
_
Let’s look at who really has the most to lose when it comes to weaning ourselves off the old, dirty ways of getting energy. … Take the 10 richest corporations in the world. Eight of them depend partially or even totally on the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for their bottom line. Yes, 80% of the richest corporations in the world have everything to lose from giving up fossil fuels.


So yes, I absolutely agree: let’s follow the money. I think we can see where it leads!
_
*And where are we going?*_

But let’s also consider this: we are currently undergoing as big a transition as we did when we went from horse-drawn buggies to the Model T Ford. Globally, renewable energy investment has outstripped fossil fuel investment since 2014. And China and India know this. They’re not investing in fossil fuels. They’re shutting down coal-fired plants and flooding coal mines and covering them in solar panels.

The money of the future IS in green energy. We are being left behind. Did you know that China already leads the world in wind and solar energy production? Are you okay with that?

https://www.yaleclimateconnections....omeback-strategies-in-it-for-the-money-part2/

_


----------



## basilio (12 November 2018)

Ann (and others). Did the books you read on CC discuss/address this sort of research by glaciologists ? The remainder of the article examines a number of historical examples of very quick climate flips.

* Unknowingly on edge of a climate 'precipice'? *
*Scientists are keeping an eye on the prospects for abrupt climate change, with some findings prompting increasing concerns.*

On September 17, a short paper in the journal _Nature Climate Change_ caught the attention of Penn State University glaciologist Richard Alley. The article compared satellite observations of the Antarctic ice sheet between 2007 and 2017 with projections for the same period published in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The research showed that actual melting of the southern ice sheet has tracked the curve of the fastest change IPCC considered plausible.

*In a decade of observations, the Antarctic ice sheet had shed 30 times more water than it would have had it receded at the low end of the IPCC estimates*. If this trend continues, Antarctica could empty enough water into the world’s oceans to raise sea level by 1.5 meters by 2100, threatening the world’s largest cities, most of which are coastal. (Actual sea-level rise would be higher, including meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet and mountain glaciers, and the effect of expansion of warming sea water.)
Alley, a leading ice sheet expert, said in a phone interview that the results validate a fear that preoccupies him: that continued warming of the planet could propel the Antarctica to a tipping point, beyond which civilization-threatening sea-level rise could not be avoided. He said the new study contributes to an accumulating body of evidence of “mass loss that has accelerated.”

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/10/unknowingly-on-edge-of-a-climate-precipice/


----------



## basilio (14 November 2018)

The question of  the stability of the numerous  systems that support life on earth ( That's *US* !) is becoming more and more urgent as scientists see red flags in  global temperatures,  pollution, species extinction ect. Of course the concerns may be misplaced. How lucky do we feel ?

Any thoughts on this analysis ?  The remainder of the article is very critical of the short term thinking of almost all societies.

* The Earth is in a death spiral. It will take radical action to save us *
George Monbiot
Climate breakdown could be rapid and unpredictable. We can no longer tinker around the edges and hope minor changes will avert collapse

It was a moment of the kind that changes lives. At a press conference held by climate activists Extinction Rebellion last week, two of us journalists pressed the organisers on whether their aims were realistic. They have called, for example, for UK carbon emissions to be reduced to net zero by 2025. Wouldn’t it be better, we asked, to pursue some intermediate aims?

A young woman called Lizia Woolf stepped forward. She hadn’t spoken before, but the passion, grief and fury of her response was utterly compelling. “*What is it that you are asking me as a 20-year-old to face and to accept about my future and my life? … This is an emergency. We are facing extinction. When you ask questions like that, what is it you want me to feel?” We had no answer.*

Softer aims might be politically realistic, but they are physically unrealistic. Only shifts commensurate with the scale of our existential crises have any prospect of averting them. Hopeless realism, tinkering at the edges of the problem, got us into this mess. It will not get us out.

Public figures talk and act as if environmental change will be linear and gradual. But the Earth’s systems are highly complex, and complex systems do not respond to pressure in linear ways. When these systems interact (because the world’s atmosphere, oceans, land surface and lifeforms do not sit placidly within the boxes that make study more convenient), their reactions to change become highly unpredictable. Small perturbations can ramify wildly. Tipping points are likely to remain invisible until we have passed them. We could see changes of state so abrupt and profound that no continuity can be safely assumed.

*Only one of the many life support systems on which we depend – soils, aquifers, rainfall, ice, the pattern of winds and currents, pollinators, biological abundance and diversity – need fail for everything to slide*. For example, when Arctic sea ice melts beyond a certain point, the positive feedbacks this triggers (such as darker water absorbing more heat, melting permafrost releasing methane, shifts in the polar vortex) could render runaway climate breakdown unstoppable. *When the Younger Dryas period ended 11,600 years ago, temperatures rose 10C within a decade.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...death-spiral-radical-action-climate-breakdown

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The Younger Dryas


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> On a per capita basis, Australians is pretty much up there though




A counter to that point is that certain other countries have rather a lot of capita.

That’s an environmental problem regardless of the CO2 issue. It is also the real elephant in the room that few are willing to go anywhere near.


----------



## luutzu (14 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> A counter to that point is that certain other countries have rather a lot of capita.
> 
> That’s an environmental problem regardless of the CO2 issue. It is also the real elephant in the room that few are willing to go anywhere near.




Yea, but then there's the argument that those with more privilege and more wealth ought to take on a greater burden. Be that greater investment in alternative/cleaner energy, or reduce consumption.

Those that are already poor, where they personally do not contribute to much to the problem per se... and where their standard of living could hardly go lower; little to no cash to adopt cleaner alternatives. 

But I'm optimistic that Western leaders will soon enough find it worth their while to reduce the causes of climate change. Seems that the situation is getting to a stage where it no longer affect just the poor. 

I mean, the sea are getting so polluted with plastic particles now that 40% of people consuming wild catch fish ingest the waste too. 

Then there's the wildfire, the floods and hurricanes no longer just affecting poor, low laying neighbourhood or those living in the sticks. Malibu mansions going up in smokes... That's no good.


----------



## wayneL (15 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yea, but then there's the argument that those with more privilege and more wealth ought to take on a greater burden. Be that greater investment in alternative/cleaner energy, or reduce consumption.



Great point,  Grasshopper. 

Waiting  on,  Gore, Mann, Suzuki, Di Caprio,  Turnbull,  Shorten,  et al, et al, et al (ad infinitum), to lead the way there. 

I may be convinced if that ever happens.


----------



## luutzu (15 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> Great point,  Grasshopper.
> 
> Waiting  on,  Gore, Mann, Suzuki, Di Caprio,  Turnbull,  Shorten,  et al, et al, et al (ad infinitum), to lead the way there.
> 
> I may be convinced if that ever happens.




Gotta wait for that Soros cheques to clear first though.


----------



## basilio (15 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> Waiting on, Gore, Mann, Suzuki, Di Caprio, Turnbull, Shorten, et al, et al, et al (ad infinitum), to lead the way there.
> 
> I may be convinced if that ever happens.




Shirley ! You must be joking.
You will never, ever, EVER be convinced that Global Warning is real and dangerous and now overwhelmingly human caused.

I mean it's a great joke but lets not pretend there will ever be sufficient, approriate evidence to change your mind on this issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2018)

basilio said:


> Shirley ! You must be joking.
> You will never, ever, EVER be convinced that Global Warning is real and dangerous and now overwhelmingly human caused.
> 
> I mean it's a great joke but lets not pretend there will ever be sufficient, approriate evidence to change your mind on this issue.




It would have been a good question to ask Turnbull on Q&A though.

"What have you personally done to reduce your CO2 emissions?"

I would have liked to see him squirm on that.


----------



## wayneL (15 November 2018)

basilio said:


> Shirley ! You must be joking.
> You will never, ever, EVER be convinced that Global Warning is real and dangerous and now overwhelmingly human caused.
> 
> I mean it's a great joke but lets not pretend there will ever be sufficient, approriate evidence to change your mind on this issue.



My oft stated position hasn't changed.


----------



## explod (15 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> My oft stated position hasn't changed.



Obviously never looked beyond the stable yards.

Cool hand Luke, "Yaar just caan't help"


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It would have been a good question to ask Turnbull on Q&A though.
> 
> "What have you personally done to reduce your CO2 emissions?"



That would be a good question to ask all people saying it's an urgent problem.

For the record, before anyone says what about me, well I won't post a list of boasting points but yes I've put quite a bit of time and $ into that sort of thing over the years and started well before it became fashionable.


----------



## luutzu (15 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That would be a good question to ask all people saying it's an urgent problem.
> 
> For the record, before anyone says what about me, well I won't post a list of boasting points but yes I've put quite a bit of time and $ into that sort of thing over the years and started well before it became fashionable.




First step is to recognise there's a problem. Without that... what problem. 

What about me? ermm... *whistling... exit stage left. 

But ey, I swear my investment in oil was before I learn anything about these CC things. My wife bought stainless steel straws for the kids. ermm... I recycles. I've given thought to going vegan 'til the wife told me it's a great idea, then detail what I need to do... I'm still thinking about it 

c'on, I'm only one insignificant person. Pick on the big guys.


----------



## sptrawler (15 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That would be a good question to ask all people saying it's an urgent problem.
> 
> For the record, before anyone says what about me, well I won't post a list of boasting points but yes I've put quite a bit of time and $ into that sort of thing over the years and started well before it became fashionable.



 Just signed up to replace my 10 year old Sharp 1.5 KW solar, with a Fronius 5KW system, to try and help out.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2018)

explod said:


> Obviously never looked beyond the stable yards.
> 
> Cool hand Luke, "Yaar just caan't help"



You commos you can't help being insulting twats can you. Nor understand the nuance of any position other that fed to you by political and mercantile vested intetests.

I'll bet you can't even state what my position is.

By the way,  our electricity bill is less than $300 a quarter and we don't have solar. And that's just one part of the*real* stuff we do that the Hypocritical Suzukis and Gores of this world don't.

So just go and get stuffed you sanctimonious dick.


----------



## PZ99 (16 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It would have been a good question to ask Turnbull on Q&A though.
> 
> "What have you personally done to reduce your CO2 emissions?"
> 
> I would have liked to see him squirm on that.



Well... he did spend a few weeks in NY 

His cloud seeding position still makes me LOL even today.


----------



## Humid (16 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> You commos you can't help being insulting twats can you. Nor understand the nuance of any position other that fed to you by political and mercantile vested intetests.
> 
> I'll bet you can't even state what my position is.
> 
> ...




Solar forge?


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2018)

Humid said:


> Solar forge?



You could use solar for induction heating, mobilty might be a limiting factor,  being able to store enough energy. 

Probably doable.


----------



## Humid (16 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Just signed up to replace my 10 year old Sharp 1.5 KW solar, with a Fronius 5KW system, to try and help out.




Are these micro inverters?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2018)

PZ99 said:


> His cloud seeding position still makes me LOL even today.



Cloud seeding can certainly be done successfully, it’s by no means a new technology, but you do need to tick a lot of boxes to make it work.


----------



## sptrawler (16 November 2018)

Humid said:


> Are these micro inverters?



At the price $3,100, I doubt it, they certainly aren't LG panels.

But my last system has lasted 10years, so I guess this one will also, by then the technology and political landscape will have changed.


----------



## explod (16 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> So just go and get stuffed you sanctimonious dick.




Rest my case, 

a "Cool Hand..."


----------



## sptrawler (16 November 2018)

basilio said:


> T
> 
> A young woman called Lizia Woolf stepped forward. She hadn’t spoken before, but the passion, grief and fury of her response was utterly compelling. “*What is it that you are asking me as a 20-year-old to face and to accept about my future and my life? … This is an emergency. We are facing extinction. When you ask questions like that, what is it you want me to feel?” We had no answer.*




I guess someone should have asked her, did she drive to the venue and did she have a mobile phone in her pocket.
It is very easy to demand change, but most would be reluctant to take the lifestyle change that would follow, if it isn't done in a structured controlled manner.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I guess someone should have asked her, did she drive to the venue and did she have a mobile phone in her pocket.
> It is very easy to demand change, but most would be reluctant to take the lifestyle change that would follow, if it isn't done in a structured controlled manner.




I suppose she could reasonably answer that people can have their cake and eat it too if the uptake of renewables was quicker. I think that's all people are agitating for, cleaner energy not less of it.

In fact we are going to need a lot more electricity if the transport systems are going electric.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2018)

explod said:


> Rest my case,
> 
> a "Cool Hand..."



You haven't made any case Plod.


----------



## luutzu (16 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose she could reasonably answer that people can have their cake and eat it too if the uptake of renewables was quicker. I think that's all people are agitating for, cleaner energy not less of it.
> 
> In fact we are going to need a lot more electricity if the transport systems are going electric.




That's the thing isn't it. We're not saying that machines and gadgets should all be thrown away; or that standard of living be wind back down to save the planet. 

Just that there are alternatives. Cleaner, greener, renewable alternatives. Alternatives our engineers and current skill sets can readily bring to reality... and of course improve as we go. 

So instead of transitioning, the debate by our politicians and their interested parties seem to be... you either love the coal, it won't hurt ya... or go back to the dark ages. 

Seem that those countries with plenty of oil and fossil fuel aren't going to move on it. Good thing the Europeans and the Chinese are taking the lead in the renewables.


----------



## sptrawler (16 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose she could reasonably answer that people can have their cake and eat it too if the uptake of renewables was quicker. I think that's all people are agitating for, cleaner energy not less of it.
> 
> In fact we are going to need a lot more electricity if the transport systems are going electric.



Well you need twice as much renewable generation for the same load, as fossil fuels generation and three times as much storage.
So best of luck with that answer.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> In fact we are going to need a lot more electricity if the transport systems are going electric.



Yep.

I've followed this whole debate for decades now and suffice to say I put the coal lobby and mainstream environmentalists in the exact same group actually. Both have done a lot to thwart progress toward a sustainable future for purely political and/or financial gains.

A current example of that is the proposed NSW - SA interconnection which is one of the pieces of infrastructure needed to make higher use of renewables work. Those who have been around this stuff long enough will be well aware that it's not the first time it has been proposed. Last time it was known as SANI (*SA N*SW *I*nterconnector) and let's just say environmental groups did everything possible to kill it off, not so much due to anything specific relating to construction or the physical aspects of it but they just didn't like the whole notion of such a link existing. 

It's politics first and foremost on both sides. Seen quite a bit of it with my own eyes.

Those in the middle are really the only ones able to come to grips with all this rationally. Those who acknowledge that there's a problem but who aren't running around trying to shut every coal mine by 20xx and making a fuss to grab attention but instead are of the thinking that we need an orderly transition which actually happens. Perhaps oddly, some of the big polluters have slowly but surely joined that group with their corporate thinking.


----------



## sptrawler (16 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> That's the thing isn't it. We're not saying that machines and gadgets should all be thrown away; or that standard of living be wind back down to save the planet.
> 
> Just that there are alternatives. Cleaner, greener, renewable alternatives. Alternatives our engineers and current skill sets can readily bring to reality... and of course improve as we go.
> 
> ...



Yes that works well for those Countries that have mountains, rain and high population densities.
With China, they can do it because they can do anything, they don't have a squealing selfobsessed Chardonnay set to pander to. Lol


----------



## Ann (16 November 2018)

I found something very interesting. All of a sudden the futures of heating oil spiked and now the POO is following, not so dramatically but certainly rising.  As I already mentioned on the POO thread in Commodities it is reported the hedge funds are rushing to cover their shorts as it has been announced there is going to be a particularly cold Northern Hemisphere winter this year. 

This is likely to be the person and company who they follow for their information as the information and time scale works.

_*About Perspecta*_
_Perspecta is a proven provider of information solutions, engineering and analytics for government and commercial customers worldwide. With more than 40 years of experience working in the defense, civilian and intelligence communities, Perspecta and its transformational applied research organization, Perspecta Labs, design, develop and deliver high impact, mission-critical services and solutions to overcome its customers most complex problems._

_Perspecta, the 2014 recipient of the Northern Virginia Technology Council's Tech Company of the Year Award, has 4,000 employees and is based in Chantilly, Va.  For more information about Perspecta and Perspecta Labs, visit perspecta.com and perspectalabs.com._

_*About Perspecta Weather*_
_As a remote-sensing industry leader, Perspecta has provided systems engineering solutions for state-of-the-art sensor technology and end-to-end imagery analysis and has been heavily involved with weather-related activities throughout its history. Perspecta has provided daily, nationwide weather forecasts to emergency operations centers and worked with the U.S. Air Force Weather Agency on requirements for remote sensing and the verification of weather products. Perspecta has also played a key role in the Air Force Research Laboratory’s efforts to improve its atmospheric model called MODTRAN. Perspecta has supported multiple worldwide ground truth data collects with customized weather forecasts and developed requirements and design for civilian and military weather satellites, including NPOESS, DMSP, Landsat and GOES. In addition to the Air Force, Perspecta has worked closely with a number of government agencies on weather-related projects, including NASA, NOAA, Naval Meteorological and Oceanographic Command, Naval Postgraduate School and various customers in the Intelligence Community._

_*About Meteorologist Paul Dorian*_
_Paul Dorian of Perspecta received Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in meteorology (1981, 1983) from Penn State University. As a grad student, Paul worked with Dr. Gregory Forbes, currently with The Weather Channel and its severe weather expert, and Dr. John Cahir, Professor of Meteorology (Emeritus), Vice Provost and Dean, (Emeritus). He began his professional career as a meteorologist with NASA’s Climate Branch from 1983-1985 at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland and his work continued there with the Severe Storms Branch from 1985-1990. While at the NASA Severe Storms Branch, Paul worked with Dr. Stephen Koch, current Director of NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) and severe weather expert, and Dr. Louis Uccellini, current Director of NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) and winter weather expert._

_Since 1990, he has worked in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania as a systems engineer with a focus on meteorology-related activities. He has led forecasting efforts for multiple worldwide ground truth data collects with customized weather forecasts to help with the success of these efforts. Additionally, Paul provided his own daily nationwide weather forecast to the Emergency Operations Center of Lockheed Martin with a focus on severe weather potential as a way of securing the safety of their employees.  Since June 2011, Paul has operated the company weather web site at perspectaweather.com.  Contact via email: paul.b.dorian@perspecta.com _

This is the link to his current work which is incredibly interesting and detailed. Well worth a close look.

https://www.perspectaweather.com/20182019-winter-outlook

But I think the thing that frightened the hedge funds and sent them rushing to cover their shorts was his recent blog which just added confirmation to his predictions for 2018/2019 northern winter. You will need to scroll down his blog a little to get to the comment.

https://www.perspectaweather.com/bl...for-much-of-the-mid-atlantic-and-northeast-us


----------



## luutzu (16 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yes that works well for those Countries that have mountains, rain and high population densities.
> With China, they can do it because they can do anything, they don't have a squealing selfobsessed Chardonnay set to pander to. Lol




Australia has sunshine, plenty of desert. Coastline all round. Wind or Solar shouldn't be a problem. 

Europe can go hydro. But they seem to be leading the world in wind. Solar adoption is pretty high too.

China and Europe is leading the way to renewable because they cannot afford not to. Can't rely on foreign energy as the main source. Can't really afford to pollute and choke off your plebs anymore... who's going to fight all them wars they're planning right?

Australia seem to like exporting our coals and fossil well enough. 

With strong entrench economic interests from the fossils, plenty of places to drill... being rich and having few enough people... meh, we'll just import everything. 

Good thing the tax office get a fair share of them finite resources though.

I don't think the environmentalists like chardonnays. Chai tea and soy milk keeps you warm as you try to keep the whole damn place clean for everyone.


----------



## sptrawler (17 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Australia has sunshine, plenty of desert. Coastline all round. Wind or Solar shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> Europe can go hydro. But they seem to be leading the world in wind. Solar adoption is pretty high too.
> 
> ...



The only people who will get are fair share, are those who have nothing, we just have to get there grasshopper.
I'm working on it.lol
Then I can be one of the highly regarded battlers, who just didn't get a break, rather than a greedy person who did without and saved.lol


----------



## luutzu (17 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> The only people who will get are fair share, are those who have nothing, we just have to get there grasshopper.
> I'm working on it.lol




Hey, I got nothing. Where's my fair share? 

About to wrap up my little project. Then come the hard part: marketing. Geezus man, this thing never ends. Hope it doesn't end up with me on CentreLink.


----------



## sptrawler (17 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Hey, I got nothing. Where's my fair share?
> 
> About to wrap up my little project. Then come the hard part: marketing. Geezus man, this thing never ends. Hope it doesn't end up with me on CentreLink.




I don't know about you, but I'm sure it will for me.

A lifetime of trying and saving, to end up where you would have, without sacrificing anything. Sad really


----------



## luutzu (17 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I don't know about you, but I'm sure it will for me.
> 
> A lifetime of trying and saving, to end up where you would have, without sacrificing anything. Sad really




Nothing sad about it really Homer. Sad in that pensioners don't really get much at all but are made out to be some sort of parasite. That's the shameful part.

I mean, how much tax have you and your wife paid over a lifetime right? Raising kids, doing honest work... to get a few bucks to survive in old age and they make it out like these oldies are screwing the system.

Just read that Amazon.com just got itself $5.5B, or more as the public isn't allowed to know all the details... They got over $5B in gov't subsidies to build a HQ/Warehouse they would have to build somewhere anyway. 

That's the gov't, using taxpayers money, putting in over half the costs of the project... and getting jack for them cash beside "jobs" and something.


----------



## sptrawler (17 November 2018)

Yeh, just wished I'd bought an air conditioner, when we lived in the NW. I told the family don't worry we will benefit in the end. 
Just wished I'd built a house, rather than getting a $hitbox re stumped and then spent two years rebuilding it.
Just wished, I'd gone back to England before my Grandparents died, but didn't because I wanted to save money.
I just wish I had my time over.


----------



## newanimal (17 November 2018)

I'm 100% for the releasing all the energy technologies to the world that have been suppressed for reasons that anyone with 2 brain cells can imagine. But I don't know if that will make much of a dent on global warming. Unless we can get all those folks on all the other planets in our solar system to agree to do something about all those cars they must be driving on there respective planets.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yeh, just wished I'd bought an air conditioner, when we lived in the NW. I told the family don't worry we will benefit in the end.
> Just wished I'd built a house, rather than getting a $hitbox re stumped and then spent two years rebuilding it.
> Just wished, I'd gone back to England before my Grandparents died, but didn't because I wanted to save money.
> I just wish I had my time over.



Feel for you. 
My Mum told me the story of a woman who had scrimped her whole life got wealthy and then got cancer. Caught a plane so she could go to Europe for the first time.Mum was on the plane next to her and the smell was terrible.

Saw an article recently about the fact that most people with money struggle on a part pension because they can't bring themselves to spend the capital.

I have those tendencies and my eldest is now finishing school. Determined to spend money on experiences not horde it like s squirrell. Hard to get the balance right.


----------



## Ann (17 November 2018)

*Low solar activity and its impact on “high-latitude blocking”*

_*In the long term, the sun is the main driver of all weather* *and climate and multi-decadal trends in solar activity can have major impacts on oceanic and atmospheric temperatures.* In addition, empirical observations have shown that the sun can have important ramifications on weather and climate on time scales associated with the average solar cycle (i.e., 11-years). For example, there is evidence that low solar activity years tend to be correlated with more frequent “high-latitude blocking” events. “High-latitude blocking” during the winter season is characterized by persistent high pressure in northern latitude areas such as Greenland, northeastern Canada, and Iceland. Without this type of blocking pattern, it is quite difficult to get sustained cold air outbreaks in the central and eastern US during the winter season and that is usually a critical requirement for snowstorms in, for example, the big cities of the I-95 corridor.
*Paul Dorian*
_
Clearly no one bothered to take the time to read the links in my last post here, so the prior quote was the thrust of the very excellent scientific report I previously posted. I have given a full description of who Paul Dorian is and for whom he works and what that companies' work relates to. Please go back and read it carefully.

It is very tiring to continue to hear, fear, propaganda and alarmist rubbish being promoted by people who behave like fundamentalist "True Believers". It is clearly ruining lives of people who lie awake and worry and make life decisions on dodgy "science" and misleading information. 

In a nutshell, global climate warming and cooling is cyclical. As the planet warms, more plants grow, plants need CO2 and release oxygen, life thrives. In colder cycles of mini ice-ages life contracts and CO2 falls (put in the simplest terms).The volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is *correlative, not causitive* to an increase in climate temperatures.



wayneL said:


> .......Nor understand the nuance of any position other that fed to you by political and mercantile vested intetests.


----------



## luutzu (17 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yeh, just wished I'd bought an air conditioner, when we lived in the NW. I told the family don't worry we will benefit in the end.
> Just wished I'd built a house, rather than getting a $hitbox re stumped and then spent two years rebuilding it.
> Just wished, I'd gone back to England before my Grandparents died, but didn't because I wanted to save money.
> I just wish I had my time over.




When you don't have money and every cent counts, just have to make the best of it. I don't think you did anything "wrong" or bad. 

My mum couldn't go back to VN on her father's death. Couldn't afford it. Could only afford some money to send back to help with the funeral but couldn't afford a ticket to be there. Too many young kids, too poor. I saw her crying for days over it. 

As for that "$hitbox". It's shelter. The family got a father who work hard to literally put a house together. That's love man.


----------



## Humid (17 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yeh, just wished I'd bought an air conditioner, when we lived in the NW. I told the family don't worry we will benefit in the end.
> Just wished I'd built a house, rather than getting a $hitbox re stumped and then spent two years rebuilding it.
> Just wished, I'd gone back to England before my Grandparents died, but didn't because I wanted to save money.
> I just wish I had my time over.




We all have regrets Homer
carpe diem


----------



## Knobby22 (17 November 2018)

Ann said:


> *Low solar activity and its impact on “high-latitude blocking”*
> 
> _*In the long term, the sun is the main driver of all weather* *and climate and multi-decadal trends in solar activity can have major impacts on oceanic and atmospheric temperatures.* _.



Yes, he points out that the sun has been quieter for  while now producing less
radiation, yet as his shows most of the anomalies are warming despite this. In fact, he thinks if this was the only factor we should be entering another mini ice age and yet the opposite is occurring. Not sure why you think this supports your argument.​


----------



## Ann (17 November 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, he points out that the sun has been quieter for  while now producing less
> radiation, yet as his shows most of the anomalies are warming despite this. In fact, he thinks if this was the only factor we should be entering another mini ice age and yet the opposite is occurring. Not sure why you think this supports your argument.​




He is talking about the positioning in the ocean of the warm currents Knobby. This stuff is heavy and needs to be read carefully. He is suggesting this positioning of warm currents is causative of colder weather in certain areas.

_In recent history, strong El Nino’s that were “eastern-based” generally have been associated with warmer-than-normal winters in the eastern US whereas “centrally-based” weak-to-moderate El Nino’s have been often correlated with cold and snowy winters. For instance, two strong and "eastern-based" El Nino’s that resulted in warm winters in much of the eastern US took place during the winters of 1972-1973, 1982-1983 and 1997-1998. On the other hand, two weak-to-moderate El Nino's that were "centrally-based" and resulted in cold and snowy winters occurred in 2002-2003 and 2009-2010.

There are a couple of reasons why a weak-to-moderate strength and "centrally-based" El Nino can increase the chances for a cold and snowy winter in the eastern US. First, the higher the temperature of the ocean, the more water vapor is released into the atmosphere and this extra moisture tends to energize the southern branch of the jet stream. An activated southern branch of the jet stream, in turn, raises the chances for a storm track across the southern and eastern US. As a result, coastal storms will be much more favorable this winter as compared with last year’s La Nina (colder-than-normal) pattern and east coast storms are generally more favorable for snow in places like the big cities of the I-95 corridor - as long as there is sustainable cold air. Second, a “centrally-based” El Nino tends to favor the formation of higher pressure ridging over the western US with a downstream trough over the eastern US and this type of atmospheric pattern usually allows for numerous cold air outbreaks into the central and eastern US. The findings in a recent publication support the idea of an increased chance for a cold and snowy winter in the southern and eastern US during a "centrally-based" El Nino winter season.
_
Then he goes on to explain about the importance of snowpacks...

_*Northern Hemisphere snowpack *
In addition to oceanic and solar cycles, the snowpack in the Northern Hemisphere during the autumn season is an important consideration for a couple of reasons when preparing a winter outlook.  First, a deeper snowpack across the Northern Hemisphere this time of year will likely result in the formation of colder and denser air masses in the important cold air source regions (e.g, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Siberia).  In fact, Greenland has been exceptionally cold since July which is a bullish sign for cold air mass formation. Second, research studies and empirical observations suggest that snowpack in the Northern Hemisphere during the autumn season can be valuable as a predictive tool with respect to “high-latitude blocking” patterns during subsequent winter seasons.
Specifically, research studies (e.g., Dr. Judah Cohen, AER, Inc.) have actually pinpointed the region in Siberia below 60°N during the month of October as critical with respect to the likelihood of “high-latitude blocking” patterns during the following winter season. If snowpack consistently expands during October in that particular part of Siberia, studies have shown that there is an increased chance for more frequent “high-latitude blocking” configurations in subsequent winter months. Indeed, there has been an increase in snowpack in parts of Siberia during the first part of October and computer forecast models suggest there will be additional accumulating snow in that general region in coming days - so far, a neutral to slightly bullish signal for wintertime “high latitude blocking”. The Northern Hemisphere as a whole experienced above-normal snowpack at the end of September ranking it as the 9th highest snow cover extent in the last 50 years and North America had its highest level ever in that same time frame.
_
Yes Knobby, there is a very strong suggestion (not spoken of here, other than illustrating how things work climate-wise) according to long measures of climate cycles we are heading toward another mini iceage/global cooling which will be somewhat more unpleasant than global warming.  Global cooling will cause cloudier skies (bad luck for solar), higher winds colder weather, higher incidents of plagues (more serious influenza outbreaks and so forth), more intense winter conditions, higher risk of drought as the precipitation which is normally falls on the earth will be held in icepacks.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 November 2018)

Woodside boss calls for Carbon price.

Back to the future it seems.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-14/woodside-ceo-peter-coleman-argues-for-carbon-price/10494026


----------



## Ann (18 November 2018)

......and for those who hate trying to understand scientific reports like the one I posted above, here is a very easy to understand, well produced documentary. Using highly qualified scientists in their field they give an excellent presentation of what is likely to cause global warming and it certainly isn't poor little CO2. Added to that they address the reason behind the great push to propagandize CC. I hope everyone concerned about CC and society in general takes the time to view this.


----------



## basilio (18 November 2018)

Ann, if you are relying on The Great Global Warming Swindle to back your view that CC is either just not happening or that greenhouses have little to do with the result - perhaps try again ?

It was sheer rubbish in 2007 and ten years later the facts of steeply increasing global temperatures and the effects of this on crops, forests, ice melt and the entire ecosystem are crystal clear (if you can see past the forest fire smoke).

If you would like a detailed analysis of lies and misrepresentations made throughout this program check out the following.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


----------



## Ann (19 November 2018)

Basilio, your little eight minute video is a wonderful example of Climate Change propaganda. Not too long to take up too much peoples' time and not too short so as not to get their agenda across. It is short sweet and will appeal to those who don't bother to find out if it has an agenda or not. As a lot of the genuine scientists who have tried to voice their scientific opinion have complained of being cried down with ever more shrill behaviour from activists with an agenda.

Let's look at who made this little bit of shrill junk, Peter Sinclair is he a scientist? NO!

He graduated from the  University of Michigan at Ann Arbor Bachelor of Fine Arts. In the 90's he worked as a graphic artist, is the author of _Alex's Restaurant_, which was picked up by King Features Syndicate in 1990, after which it appeared in about 50 newspapers. He was a cartoonist, then when the strip was dropped he became a paramedic and then an emegency room nurse. The cartoon strip was about a guy wanting to start vegetarian restaurant.

*"Sinclair saw the strip as a way to tap into a social trend he noticed sprouting as the Reagan era drew to a close. Demographers call his target audience “cultural creatives,” a group that transcends traditional political ideology in favor of a path that embraces spirituality, ecology, and holistic health."
*
Here is a link to the the cartoon and the above quote. https://visualhumor.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/alexs-restaurant-by-peter-sinclair/

He is a self confessed environmental activist whose focus is on climate change and has stated that his concern about global warming results from concerns about the future of his children.

There is a very large well funded Ecology Centre in Ann Arbor, (the area where Sinclair studied his graphic art) which was started in 1970 (during the yippie hippie era) by a group of environmental activists. Sinclair would have been around 17 years old. If you read the link to the comic strip you will see things mentioned in his foreward such as  "computer astrology, ginseng beer, aerobic yoga, rune stones, high tech shamans, herbal deodorant, organic petfood, fire walking and drumming circles. (Possibly slighly indicative of his interest in the alternative, co-op/opt-out society).

He is associated with the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, a research center within the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University who conducts scientific research on public climate change knowledge, attitudes, policy preferences, and behavior at the global, national, and local scales....... it put  out a daily 90 second audio program carried by around 350 radio stations, articles in the media, and a series of videos published monthly, and provided training to help television weather presenters and reporters discuss climate change.

As of 2017 the program was led by Anthony Leiserowitz, who is a human georgrapher at Yale University who studies public perceptions of climate change.

Anyone who can't see a link to self interested groups using spin tactics and propaganda, ignoring genuine sientists and pushing their own barrow is a fool.

As Sinclair said at the end of that video "On the internet nobody knows you are a fraud"  Well guess what Pete Sinclair, it is not hard to find out you are a fraud given an hour or two of following the links!


----------



## wayneL (19 November 2018)




----------



## Ann (19 November 2018)

Sadly WayneL, I doubt a clinical psychologist will make a lot of inroads into a climate debate.


----------



## wayneL (19 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Sadly WayneL, I doubt a clinical psychologist will make a lot of inroads into a climate debate.



Indeed,  just thought it was thoughtful and fairly educated comment FWIW.


----------



## Ann (19 November 2018)

Why is our electricity so expensive? Listen to Professor Ian Plimer. First let's see how qualified he is to speak on this subject. ( I am biased, his book 'heaven+earth" is a fascinating read but a really hard read. It seems more like a theses than a book).

A few of his Wiki listed qualifications...

Professor Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne,[1] previously a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide.
Ian Plimer started as a tutor and senior tutor in earth sciences at Macquarie University from 1968 to 1973.[9][10] After finishing his Ph.D., he became a lecturer in geology at the W.S. and L.B. Robinson University College of the University of New South Wales at Broken Hill from 1974 to 1979.[9][10] Plimer then went to work for North Broken Hill Ltd. between 1979 and 1982, becoming chief research geologist.[6][9][10] Due to his publication of a number of academic papers, he was offered a job as senior lecturer in economic geology at the University of New England in 1982.[6][9][10] After two years, he left to become a professor and head of geology at the University of Newcastle through 1991.[3][6] Plimer later served as professor and head of geology of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne from 1991 to 2005.[3][6] He was conferred as professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne in 2005,[2] and was a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. The list goes on.....


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Why is our electricity so expensive?



As I’ve posted in great detail on this forum on many occasions, fossil fuels versus renewables is a factor but it’s by no means the biggest influence.

The creation of a false market in what remains a single system is a far, far bigger contributing factor.


----------



## basilio (19 November 2018)

Well Ann you must have done a lot of research to come up with that debunking of Peter Sinclair. Maybe I can add to that CV later on.

But...  what are your thoughts about the points made regarding the documentary you quoted ?
1) The initial complete lie regarding the amount of CO2 volcanoes emit which was edited out very swiftly

2) The second lie where they tried to show a "NASA: graph *which was never a NASA graph* and in fact attempted to deceive viewers into believing there was relatively little global warming towards the end of the 20th century.

3) The conversation about the Oregan paper by Willee Soon et al which was a documented scientific fraud. That's right the program used as one of its pillars a research paper that was  proven to be a fraud. 

4) What about the graph that tried to show the Medieval Warm period was "warmer than now ".  Another delibrate lie. The graph was 20 years behind then (30 now) and global temperatures have jumped steeply.

5) What about the the creatrivity about the warmth of the Holocene period 6000 years ago which turns out to be quite different to the comments made on teh film ?

6)The next point ?  They used the work of Dr John Christy to say that temperatures in the upper atmisphere has not increased and therefore CC was not real. They however neglected to say that Dr Christy had to readjust his figures because * "there were errors in the satellite and radiosonde dat that have been identified and corrected" *And in 2018 there is no  significant differece between the elevated blobal temperatures and corresponding lower atmosphere figures.

7) How about the misrepresentation of  Dr  Carl Wunsch ?  He makes it clear in his interview that he regards global warming as real and very dangerous. However his interview is re-edited to make it appear he did not see see GW as real. 

8) Finally the complete flat out lie that tries to correlate what is happening on the Sun with what is happening on earth. The sun does effect the earths climate as it dims and brightens but this effet is small and has been completly outweighed by the effects of increased GG gases in the past 50 years.  However this film chose to to show a correlation between sun activity and the earths temperature -* but then omitted the last 30 years data which show sun activity falling as the earths temperaure rose sharply.  *Obviously this fact would have blown their hypothesis out of the water.

Peter Sinclair works very closely with Climate Scientists and creates very accesible videos that explain the often complex nature of the science behind CC.  He is also exceptionally good at researching and identifying the mistakes and/or  deceptions created by those attempting to undermine reasearch in this area.
https://climatecrocks.com/peter-sinclair-photos-and-bio/
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM


----------



## basilio (19 November 2018)

But if anyone is interested in just why CO2 is NOT responsible for GW check this out.
http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/


----------



## Ann (19 November 2018)

basilio, what you need to understand, science is and should always be open to debate.  This is how science advances. To have a group of scientists saying the "the case is closed" about any scientific theory is highly unscientific. 

The whole Climate Warming scenario is based around computer modelled projections. These models are merely data imput with a projected outcome. If data imput is skewed to a particular biased outcome, then that is what will spit out. 

I don't see the scientists who are seriously questioning the validity of anthropogenic climate change, having a set of spin doctors to advance their cause teaching newsmen and journaists how to think as do the Environmentalists.

The danger I see with all this is when eventually the climate cycle turns and we have long ranging power cuts because of inefficient power production, the mob will turn on all things environmental and throw the whole body out with the bathwater. I can see the Environmental movement losing all its credibility and people will turn away from it all. We only need a few very cold Northern winters and the freezing population will turn away instantly. Watch it happen!


----------



## Ann (19 November 2018)

basilio said:


> But if anyone is interested in just why CO2 is NOT responsible for GW check this out.
> http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/



What are you trying to say with this post basilio?


----------



## Ann (19 November 2018)

basilio said:


> But if anyone is interested in just why CO2 is NOT responsible for GW check this out.
> http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/




basilio, I am guessing you have no idea what this link is all about. Either that or you are capitulating your stance on GW.

I am guessing it is the former. I can only think you were trying to make a point about temperature differentiation between Medieval warming and current warming using the graph on the top of the linked article to prove it is warmer this time. Sadly the graph you were potentially refering to was a graph plotting planetary orbits not temperature.







However, I read on and it appears the person was writing a reasonably complex Physics argument refuting the radiating greenhouse hypothesis. Interesting, worth a read.

His name is  Douglas J Cotton B.Sc.(physics & math), B.A. (econ), Dip.Bus.Admin
(former Researcher Officer for Government, part-time Educator and now Researcher into Atmospheric and Sub-terrestrial Physics.


----------



## SuperGlue (19 November 2018)

These two nutters with their simple methods could be the answer to reversing climate change.

If you don't have much time, watch video link number two for before and after result of Allan Savory's style of Holistic Management.

How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
2.5 million views


Allan Savory - before and after result of his Holistic Management
Examples of Grassland Restoration - Excerpt from Talk by Allan Savory at Tufts University


_Our very own, Peter Andrews_
How Peter Andrews rejuvenates drought-struck land | Australian Story


----------



## Ann (19 November 2018)

SuperGlue said:


> These two nutters with their simple methods could be the answer to reversing climate change.
> 
> If you don't have much time, watch video link number two for before and after result of Allan Savory's style of Holistic Management.
> 
> ...





SuperGlue, I am sorry you feel Allan Savory is a nutter. He has some interesting theories on bunched moving livestock. Joel Salatin runs his stock in a similar way and has lectured down in Tasmania and has a lot of followers there.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 November 2018)

Ann said:


> The danger I see with all this is when eventually the climate cycle turns and we have long ranging power cuts because of inefficient power production



I claim no credentials on the CO2 issue beyond looking at weather trends, some lab experiments and listening to / reading what others have to say on the subject.

On the issue of energy supply however I've gone into rather a lot of detail on this forum in the past as to my concerns that it's going to end badly. The problems in Australia are many and they are entrenched.

CO2 is just one of the issues there however and it is by no means top of the list in terms of either reliability or cost, there's a few other things more important in both cases.

For clarity though I'll repeat my previous warnings that so long as current practice continues it's basically gambling and luck will run out someday, probably with spectacular results when it does.

Power system control, or rather the lack of it, is a problem.

Lack of installed generating capacity is a problem.

Falling reliability of existing plant is a problem compounded by the lack of capacity.

Inadequate fuel supplies being maintained at certain facilities is a problem.

Lack of co-operation between theoretically "rival" companies is another spanner in the works.

Put it all together and it's only a matter of time until it all goes wrong. The details are anyone's guess, that's the nature of power systems, but you can't keep gambling and not expect to lose at some point.


----------



## SuperGlue (19 November 2018)

Ann said:


> SuperGlue, I am sorry you feel Allan Savory is a nutter. He has some interesting theories on bunched moving livestock. Joel Salatin runs his stock in a similar way and has lectured down in Tasmania and has a lot of followers there.




It's just a figure of speech. I'm sure in his early struggle to convince the scientific world he is onto something right or him culling of 40,000 elephants, he would have been called one at some stage.

I've watched many of Allan's videos and he did mention in one of his videos that his 20 minute presentation on Ted talk has created worldwide attention than he could have done on his own over his lifetime.
I'm am definitely sure that Allan is onto something right mimicking nature.

Are you running a chicken farm like Joel Salatin does?


----------



## sptrawler (19 November 2018)

SuperGlue said:


> These two nutters with their simple methods could be the answer to reversing climate change.



I don't know about them reversing climate change, but from watching the video's they may know something about land degradation, which Australia has been doing for years.
Just fly over our farmlands and see the salt pans.


----------



## sptrawler (19 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Put it all together and it's only a matter of time until it all goes wrong. The details are anyone's guess, that's the nature of power systems, but you can't keep gambling and not expect to lose at some point.



People just have no comprehension of how much they rely on electricity, as you say if it fails it will be spectacular and people will be awestruck.
When their fridge, t.v, toilet, traffic lights, petrol stations aren't working, they will be struck dumb. lol 
All these State Governments, trying to get people to put in batteries, tells you they are aware of the problem.
I think the reliable supply will be gone, well before the renewable supply is up and running.


----------



## SuperGlue (20 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I don't know about them reversing climate change, but from watching the video's they may know something about land degradation, which Australia has been doing for years.
> Just fly over our farmlands and see the salt pans.




Allan believe that we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse this......
Watch his presentation at 18.50minutes.


----------



## Ann (20 November 2018)

SuperGlue said:


> It's just a figure of speech. I'm sure in his early struggle to convince the scientific world he is onto something right or him culling of 40,000 elephants, he would have been called one at some stage.




This is a problem when environmentalists think they have the answer to a problem by destroying things, elephants in this case, and then find it didn't help the situation. He clearly deeply regrets his killing of those creatures. At the time the land degredation continued.  Currently we have the Environmentalists believing CO2 is the cause to climate change so lets destroy all the coal burning power stations. This will have an even worse outcome as our world becomes crippled and we become third world populations.



SuperGlue said:


> I've watched many of Allan's videos and he did mention in one of his videos that his 20 minute presentation on Ted talk has created worldwide attention than he could have done on his own over his lifetime.
> I'm am definitely sure that Allan is onto something right mimicking nature.




Absolutely agree with you SuperGlue, I have watched all the available videos of Allan's on YouTube. The longer videos are more interesting as he expands on his theories. One day I want to get one of his books.



SuperGlue said:


> Are you running a chicken farm like Joel Salatin does?




Joel Salatin is far, far more than a chicken farmer on his Polyface Farm. He is a power for change in the agricultural and farming populations. You would need to watch some of his two hour videos to fully grasp the reach of this man. He runs bunched herds of cattle as outlined by Allan Savory. He rotates his grazing cattle and follows that with flocks of turkeys and chickens housed in chicken tractors to turn over the grazed soil. His son is developing grazing rabbits free from any hand feeding. He runs pigs which act as a compost turning machine and also has them turn over some of his woodlands. He also has a sustainable lumber business on his property.

Am I running a chicken farm? No, but I seriously contemplated it at one stage along with running free range meat and milk goats on a similar bunched herd, rotational basis.


----------



## sptrawler (20 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Joel Salatin is far, far more than a chicken farmer on his Polyface Farm. He is a power for change in the agricultural and farming populations. You would need to watch some of his two hour videos to fully grasp the reach of this man. He runs bunched herds of cattle as outlined by Allan Savory. He rotates his grazing cattle and follows that with flocks of turkeys and chickens housed in chicken tractors to turn over the grazed soil. His son is developing grazing rabbits free from any hand feeding. He runs pigs which act as a compost turning machine and also has them turn over some of his woodlands. He also has a sustainable lumber business on his property.
> 
> Am I running a chicken farm? No, but I seriously contemplated it at one stage along with running free range meat and milk goats on a similar bunched herd, rotational basis.



I think you are spot on Ann.
My Grandfather in England had a small farm, he had chickens, pigs, grew potatoes and had an orchard, he also had green houses for tomatoes, the farm was 10 acres. He made enough to replace his car every two years. I think the bigger is better mentality is flawed, it becomes too big to manage.


----------



## basilio (20 November 2018)

Ann said:


> Currently we have the Environmentalists believing CO2 is the cause to climate change so lets destroy all the coal burning power stations. This will have an even worse outcome as our world becomes crippled and we become third world populations.




No Ann. NOT ACCURATE at all.
*Climate scientists* are overwhelmingly certain that human created green house gases (CO2 is one of those) are creating a rapidly warming earth.

One of factors in the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coal fired power stations so one of the solutions to the problem is *replacing them as rapidly as possible* with alternative non CO2 producing energy sources.
Solar, Wind, Hyro, Wave, Geo Thermal, Solar Thermal, Maybe even small scale nuclear. But no one is talking about arbitarily closing them down without immediately developing an alternative. I'm afraid your comment is just another one of the misleading "talking points" created by the same people who produced that shonky doco you quoted.

And I would still be interested in your response to the 8 particular lies/misrepresentations  picked up in the Great Global Warming Swindle. It's all very well to promote robust scientific debate. But using shonky graphs, misleading and out of date comments and misrepresenting scientists isn't cool Ann.

______________________________________________________
PS Quite impressed with the Joel Salatin agriculture model. Good find.


----------



## wayneL (20 November 2018)

LMAO

Shonky graphs indeed.

Anyway,  I have a client who is working on an interesting "battery" storage solution... Kind of a cross between solar and nucleat technology. 

There are other projects working on the storage conundrum too. That's the missing link if we want to replace coal and fossil fuels.

(and I have no problem with that as a goal to work towards)


----------



## basilio (20 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> LMAO
> 
> Shonky graphs indeed.
> 
> ...




Yeah there are many excellent, clean, cost effective alternatives to coal. And certainly intermediate storage options have to be part of the solution.

By the way those graphs I cited in The Great Swindle  are as a shonky as $3 notes Wayne.  But you do realise that...don't you ?


----------



## Ann (20 November 2018)

basilio said:


> No Ann. NOT ACCURATE at all.
> *Climate scientists* are overwhelmingly certain that human created green house gases (CO2 is one of those) are creating a rapidly warming earth.
> 
> One of factors in the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coal fired power stations so one of the solutions to the problem is *replacing them as rapidly as possible* with alternative non CO2 producing energy sources.
> ...




basilio, please do not use caps in your sentence when you address me. I am not fond of being screamed at either in reality or online, it is discourteous. 

I have known of Joel Salatin for many years. I have been a very strong advocate for the environment and have identified with them since first listening to Suzuki back in the 1970s. 

It is pointless addressing the "lies/misrepresentations" as you so inflammatorily describe them from the video. The video was presented in 2007 with the scientific data available up to that time. Time and science moves on and evolves. Well genuine science evolves as new theories and data emerge, unless you are these so called GW political appointees calling themselves 'climate scientists' who are stuck with their now very ageing, very well funded computer modelled theory of GW. I will address who some of these 'climate scientists' are in another post.  

The irony of all this is the environmentalists of varying descriptions have been protesting against Nuclear Power since the 50s and were very strong in the seventies when the group of people emerged under the heading of Environmentalists. The environment is what we cared about and to live what we preached (I try). This current so called re-newable energy just won't be able to cope with the demand. There is no doubt in my mind the NP people are just sitting there smiling a Mona Lisa smile, waiting to take over.  Give us a few blackouts, deaths, job loses through higher demand for power in a few colder winters and the climate changers will just quietly fade away into a non-issue. Although some of them may want to go down with the ship and continue to scream that these profoundly cold conditions are a result of global warming!


----------



## basilio (20 November 2018)

Ann I capped my "Not Accurate" comment after some thought. In my mind it was least inflammatory way of responding to your suggestion that environmentalists wanted to destroy all coal fired power stations (immediately ?) and send us into the dark ages. As I said, it seems to be one of the grossly exaggerated "talking points" used by CC deniers to  misinfirm people.

With regard to the lies /misrepresentations on The Great Swindle. The issues I pointed out were recognised within days of the doco being broadcast. They were already understood. That is why some of the most dishonest statements were withdrawn or adjusted. The point about these lies is their reflection on the people who made the doco and the sources they used to try and say GW " wasn't happening, or wasn't serious and in any case it's The Sun".

Ann it was you who introduced the doco as a great example of true sceptical science. I wonder if  you have reconsidered your views after considering the misrepresentions made in the doco ?

Science moving ahead ? Absolutely since 2007 world temperatures have increased by about .3C .  That is HUGE in terms of its effect on cities, eco systems,  Greenland/Antartica.   I wonder climate change denial sources have to say about these events?

Do you want colder winters (in the Northern Hemispehere)  Ann ? Well CC could certainly bring that about - while still cooking the rest of the globe. But that is one of the potential consequences of abrupt climate change.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

*  Climate change is slowing Atlantic currents that help keep Europe warm *
https://theconversation.com/climate...tic-currents-that-help-keep-europe-warm-94930
April 12, 2018 11.13pm AEST


*Climate Change: Global Temperature*
Author: 
Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman
August 1, 2018
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature


----------



## Ann (20 November 2018)

basilio said:


> Ann I capped my "Not Accurate" comment after some thought. In my mind it was least inflammatory way of responding to your suggestion that environmentalists wanted to destroy all coal fired power stations (immediately ?) and send us into the dark ages. As I said, it seems to be one of the grossly exaggerated "talking points" used by CC deniers to  misinfirm people.




basilio, Coal fired power emits CO2. CO2 is being blamed for the "catastrophic" "global warming". Tell me why GW Environmentalists would not want coal fired power plants phased out as soon as possible? 



basilio said:


> With regard to the lies /misrepresentations on The Great Swindle. The issues I pointed out were recognised within days of the doco being broadcast. They were already understood. That is why some of the most dishonest statements were withdrawn or adjusted. The point about these lies is their reflection on the people who made the doco and the sources they used to try and say GW " wasn't happening, or wasn't serious and in any case it's The Sun".




So if the sun is not responsible for heating the earth where else do we get our heat from? Let's hypothetically say the sun shot off into space never to be seen again, how long would earth remain warm and alive?



basilio said:


> Ann it was you who introduced the doco as a great example of true sceptical science. I wonder if  you have reconsidered your views after considering the misrepresentions made in the doco ?




basilio, I do not accept that there were misreprentations. That implies intent to decieve, I will leave that up to the GW political parties in environmental clothing to do the deceiving, strong arm tactics and battering with explosive and dramatic behaviour is your department.  



basilio said:


> Science moving ahead ? Absolutely since 2007 world temperatures have increased by about .3C .  That is HUGE in terms of its effect on cities, eco systems,  Greenland/Antartica.   I wonder climate change denial sources have to say about these events?
> 
> Do you want colder winters (in the Northern Hemispehere)  Ann ? Well CC could certainly bring that about - while still cooking the rest of the globe. But that is one of the potential consequences of abrupt climate change.




Actually, you know basilio, I think you accidentally explained the whole question of climate change with that previous graph you linked to accidentally without taking the time to see what you were actually linking to, a graph of planetary orbits. It is lock step with low temperatures from the forties rising to the high temperature of 1999, then a quick dip and then a rapid rise back forming a double top and then a falling away until the temperature may rise to equal levels in 2059. Well done basilio, you have just sorted what causes climate change on earth......planet orbitalization. 
...and for those who missed this great graph....










basilio said:


> https://www.skepticalscience.com/
> 
> *  Climate change is slowing Atlantic currents that help keep Europe warm *
> https://theconversation.com/climate...tic-currents-that-help-keep-europe-warm-94930
> ...




I have read the above, the skeptical science thread at the top is authored by an anonymous guest contributor which I will totally ignore for the anonymous junk it is. However below that  in the same thread is a very eye catching piece of propaganda from Sarah Finnie Robinson, more on Ms Robinson later.

basilio, I see you posted on the Science thread yesterday. I feel it would have been better placed here, however I guess down the track if anyone found it you could say.....ah yes I already posted that!  Just not where it really should be......
Quote from Science thread from yesterday posted by basilio

*Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming*

A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought. But researchers now say they can’t necessarily make that claim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...st-oceans-are-warming/?utm_term=.8c0aeadc8bb8

It is post #540 from yesterday if the copied link doesn't work. I tried to cut and paste the link to the Washington Post but it is a locked link and only those with a subscription can copy the link. I guess you must have a subscription to the Washington Post basilio. It sort of feels a bit deceptive to put up a link here today about rising ocean water temperatures when you had already put a link elsewhere saying the opposite was true yesterday. 

Finally folks, you just need to see this bit of massive, loud, bold, advertising agency style generated propaganda. Note the wording ...."97% of *published* climate papers agree. (They won't publish too many papers that don't agree with their projected theory.) Global warming is happening -  and we are the cause". This was brought out by the Consensus Project.com. A group from Boston University institute for Sustainable Energy. Which no doubt owes its existance from subsidies to the university. 





This poster is not the behaviour of scientists but of political interest groups.

The lady who posted this advertising billboard on the skeptics site is Sarah Finnie Robinson. An academic? No. She is a journalist. Certainly a part of the propaganda machine.

_Sarah Finnie Robinson is an investor in large-scale climate solutions and founding partner of WeSpire, a Boston tech firm that powers sustainability programs at F500 corporations. She is active on the Climate Task Force for Boston Harbor Now. She serves as a judge for MIT’s Climate CoLab “Shifting Behaviors & Attitudes” track; advises the Metcalf Institute for Environmental Reporting at the University of Rhode Island; and supports Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund. She is a Climate Reality Leader and mentor, and she advises Kripalu Center for Yoga & Health. Robinson also serves on the board of the Princeton78 Foundation, whose endowment fuels undergraduate service projects in the United States and around the world. She holds a B.A. from Princeton, an M.A. from the Bread Loaf School of English at Middlebury College, and she graduated with the inaugural class of Seth Godin’s altMBA in 2015.


Robinson began her career at The New Yorker and continued at The Atlantic and at iVillage, where she was the launch content director. She blogs on HuffPost, Medium, and mindbodygreen. Her current project is a curated digital showcase to identify and share standout communications to engage and accelerate broad public support for the global clean-energy transition now underway.
_

_
_


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 November 2018)

I don’t think anyone would dispute that CO2 is an insulator, the science is well understood on that one. 

What effect the actual change in atmospheric concentration being made will have is the unanswered question.


----------



## Ann (20 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I don’t think anyone would dispute that CO2 is an insulator, the science is well understood on that one.
> 
> What effect the actual change in atmospheric concentration being made will have is the unanswered question.




In fact no that is not the case Smurf as it turns out.

*Industry Experts: CO2 Worse Than Useless in Trapping Heat/Delaying Cooling*
Published on April 7, 2016

Written by John O'Sullivan (HT: Alan Siddons)

Does carbon dioxide have the physical properties of heat trapping/delayed cooling as alleged by climate scientists? Well, according to experiments conducted by experts in the ‘hard’ sciences at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory CO2 just doesn’t do what climate science says it does.

https://principia-scientific.org/industry-experts-co2-worse-useless-trapping-heatdelaying-cooling-2/


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Inadequate fuel supplies being maintained at certain facilities is a problem.




Well we seem to have plenty of gas to sell overseas.

I don't see why a national gas reservation policy seems to be on the nose with both parties.

Gas stations seem ideal for baseload, easier to start or ramp up or down than coal.

Sure, gas won't last forever but as an intermediate step untill sufficient renewable energy is developed it should be the focus of new baseload generation for a while at least ?


----------



## Ann (20 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well we seem to have plenty of gas to sell overseas.
> 
> I don't see why a national gas reservation policy seems to be on the nose with both parties.
> 
> ...




This is a  really good question to ask Sir Rumpy.

While I am here, I would like to correct something from my last post. The Consensus Project.com is _not_ a group from Boston University institute for Sustainable Energy. It is actually a citizen science driven project conducted by volunteers at the Skeptical Science website. Skepticalscience.com was created and is run by John Cook, climate communication research fellow at the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland. Their website design was contributed pro bono by SJI Associates, a New York City based design and advertising firm passionate about climate issues. SJI also have as clients the United Nations.


----------



## PZ99 (20 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well we seem to have plenty of gas to sell overseas.
> 
> I don't see why a national gas reservation policy seems to be on the nose with both parties.
> 
> ...



We shouldn't have to burn anything IMO. Solar and hydro will give us baseload power once they've solved the technicals of transmitting it reliably. Just comes down to funding. And that comes from exporting coal and gas rather than burning it. Co2 aside... the economics of coal has a use-by date based on a dwindling need or want. Flog it off before that date eventuates


----------



## Ann (20 November 2018)

I am really sorry folks to keep pushing up this very tiresome subject up but I am running hot here with so much more to come! 

Let's start off by looking at this dodgy, misleading, outrageous figure of _97% published climate change papers agree._ This is a scandalous outrageous lie with manipulated data.

*Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature*
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining *11 944* climate abstracts from *1991–2011* matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.* We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW*, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. *Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1%* endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

In other words folks we find of the 11944 climate extracts looked at, 32.6% endorsed AGW (manmade global warming) among that 32.6%, 97.1% endorsed the consensus. (Only to be expected)

So that is a bit over 30% not 97.1% of papers in agreement with AGW. What a disgusting, shameful manipulation of figures.  A bit later I will tell you who some of these so-called 'climate scientists' were who wrote these papers and who were so convinced humans caused GW.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2018)

PZ99 said:


> We shouldn't have to burn anything IMO. Solar and hydro will give us baseload power once they've solved the technicals of transmitting it reliably.





Sure, but how long will it take to solve the technical problems ?

Links have been quoted in the "Future of electricity generation and storage" thread about the problems of intermittency and its effect on grid stability.

I would be quite happy if we got 100% from renewables but I don't see that happening for decades and backup is needed in the meantime.


----------



## PZ99 (20 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, but how long will it take to solve the technical problems ?
> 
> Links have been quoted in the "Future of electricity generation and storage" thread about the problems of intermittency and its effect on grid stability.
> 
> I would be quite happy if we got 100% from renewables but I don't see that happening for decades and backup is needed in the meantime.



It could've been done by now had it not been for the unwieldy flip floppery of 2¾ Govts.

We could do it one decade. If we have another GFC we could probably do it in half that time.
It's a case of money buys happiness - which then brings back the point of ramping up export.

Pumped Hydro adds the benefit of load smoothing for grid stability. It's done elsewhere.


----------



## wayneL (20 November 2018)

basilio said:


> By the way those graphs I cited in The Great Swindle  are as a shonky as $3 notes Wayne.  But you do realise that...don't you ?



I hadn't seen the movie,  so can't comment,  but all graphs,  excpt the ones I  agree with,  are shonky


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 November 2018)

Ann said:


> In fact no that is not the case Smurf as it turns out.



From the paper linked:



> Crucially, Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin ensured they tested for the coupled effects of conduction and radiation (not convection because climate science isn’t concerned with convection).




How do they propose conduction is relevant to the theory of man-made climate change? Conduction of heat from Earth to what, exactly?



> carbon dioxide only serves as a coolant in industry applications




The principles of refrigeration are well understood and can be applied using many gases. CO2 is used due to the actual temperatures and pressures involved being suitable with the added benefits of being non-toxic to humans, non-flammable, plentiful and cheap. None of those attributes are involved in the theory of CO2-induced climate change however so what is the point of mentioning them?



> the wider the gap in the double-glazed panes the more the CO2 gas filler showed U-value energy loss




They have stated that convection is not relevant because climate science isn't concerned with convection. 

They have then observed that CO2 is ineffective at trapping heat in a situation where convection would be expected to occur, an issue well known to the manufacturers of double glazed windows for quite some time.

What is the point of having conditions conducive to convection, and noting that CO2 is ineffective as an insulator under these circumstances, when it has previously been noted that convection is not relevant to the climate change theory?



> Sanyo developed that country’s first commercially-viable CO2 refrigerant which they say (ironically) could “greatly contribute to the prevention of global warming.”




Since the use of CO2 as a refrigerant increases efficiency compared to alternatives and thus in most places will reduce the emission of CO2 to atmosphere from fuel combustion what is the ironic aspect to the claim? It does what they say it will do - less CO2 is emitted to atmosphere.

Overall I won't claim any scientific expertise on the climate change subject but I can certainly spot the inclusion of irrelevant data and information in their report. As with anything, once a few lies are spotted it casts serious doubt over the rest.


----------



## basilio (24 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> From the paper linked:
> Overall I won't claim any scientific expertise on the climate change subject but I can certainly spot the inclusion of irrelevant data and information in their report. As with anything, once a few lies are spotted it casts serious doubt over the rest.




Ditto.. The analysis of the "The Great Global warming Swindle" opened up (at least) 8 separate issues where graphs were doctored, completely false information used to support the hypothesis, scientists words taken totally out of context, and date used that *at the time *was known to be wrong because of readjustments made to temperatures measured by global satellites.

*Why would one ever accept anything else proposed in such a program when you can see such overt deceptions ?* They have trashed their credibility.  It just doesn't make sense.

By the way CO2 is not the only culprit in global warming.  There are other Greenhouse Gases which trap heat. 
_The atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases are being affected directly by human activities namely carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) (cow farts !!), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and synthetic gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-campus/climate-system/greenhouse-gases/

_
PS  Principa Scientific is a climate denier website intended to provide a fig leaf of "Science" to presentations that attempt to deny  the cause and reality of current global warming.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 November 2018)

Why isn't convection relevant?
What is weather if not basically heat effects creating convection? How are clouds formed? There are only three methods to spread heat, they are conduction,radiation and convection.
To ignore the effects of convection within air is just ignorant or a willful lie.


----------



## IFocus (25 November 2018)

Just to remind everyone the heating up thing is actually not the end game painful but wont end humans  acidification of the oceans will and its not a big step to get there.


----------



## basilio (25 November 2018)

Just providing an opportunity to recognise
1) What are the natural and human caused impacts on climate
2) How these interact to create the current temperatures around the world
3) What is the current trajectory of global temperatures .

Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists, roughly half from outside the government.

It's the second of two volumes. The first, released in November 2017, concluded that there is "no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."


----------



## basilio (26 November 2018)

*How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters*
By  Nicola Jones • January 26, 2017


Facebook
Twitter
Email
Last year marked the first time in several million years that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 passed 400 parts per million. By looking at what Earth’s climate was like in previous eras of high CO2 levels, scientists are getting a sobering picture of where we are headed.

Last year will go down in history as the year when the planet’s atmosphere broke a startling record: 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide. The last time the planet’s air was so rich in CO2 was millions of years ago, back before early predecessors to humans were likely wielding stone tools; the world was a few degrees hotter back then, and melted ice put sea levels tens of meters higher.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters


----------



## explod (26 November 2018)

Gave you a tick up for your last two posts Bas, it's a sad shame that some see CC as some sort of joke.  Felt really bad about some comments overnight but one must hang in and try to get more to understand the dire situation the world is in from man made climate change.


----------



## wayneL (27 November 2018)

And yet, alarmists do nothing except propose taxes


----------



## basilio (27 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> And yet, alarmists do nothing except propose taxes




Actually... that's just another lie Wayne. Another one to add to the list. 

People who understand  what is happening re CC are looking to address the issues practically.
1) How do we reduce the future impact by reducing GG emissions  in the many ways possible
2) How do we deal with the now inevitable effects of the CC that is happening and will continue to happen.

The latest US report developed by 13 agencies with input from thousands of scientists is quite explict in what the consequences are and will be.

*The Three Most Chilling Conclusions From the Climate Report*
Thirteen federal agencies agree: Climate change has already wreaked havoc on the United States, and the worst is likely yet to come.

On Friday afternoon, the U.S. government published a major and ominous climate report. Despite being released on a holiday, when it seemed the smallest number of people would be paying attention, the latest installment of the National Climate Assessment is, as told to my colleague Robinson Meyer, full of “information that every human needs.”

Read: A grave climate warning, buried on Black Friday

The report traces the effects climate change has already wrought upon every region of the United States, from nationwide heat waves to dwindling snowpacks in the West. In blunt and disturbing terms, it also envisions the devastation yet to come.

The document’s dire claims, backed by 13 federal agencies, come frequently into conflict with the aims of the administration that released it. Where the Trump administration has sought to loosen restrictions on car emissions, the report warns that vehicles are contributing to unhealthy ozone levels that affect nearly a third of Americans. Whereas the president has ensured that the United States will no longer meet the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement on climate change, the report says that ignoring Paris could accelerate coral bleaching in Hawaii by more than a decade.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...hilling-parts-2018-climate-assessment/576598/


----------



## wayneL (27 November 2018)

basilio said:


> Actually... that's just another lie Wayne. Another one to add to the list.
> 
> People who understand  what is happening re CC are looking to address the issues practically.
> 1) How do we reduce the future impact by reducing GG emissions  in the many ways possible
> ...



Read the study I posted somewhere here bas.  

I stand by my comment. Most alarmists do SFA.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> And yet, alarmists do nothing except propose taxes



I think that reflects the era we live in and political thinking more broadly.

Just about everything these days needs to be a "market based solution". Can't give orders anymore or decree what's going to happen, it's all just persuasion via price or other encouragement.

So far as I'm aware the military would be the only thing of significance, possibly also police, where that doesn't apply at least to some extent.


----------



## basilio (27 November 2018)

* 467 ways to die on a warming globe 
Clive Hamilton *While most people in most countries accept the truth of climate science, they reject its implications. What can be done to change that?

 A new study published in Nature has found evidence for 467 ways in which climate hazards due to global warming are making life on the planet harder for humans. It confirms that we are witnessing a shift in the functioning of the Earth system as a whole, a shift to a new state that is unsympathetic to the continued flourishing of human life*.*
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/27/467-ways-to-die-on-a-warming-globe

*________________________________*
*Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions*
CamiloMora  plus 23 other others


The ongoing emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is triggering changes in many climate hazards that can impact humanity.We found traceable evidence for 467 pathways by which human health, water, food, economy, infrastructure and security have been recently impacted by climate hazards such as warming, heatwaves, precipitation, drought, floods, fires, storms, sea-level rise and changes in natural land cover and ocean chemistry. By 2100, the world’s population will be exposed concurrently to the equivalent of the largest magnitude in one of these hazards if emmisions are aggressively reduced, or three if they are not, with some tropical coastal areas facing up to six simultaneous hazards. These findings highlight the fact that GHG emissions pose a broad threat to humanity by intensifying multiple hazards to which humanity is vulnerable.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0315-6.epdf?referrer_access_token=ueQK4IQmNa7EKP9V5tlE0dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MpBFb5oK9YR4Jvx3dMn7ibn9GIWJWKwJdisCvkAMy74uAzG7pjbKTq0Ib1qELdmBaGu8Yw_I0tS1SKKT5W28CD3NdUCUYYzscMgp0H_dKNnsEhzRYBDY0TjxGJKJL6dtVDTFJcBhRAXYj3RaXFvKa8gNTJmY9YTlPahJslmPDKtTEddBgCeJFuuBh6YW-dUV27EM8SnVDPxKxekuOmv4Jl6otvRA8pq95CTY3Rp4-kJg==&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (27 November 2018)

*Record heat waves and record bushfires in Queensland in November.*
Nothing unusual here is there ?

*Queensland bushfires continue to burn in extreme heatwave, more evacuations ordered*
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-27/queensland-bushfires-conditions-worsen/10557050


----------



## basilio (28 November 2018)

There has been  insuufficient action since the 2015 Paris climate summit. Too much hot air.

*World must triple efforts or face catastrophic climate change, says UN *
Rapid emissions turnaround needed to keep global warming at less than 2C, report suggests

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent

Wed 28 Nov 2018 03.45 AEDT   Last modified on Wed 28 Nov 2018 04.46 AEDT

*Shares*
2092




The drought-stricken La Sorrueda reservoir in Gran Canaria, Spain. Rising emissions could trigger extreme weather events around the world, the UN says. Photograph: Reuters
Countries are failing to take the action needed to stave off the worst effects of climate change, a UN report has found, and the commitments made in the 2015 Paris agreement will not be met unless governments introduce additional measures as a matter of urgency.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...iple-efforts-climate-change-un-global-warming


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 November 2018)

The current weather could be greatly improved by sharing.

Instead of dumping huge amounts of rain over Sydney and flooding the place, instead send it to Qld to put the fires out. A simple and effective solution.

On that point I note that Sydney is the second Australian state capital to have floods this year, Hobart being the other one.

Coincidence? Possibly but there’s rather a lot of these weather “coincidences” lately it would seem.


----------



## explod (28 November 2018)

It's not summer yet and Qld is burning up in record heat and Sydney is being washed away.

My fault I suppose as my advice has been to "just party"


----------



## sptrawler (28 November 2018)

It sounds as though Sydney had a real soaking, the most amount of rain in a November day since 1984, not quite a 100 years but a real down pour.


----------



## PZ99 (29 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The current weather could be greatly improved by sharing.
> 
> Instead of dumping huge amounts of rain over Sydney and flooding the place, instead send it to Qld to put the fires out. A simple and effective solution.
> 
> ...



There has been a viewpoint that actually links the Sydney rainfall to the QLD fires due to the smoke induced pyromaniac clouds that moved to the south. I had initially dismissed the flood warning but it was very accurate. So if you're up for a bit of drought breaking cloud seeding, start a bonfire in a strategic location - preferably an uninhabited one 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/sydney-weather-and-queensland-bushfires-linked/10561792

Just one more point. If this phenomenon is the real deal it leads to the obvious question... if smoke can influence the weather a thousand k's away to that degree what happens when other crap gets released into the atmosphere globally on a daily basis ?   

I don't have the answer to that but I find it hard to believe it's totally inconsequential


----------



## basilio (3 December 2018)

I would re read that story from the ABC PZ. You might realise there are some discrepancies in your understanding of the weather systems.

But this is where  we are now...

*The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say*

“There is no documented historic precedent" for the scale of changes required, the body found*.*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...et-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists*-*say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3b0afe902bb1


----------



## basilio (3 December 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Just one more point. If this phenomenon is the real deal it leads to the obvious question... if smoke can influence the weather a thousand k's away to that degree what happens when other crap gets released into the atmosphere globally on a daily basis ?




Your totally right. Which of course is the basis for recognising the impact of a range of factors on climate
1) Huge volcanic eruptions have poured enough dust into the atmosphere to dim the sun and effectively lower temperatures for a year or so. Well documented.  And they can also spew a xxxload of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere

2) Human produced SO2 and other aerosols have also reduced the heat from the sun and lowered temperatures. In fact the gross industrial pollution during the 50's , 60's and 70's was responsible for  lowering global temperatures despite increasing GG.

3) The steep increase in Green House gases in the Industrial era and in particular the last 50 years has trapped more and more heat. CO2 certainly but also Methane, Nitrous Oxide (from cars) CFC's and HCFC's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2018)

The concept of smoke blocking the sun and changing the weather patterns, at the extreme lowering the earth's temperature by many degrees, has previously been looked at and considered plausible by the relevant scientists etc at the time.

Those in the older half of the population may recall this concept as the "nuclear winter", the concept being that massive scale fires would be a likely consequence of a real nuclear war (as distinct from tests at carefully chosen sites that aren't forests) and would kill whatever life wasn't wiped out by the nuclear weapons themselves. That concept was somewhat known to the general public some time ago.

Cloud seeding to increase rainfall is also a well understood concept which has been applied commercially in a number of places, most notable in the Australian context being Tasmania and to a lesser extent the Snowy Mountains.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I don't have the answer to that but I find it hard to believe it's totally inconsequential



That sums up my thinking on the whole issue.

All the coal, oil and gas burned ultimately ends up as heat added to the atmosphere. We also add heat to the atmosphere from other sources such as nuclear fission and primary electricity (hydro, wind etc - electricity that wasn't obtained from a heat source).

Now that might seem inconsequential at the level of your own house but even in a city the size of Adelaide there's a measurable local effect in the CBD versus suburbs versus country areas. Needless to say that phenomenon is more pronounced in larger cities.

So we know we can alter the climate in cities. Then we need to consider that much of the heat isn't released in cities because things like large factories and power stations are typically located somewhere else, often a very long way from any actual city. The largest point of heat release in Victoria for example is 150km away from Melbourne and the situation is similar with most cities.

Then there's things like aircraft, ships and ground transport all of which are mostly or at least substantially releasing their heat well away from cities.

Now that's heat not CO2 but all up there's a hell of a lot of it. I won't claim to know the effects but I very much doubt it is zero.

The same basic concept applies to everything man puts into the air. Added up there's a lot of it and the effects aren't going to be nothing at all and that's true whether it's carbon dioxide or if it's dichlorodifluoromethane.


----------



## Darc Knight (4 December 2018)

Geez, some of this is very worrying.


----------



## Junior (4 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That sums up my thinking on the whole issue.
> 
> All the coal, oil and gas burned ultimately ends up as heat added to the atmosphere. We also add heat to the atmosphere from other sources such as nuclear fission and primary electricity (hydro, wind etc - electricity that wasn't obtained from a heat source).
> 
> ...




....and then observe the sheer scale of all this in somewhere like China, or India.  I also think about the fact that *more than half* of the planet's forests have been levelled.

It blows me away that so many people think that all this human activity & distortion of the environment could have no effect on our climate.


----------



## basilio (4 December 2018)

Anyone going to hear  this  ?

*Civilisation may 'collapse' if climate change ignored: Attenborough*
Send via Email
*Katowice, Poland:* Famed naturalist Sir David Attenborough says human civilisation may collapse unless the world takes action to curb climate change.

The British TV presenter of nature documentaries told leaders gathered for a UN climate summit Monday that "right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years."
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/wo...nge-ignored-attenborough-20181204-p50jzs.html


----------



## basilio (4 December 2018)

Closer to home and *right now* the  multiple effects of CC are well and trult being felt by Queenslanders - whether they believe it or not.

* Bushfires in the tropics: Queensland faces terrifying new reality *
With cyclone season under way, exhausted emergency services are more aware than most that climate change is beginning to pose impossible challenges 

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...land-terrifying-new-reality-cyclones-flooding


----------



## basilio (6 December 2018)

Latest research on melting of the Greenland Ice Cap. 

*Greenland's ice sheet melting rate is accelerating, scientists confirm*
Key points:

Greenland melting rate has been up to five times greater in last 20 years than pre-industrial rates
Melting is following an exponential trajectory where small temperature increases equal much greater melt rates
The Greenland ice sheet holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres
 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-12-06/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-accelerating/10581980


----------



## explod (6 December 2018)

No worries according to Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun here today.

The absolute blindness of our community is the big thing washing us away.

Good posts recently and wish there was a sad tick box.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 December 2018)

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/...-2.7,-world-'off-course'-to-curb-warming.html



> Global emissions of carbon dioxide mainly from fossil fuel burning will rise 2.7 percent in 2018




I agree that it would be very wise to reduce emissions and indeed pollution in general but please don't anyone tell me that the rest of the world is doing so and Australia is the odd one out. Very clearly that isn't the case.


----------



## basilio (7 December 2018)

More unparalleled heat waves in OZ.  Interestingly the article discuss many of the comments made by Smurf et al about the effects of extreme temperatures on infrastructure .

*Extreme heatwave to stretch from northern WA to Adelaide and Melbourne*
*Western Australia's tropical north is about to experience a type of heat that is exceptional even for its standards.
*
Key points:

Temperatures in some towns are forecast to hover in the mid-40s for consecutive days
Fitzroy Crossing's forecast 47C maximum will be a record breaker for December
The heat will extend in an arc down to Adelaide and Melbourne
 

Parts of the north will be gripped by an extreme heatwave — the highest intensity there is.

The Bureau Of Meteorology (BOM) defines a heatwave as three or more days in a row in which both day and night temperatures are unusually high for that specific location. 

The temperature at Fitzroy Crossing is tipped to reach 47 degrees Celsius on Saturday, which would be a record breaker for December.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12...om-northern-wa-to-melbourne-adelaide/10590776


----------



## Junior (7 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/...-2.7,-world-'off-course'-to-curb-warming.html
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it would be very wise to reduce emissions and indeed pollution in general but please don't anyone tell me that the rest of the world is doing so and Australia is the odd one out. Very clearly that isn't the case.




This idea that the Western world got the privilege of being able to burn loads of coal, so therefore India, China, and the 3rd world etc. get to do the same until they are rich, is so absurd.  Let's completely destroy the planet, in the pursuit of economic "fairness", and then try and deal with the fallout in a few decades' time.

Technology is advancing so rapidly in the energy space....surely there is no need to build any new coal-fired plants.  Sure, keep what we have until they reach maturity, but there are so many cleaner options for new power generation.


----------



## explod (8 December 2018)

So early in summer its burning hot in WA and coming towards us:-

/www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-06/extreme-heatwave-from-northern-wa-to-melbourne-adelaide/10590776?smid=Page:%20ABC%20Rural-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf203777951=1&smid=Page:%20Gardening%20Australia-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf203817871=1

*"Key points:*

Temperatures in some towns are forecast to hover in the mid-40s for consecutive days
Fitzroy Crossing's forecast 47C maximum will be a record breaker for December
The heat will extend in an arc down to Adelaide and Melbourne



Parts of the north will be gripped by an extreme heatwave — the highest intensity there is.

The Bureau Of Meteorology (BOM) defines a heatwave as three or more days in a row in which both day and night temperatures are unusually high for that specific location.

The temperature at Fitzroy Crossing is tipped to reach 47 degrees Celsius on Saturday, which would be a record breaker for December."


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 December 2018)

Junior said:


> Technology is advancing so rapidly in the energy space....surely there is no need to build any new coal-fired plants.  Sure, keep what we have until they reach maturity, but there are so many cleaner options for new power generation.



There's also the question of efficiently operating what we've already got.

Eg Jeeralang is an old (commissioned 1979-80) and fairly inefficient gas-fired power station in Victoria. It was built by the former SECV for backup and peak load operation and whilst now dated it still performs that role well enough. So I'm not suggesting it be demolished or anything like that, it'll do another decade of service in its intended role which involves sitting there doing nothing most of the time but being capable of starting up quickly if needed.

But today is not a day of high demand, not even close, but there are some generating units at Jeeralang running. That certainly wasn't the intention when it was built.

Meanwhile in Adelaide there are 4 machines online at Torrens Island, all of which are more efficient than Jeeralang and all operating well below capacity.

Electricity is currently flowing from Vic to SA.

Costs and emissions could be cut within literally 5 minutes simply by transferring load from Jeeralang to Torrens Island thus gaining both more efficient generation and reducing transmission losses.

So why doesn't it happen?

Well that's best explained by saying Jeeralang is independently owned but operates under contract to Energy Australia whilst Torrens Island is owned by AGL.

A quick phone call would have things sorted really easily but then the ACCC would be looking to throw someone in jail for collusion.

Another more efficient option would be Bairnsdale power station (Vic) which is doing nothing at the moment. That one belongs to Alinta however.

Those are just examples but the same principle applies more broadly. Costs and emissions could both be cut by better use of what we've already built. Politics and ideology is what stops it not engineering or technical limits.

Note that I'm not criticising AGL, Alinta or Energy Australia here. They're just doing what the rules say they must do in a world where economic ideology is viewed as more important, as per the law, than technical efficiency to reduce costs and emissions.


----------



## basilio (8 December 2018)

There have an unprecedented number of bushfires in Queensland fanned by record temperatures, high winds and extremely dry landscape.  This is climate change in action.
* From space, the ferocity of Queensland’s bushfires is revealed *
By Mark Doman

Digital Story Innovation Team

Updated earlier today at 8:55am
Published earlier today at 6:05am
In the face of an unimaginable bushfire threat, emergency agencies delivered a dire warning: evacuate now or burn to death.

For many, it was a signal that last week’s unfolding emergency would be unlike any fire Queensland had faced in recent memory.

In a perfect storm of extreme heat and fierce winds, fires erupted across a huge stretch of Queensland.

Properties were razed and entire towns were almost wiped off the map.

*The fires were so intense they even penetrated rainforests — a phenomenal occurrence which has astounded and alarmed fire scientists.*

*“Rainforests are non-burnable. That’s one of their distinguishing features. So if a rainforest is burning, that’s really significant,” said David Bowman, Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science at the University of Tasmania.*
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12...of-queenslands-bushfires-is-revealed/10594662


----------



## basilio (10 December 2018)

So while the rainforests burn, the oil allies  decide nothing significant is going to happen.
* US and Russia ally with Saudi Arabia to water down climate pledge *
Move shocks delegates at UN conference as ministers fly in for final week of climate talks

Jonathan Watts and Ben Doherty

Mon 10 Dec 2018 02.06 AEDT   Last modified on Mon 10 Dec 2018 10.50 AEDT


Shares
5,494




Protesters on Sunday in Katowice, which is hosting the UN climate conference. Photograph: Sadak Souici/Le Pictorium/Barcroft Images
The US and Russia have thrown climate talks into disarray by allying with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to water down approval of a landmark report on the need to keep global warming below 1.5C.

After a heated two-and-a-half-hour debate on Saturday night, the backwards step by the four major oil producers shocked delegates at the UN climate conference in Katowice as ministers flew in for the final week of high-level discussions.

It has also raised fears among scientists that the US president, Donald Trump, is going from passively withdrawing from climate talks to actively undermining them alongside a coalition of climate deniers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ly-saudi-arabia-water-down-climate-pledges-un


----------



## basilio (13 December 2018)

The effects of global warming on the Arctic and Antarctic are stark. Raising ocean temperatures by a couple of degrees tales HUGE energy input. The consequences however are the accelerated undermining the ice caps which regulate our current weather patterns.

*An Upheaval at the Ends of the World*
Two new reports find that the North and South Poles face an “unprecedented” climate future.

.... On Monday, a new NASA report warned that ancient glaciers in Antarctica are “waking up” and beginning to dump ice into the sea, which could eventually raise sea levels.

The following day, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its new Arctic Report Card, which finds that the top of the world is also thawing, melting, and breaking down. The Arctic is undergoing a period of “record and near-record warmth unlike any period on record,” the report says. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...nprecedented-climate-future-nasa-says/577915/


----------



## Knobby22 (13 December 2018)

basilio said:


> The effects of global warming on the Arctic and Antarctic are stark. Raising ocean temperatures by a couple of degrees tales HUGE energy input. The consequences however are the accelerated undermining the ice caps which regulate our current weather patterns.
> 
> *An Upheaval at the Ends of the World*
> Two new reports find that the North and South Poles face an “unprecedented” climate future.
> ...



Hi Basilio
The Antarctic was meant to hold out a lot more and also the losses from the increased glacier movement some say would to be counteracted by increased snowfall on part of the continent.
The article is worrying but it's good that they aren't definitive of how the melting will continue so fingers crossed.


----------



## basilio (13 December 2018)

On the constructive side of this discussion.

A proposal on using a carbon tax *that would leave most households better off. *Not a bad idea for a tax is it ?
*Fresh thinking: the carbon tax that would leave households better off *
Today, as part of the UNSW Grand Challenge on Inequality, we release a study entitled A Climate Dividend for Australians that offers a practical solution to the twin problems of climate change and energy affordability.
It’s a serious, market-based approach to address climate change through a carbon tax, but it would also leave around three-quarters of Australians financially better off.
It is based on a carbon dividend plan formulated by the Washington-based Climate Leadership Council, which includes luminaries such as Larry Summers, George Schultz and James Baker. It is similar to a plan proposed by the US (and Australian) Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
How it would work
Carbon emissions would be taxed at A$50 per ton, with the proceeds returned to ordinary Australians as carbon dividends. 
The dividends would be significant — a tax-free payment of about A$1,300 per adult. 
The average household would be A$585 a year better off after taking account of price increases that would flow through from producers. 
https://theconversation.com/fresh-t...that-would-leave-households-better-off-107177


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2018)

basilio said:


> On the constructive side of this discussion.
> 
> A proposal on using a carbon tax *that would leave most households better off. *Not a bad idea for a tax is it ?
> *Fresh thinking: the carbon tax that would leave households better off *
> ...




Let's see Morrison knock that one off.


----------



## basilio (14 December 2018)

At what stage will this argument be  appreciated and acknowledged  ? I would be very interested to hear what the insurance costs have been for the 2018 fires in US, Canada and Sweden.  Some expensive properties and infrastructure were destroyed in those fires

It was also significant that in the California fires  the heat was so extreme there were concerns that underground infrastructure like electricity, water, communication and gas mains were damaged.

* Tackle climate or face financial crash, say world's biggest investors *
UN summit urged to end all coal burning and introduce substantial taxes on emissions

Damian Carrington in Katowice

 
 @dpcarrington 
Mon 10 Dec 2018 11.01 AEDT   Last modified on Mon 10 Dec 2018 11.55 AEDT

Global investors managing $32tn issued a stark warning to governments at the UN climate summit on Monday, demanding urgent cuts in carbon emissions and the phasing out of all coal burning. Without these, the world faces a financial crash several times worse than the 2008 crisis, they said.

The investors include some of the world’s biggest pension funds, insurers and asset managers and marks the largest such intervention to date. They say fossil fuel subsidies must end and substantial taxes on carbon be introduced.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-financial-crash-say-worlds-biggest-investors


----------



## wayneL (14 December 2018)

Talk to China and India

We're chump change bas


----------



## basilio (14 December 2018)

So the Adani coal mine is "chump change " Wayne? One of the biggest new coal mines in the world  being proposed isn't significant ? 
Hardly...


----------



## explod (14 December 2018)

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...s35UQ2Hawhmhc19GOhJC4x1kvZoO7_vouhRWcXtGcE-lM

"
India has cancelled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – with the price for solar electricity “free falling” to levels once considered impossible.

Analyst Tim Buckley said the shift away from the dirtiest fossil fuel and towards solar in India would have “profound” implications on global energy markets."


----------



## basilio (14 December 2018)

If we wanted to tackle global heating/ land degradation/ better farming  cost effectively then this well proven process should storm the  world.

The trouble of course is that  it doesn't seem to make anyone particularly rich. It just works very well..

* Reforesting the world: the Australian farmer with 240m trees to his name *
Tony Rinaudo’s regeneration technique, developed in west Africa 30 years ago, has helped bring back forest over 6m hectares

Ben Doherty in Katowice, Poland

 
 @bendohertycorro 
Fri 14 Dec 2018 10.17 AEDT


 
Shares
832




Australian farmer Tony Rinaudo discovered a solution to restoring trees in Africa’s Sahel region affected by extreme deforestation. Photograph: Silas Koch/World Vision
Through the cacophony of the UN’s global climate talks, an Australian farmer is quietly spreading his plan to reforest the world.

Over more than 30 years in west Africa, Tony Rinaudo has regenerated more than 6m hectares – an area nearly as large as Tasmania. His farmer-managed natural regeneration technique is responsible for 240m trees regrowing across that parched continent.

But it very nearly never happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/14/reforesting-world-australian-farmer-240m-trees


----------



## Darc Knight (14 December 2018)

wayneL said:


> Talk to China and India
> 
> We're chump change bas




You know you can't win Wayne. Good will always truimph over evil. Well at least that what the Batman movies teach us


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2018)

basilio said:


> So the Adani coal mine is "chump change " Wayne? One of the biggest new coal mines in the world  being proposed isn't significant ?
> Hardly...




Sifu's reason will be that whoever burn it, own it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 December 2018)

luutzu said:


> Sifu's reason will be that whoever burn it, own it.



That concept seems pretty well accepted in the whole debate.

The emissions from my car are Australian emissions, they're not "owned' by someone in the Middle East who extracted the fuel.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That concept seems pretty well accepted in the whole debate.
> 
> The emissions from my car are Australian emissions, they're not "owned' by someone in the Middle East who extracted the fuel.




Some on the Left expect Australia to "own" the emissions of our coal sold to India , China etc.


----------



## basilio (14 December 2018)

It's complicated isn't it ? Perhaps the clearest statement is that  we know that burning coal will create even more GG that will accelerate global heating.  That is quite apart from the air pollution,  use of water resources in power plants and damage to the environment from the mining practices.

The Adani mine will be one of the biggest mines around.  It will cause  direct significant damage to our own environment (Great Barrier Reef)  as well as potentially fueling  coal fired power stations. It also ends the message that Australia isn't serious about moving to a clean energy future.

The issue of who "owns" emissions is always complicated. Our production of fossil fuels does mean we are responsible for their emissions. But in the end we will all suffer the consequences of global heating.


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That concept seems pretty well accepted in the whole debate.
> 
> The emissions from my car are Australian emissions, they're not "owned' by someone in the Middle East who extracted the fuel.




That's the same thing my local drug pusher said


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Some on the Left expect Australia to "own" the emissions of our coal sold to India , China etc.




Not trying to be on some sort of moral high ground, me being a capitalist and all ... but from the perspective of, say, a moral impartial judge deciding whose hands bloody.. it's not just the guys who import the stuff right? 

Either way, we're all going to pay the price anyway. Well, maybe the poor now... all the grandkids will, soon enough.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 December 2018)

basilio said:


> It also ends the message that Australia isn't serious about moving to a clean energy future.



It can all be summed up in one word. "Globalisation".

We dumped manufacturing and science based things in favour of exporting coal, gas and "education", the latter being substantially a code word for "immigration" in practice.

So we've very heavily tied our economy to growth and CO2 emissions. Therein lies the dilemma.

Generating electricity for Australian use is the relatively easy bit. Replacing the economic role of fossil fuel exports and population growth is a much bigger challenge.


----------



## basilio (17 December 2018)

We need a new story don't we? 

Frankly I can easily see new economic opportunities from massive changes in economic direction.
Examples
1) Developing a hydrogen economy based on solar energy production. This includes export of hydrogen.
2) Massive overhaul of energy production to create a clean renewable energy economy
3) Reviewing much of our consumption behaviour and creating  new incentives for quality, recyclable long life products vs short term promotion of tat. 
4) Looking at massive land regeneration projects to protect and expand current bio-systems
5) Focusing attention on improving the energy and resource efficiency of our current infrastructure
6) Tackling the mountains of waste and pollution we have already created and effectively dealing them. Start with the sea of plastics.
7) Having long, hard, uncomfortable look at what the known effects of global heating will be and attempting to strengthen our infrastructure to deal with the inevitable.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2018)

basilio said:


> We need a new story don't we?
> 
> Frankly I can easily see new economic opportunities from massive changes in economic direction.
> Examples
> ...




All of the above should be done.

I can't see it happening while our political parties are only interested in winning elections by handing over the capital needed to do such things as tax cuts mainly to people who don't need them.

There don't seem to be any visionaries around in politics these days. They would be suffocated by the spin doctors and factional warlords in all the parties.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 December 2018)

We are breaking the record for ice melt in the Antarctic seas which was broken the year before.
It is really strange and no one really seems to know why, it was not that long ago that there was extra ice than previous years. The cause seems to be warm air coming down but why is this occurring? The scientists all seem to be at a loss and don't seem to have any theories to explain it.
We shouldn't jump to conclusions. It could easily reverse next year imo. I hope so.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/      Click on a picture and scroll using the right arrow to see the Antarctic satellite measurements.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...out-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.706804b2c64f


----------



## basilio (27 December 2018)

Another summer. More relentless heat.  More temperature records being broken. More global heating. 
*Outback town smashes temperature records with 28 days above 40C in one month*

Forget frying an egg on the footpath, in Tennant Creek you could roast a whole chook in the main square, as the town heads towards its 28th day above 40C this December.

ttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-27/bureau-of-meteorology-says-heat-records-broken-in-outback/10670438


----------



## basilio (27 December 2018)

And the heatwave is not just in Tennant Creek....
 
*Australia's extreme heatwave spans five states with high of 49C forecast *
Weather bureau tells Pilbara residents to expect scorching temperatures
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...e-spans-five-states-with-high-of-49c-forecast


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 December 2018)

basilio said:


> And the heatwave is not just in Tennant Creek....



Whilst I do agree with the general observation that the climate is changing, prior to this current heatwave I was thinking that the media is going overboard. Whilst legitimate as such, the recent heat hasn't really changed that thought.

In just the past 15 or so weeks there has according to the media been a devastating drought which affected most of the country, widespread flooding, several "super cell" storms and Sydney has been "smashed" twice and that was before the recent hail storm.

Now as I said I do accept the notion of climate change but some of the media reporting is getting over the top. I don't pay to read anything put out by News Corp but they're pushing this like their life depends on it. Every few days there's another "smashing" event or similar.

Maybe it's just me but I've never been keen on sensationalism. Just report the facts - yes there's weather, yes the climate changes but Sydney isn't in ruins just yet.

My cat has not read about this "smashing" and also hasn't read any guides on how to survive a heatwave. Despite the thermometer at home recording 45.0 degrees yesterday, and whilst it's not a calibrated device it's in the shade etc so should be reasonably accurate, and despite the cat being mostly unfamiliar with the concept of hot weather due to having lived all of her life in Tasmania prior to moving to SA, she worked it out quite easily. Drink plenty of water, sit on the concrete in the shade, that's it really. Go inside if she gets too hot although she was more interested in watching me sweating it out cutting up a fallen tree branch. 

So yes I do "get it" about the issue but I also think the media's going too far. An aspect of real concern there being the "boy who cried wolf" scenario. Keep telling everyone that half the country's about to burn to the ground on a pretty normal hot day and I'll give you one firm guarantee - pretty much nobody will heed a genuinely catastrophic danger when it does arise due to too many false scares.


----------



## Humid (28 December 2018)

Yeah and under the current environment with the Libs they want you to fly into the Pilbara on $ 45 flat an hour and wonder why they can’t get anyone 
Leave your family for weeks on end in trying conditions on **** money
Then scream they can’t get labour 
3 weeks ago at Mesa J it was 37 degrees at 5 in the morning 
Give 14 shifts at 14 hours a shift a go and see how your sailing when you get home
W@nkers


----------



## SirRumpole (28 December 2018)

Yes, but it's like frogs boiling to some people.

Go inside , turn the aircon up and the problem goes away.

Easy fixed.


----------



## qldfrog (28 December 2018)

A friend of mine is usually spending xmas by some relative in Adelaide and for as far as i can remember, has been swearing at around 45c every year.i agree with @Smurf that catastrophic headlines are not only misleading but a danger.not denying climate change or its human cause but the brain washing attached os becominn unbearable to any independent thinker.but i appreciate one quote from Basilio
"7) Having long, hard, uncomfortable look at what the known effects of global heating will be and attempting to strengthen our infrastructure to deal with the inevitable."
Please note "inevitable"
"We" can do a little bit but when world population increase yearly by 84 millions, our leaders should have the obligation to go into remediation mode.and invest as such.
for the root cause
giving free birth control to india or PC forgive me Indonesia,
Africa  or Middle east would do more to reduce global warming than any protest against Adani.
Not that i like these crooks either but i wish the Green were actually more into saving the planet than sticking to far left agendas.
Now for the backlash...


----------



## SirRumpole (28 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> giving free birth control to india or PC forgive me Indonesia,




Our leaders should make it clear that Australia is NOT going to be the dumping ground for excess population growth in other parts of the world.

The "ageing population" argument for continual immigration is not sustainable, even if we have 500 million and all the farms and forests have been turned into housing estates there will still be people saying that our population is ageing and we need still more people to look after them.

Population growth is a ponzi scheme. We need to use technology better to supply the population we have.


----------



## basilio (28 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> "We" can do a little bit but when world population increase yearly by 84 millions, our leaders should have the obligation to go into remediation mode.and invest as such.
> for the root cause
> giving free birth control to india or PC forgive me Indonesia,
> Africa or Middle east would do more to reduce global warming than any protest against Adani.




QldFrog I think you are going way off track and missing the point about the causes and possible responses to global warming.
Firstly we are facing many problems - a number of which are interrelated. There are no simple solutions - if in fact, at this stage, there are any realistic solutions at all. Blaming population growth in India/Indonesia for global warming is missing the point that Australia, US and Western world in general contributes far more to GG emissions that are causing global  heating than India/Indonesia etc. Yes over population is a problem but the salient issue is actually overuse of resources and destruction of our ecosystems. (You can do that just as easily with a small increase of very wasteful people)

You suggest that protesting against Adani is futile/not necessary/whatever. That overlooks the incredible damage that trying to support new coal fired powered stations is doing to the environment. Whether it's massive depletion of  ground water, creating particulate pollution that kills millions of people or making huge contributions to increasing GG that will accelerate global heating it's all disastrous.
*What makes it even worse is when we are now quite certain that renewable energy sources are cheaper than  coal - as well as producing minimal pollution and being long lasting.
*
One of the best ways we can help India and other developing countries to reduce *their* impact on global heating is supporting their development of renewable energy technology and cleaner production - which of course is also exactly what we should be doing.


----------



## basilio (28 December 2018)

One of the uncomfortable realities of global heating is acknowledging and preparing for hotter and drier conditions than we previously faced with the consequence of far more catastrophic bushfires than we previously experienced. Fire fighters have had to reassess how they fight fires that have become far too dangerous to approach.  The advent of firestorms etc.

This is happening now.
*Total fire bans as catastrophic fire conditions predicted for part of South Australia*
A forecast for hot and windy conditions has prompted South Australia's Country Fire Service to issue a catastrophic fire danger warning for the state's Mid North region today.
.. "In some areas of the state, conditions will be that bad that it will be possible that it is not safe to stay and defend," Mr Stanley said.

"If you have a bushfire survival plan and your plan is to leave, I'd encourage you to make those arrangements now rather than leave it to the last minute, when it can potentially be too late and your life could be put at risk."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-28/catastrophic-fire-conditions-in-south-australia/10670818


----------



## qldfrog (28 December 2018)

basilio said:


> QldFrog I think you are going way off track and missing the point about the causes and possible responses to global warming.
> Firstly we are facing many problems - a number of which are interrelated. There are no simple solutions - if in fact, at this stage, there are any realistic solutions at all. Blaming population growth in India/Indonesia for global warming is missing the point that Australia, US and Western world in general contributes far more to GG emissions that are causing global  heating than India/Indonesia etc. Yes over population is a problem but the salient issue is actually overuse of resources and destruction of our ecosystems. (You can do that just as easily with a small increase of very wasteful people)
> 
> You suggest that protesting against Adani is futile/not necessary/whatever. That overlooks the incredible damage that trying to support new coal fired powered stations is doing to the environment. Whether it's massive depletion of  ground water, creating particulate pollution that kills millions of people or making huge contributions to increasing GG that will accelerate global heating it's all disastrous.
> ...



Not sure India or China, Indonesia needs help, this is an attitude in the west which is actually very arrogant and proves many people have not been traveling much there in the the last 30y.
I do not disagree with you cf power cost etc, but even if every Australian was releasing 10 times as much as an everage chinese, we are peanuts, the yearly emissions of the west will become negligeable 
And every new mouth to feed will consume food aka oil, iron ,plastics.
However unpleasant this might be, the future of the planet is out of our hands.even that australian coal is mostly use for steel making, not power stations.there is 200y of coal consumption available in china indonesia india alone..exacts figures these are not, but you can look, i am not far of the scale.we are a minor player..not in export but in overall production
With our demographic loss of power, the west has also lost the control of our future.
These are basically my points.
Resistance to facts is futile, so we'd better try to protect what we can at home, and as i said before, do our little bit if / when we can but not by commiting economic suicide "a la EU"


----------



## qldfrog (28 December 2018)

Anyone else having issues with the typing spellerchecker when posting on asf? I have annoying issues only when posting here! From an Android phone
So my apologies cf typos


----------



## explod (28 December 2018)

Agree with you qldfrog.  The game is up, just bar up your door and party while you can


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 December 2018)

qldfrog said:


> not denying climate change or its human cause but the brain washing attached os becominn unbearable to any independent thinker



If I go back to the end of primary school then at that point the only Australian states I'd ever been to were Tas, Vic and Qld. Flying anywhere cost a lot more back then than it does now and my family weren't wealthy.

I'm very sure however that I knew at that age that Adelaide experiences extreme heat during Summer as does most of inland Australia. I'd heard of Marble Bar, knew that the town is famous for being hot, and also knew that water is scarce in much of Australia.

Knowing that is much like saying just about everyone knows that there's a major underground train system in London and that there's a lot of tall buildings in New York city. You don't need to have been there to know that, it's common knowledge.

Climate change as such is a potentially very serious matter in terms of consequences and that is so regardless of the cause be it CO2, other gases, heat release, natural cycles or whatever.

Everything man has built thus far takes into account the natural environment to some extent. It's a very major problem if, for example, we find that the sea level is no longer comparable to that on which we based $ trillions worth of infrastructure globally including entire cities. It's a problem if the air temperature reaches a point where buses don't work and planes can't take off (temperature most certainly is a factor in the engine power and weight limit calculations for large aircraft since the engines have considerably less power at high air temperatures). And that's without mentioning the effects on living things be they humans, cats, koalas, trees or whatever.

I do wish though that the media would stop sensationalising weather events that aren't uncommon. That's just wasting effort that would be better directed at the real issues with all of this.


----------



## basilio (28 December 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I do wish though that the media would stop sensationalising weather events that aren't uncommon. That's just wasting effort that would be better directed at the real issues with all of this




Smurf you always make a lot of sense and your points about preparing for the changes that are happening are  exceptionally valid.

I have to say though that IMV the media is not sensationalising weather events that aren't uncommon. The facts are that each year we are regularly breaking temperature records around the country.  These are either stretches of extreme temperatures, earlier or later record temperatures, record overnight minimums whatever.

These reflect the reality of a climate that is not what it was 20-30 years ago. Bureau of Met figures are clear proof of rapid increase in temperatures since 1970.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/

What we do lack is what you are asking for  - a recognition that global heating is real, continuing to grow and has to dealt with. But that reality is still being denied or ignored.


----------



## qldfrog (28 December 2018)

explod said:


> Agree with you qldfrog.  The game is up, just bar up your door and party while you can



No partying, i have a son and have spent my life fighting for nature, but denial is no help (of the fact that mankind can not and will not revert course here), nor is an inflated ego as to what the west can do.
Mother nature might sort it out: a pandemic, a timed solar flare, man's owns nuclear or bio warfare but there is no realistic hope in seing emissions reducing in the medium term.so do not dance but be prepared


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 December 2018)

basilio said:


> I have to say though that IMV the media is not sensationalising weather events that aren't uncommon.



It may depend on which media?

I say that in an effort to explain not to disagree for the sake of it etc. 

In the past 15 weeks what I've seen reported, not just local but national, which seems somewhat sensationalist to me includes two separate occurrences of Sydney being "smashed" or "absolutely smashed" and overall there has been some dire weather warning literally every week or two.

If Sydney has actually been "smashed" then I'd expect a considerable death toll and that reconstruction is going to take years. A lot of things will be ruined, many people will be homeless and there will be some call for volunteers to assist along with probably sending in the Army.

In reality there was some flooding of train stations, basements etc so it wasn't good but not exactly a case of the whole city being "smashed". The hail storm wasn't one of the media's "smashing" events so can't count that one.

It's much the same when the media decides that we need a "survival guide" for a blackout. They must be expecting a pretty major blackout if survival is going to be an issue for 99% of people (and FWIW their advice completely ignores the few people for whom life might actually be in danger - people on life support machines at home or with heat sensitive illnesses etc).

My concern is with the media more than it is with the climate in this context.


----------



## basilio (28 December 2018)

I see your point Smurf. Your quite right noting the sensationalising of the Sydney weather events. I don't follow those stories so I didn't notice it.

It's interesting though to recognise that these extreme weather events are related to global heating. They are the extreme weather events that are made more extreme by increases in temperature in the atmosphere.

In terms of damage/effects ? I'd be interested to know what the insurance cost will be for these hailstorms and floods. Again these consequences will be felt in the next 12 mnths as insurance companies try to get some money back from the claims that are made.

And after all that the question remains - Is anyone taking a deep breath and acknowledging the systematic nature of the change in our climate and the ongoing cause ? When can expect such a "statement " ?


----------



## qldfrog (28 December 2018)

basilio said:


> And after all that the question remains - Is anyone taking a deep breath and acknowledging the systematic nature of the change in our climate and the ongoing cause ? When can expect such a "statement " ?



Honestly Basilio, I think any common sense educated (that does not mean brainwashed!) person has now reached that stage, but not that many wants to change their way.
We forget that for many in the world, having 2C or 4C temperature increase would be very welcome:
Canada, some parts of the US and Europe, Russia, most of China so billions on this earth are actually rejoicing at the thought of a few degrees extra.
Obviously it is hard to take that stance when living in Australia (Except maybe in Tasmania  )
And now a huge majority of people are living in towns so even more decoupled from weather.
This and my previous posts are the conclusions i draw from having spent more time in Asia this year than in Australia (for work).
When you experience Beijing air pollution, you can then understand how 1.5 billion people (and probably 3 billions if including India) which are contributing to most of the global warming growth do not give a rat about greenhouse gases.Sure with clean energy, they would have cleaner air, but the focus is on air,water and so goes the effort 
An uncomfortable truth.....
I hope this bring people another view on the issue.As i have said before, I "believe" (a term I do not like in this context) in man made global warming and as per my sad usual stand have a very pessimistic view on the future.I do not consider myself a denier, but a realist.


----------



## basilio (3 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> When you experience Beijing air pollution, you can then understand how 1.5 billion people (and probably 3 billions if including India) which are contributing to most of the global warming growth do not give a rat about greenhouse gases.Sure with clean energy, they would have cleaner air, but the focus is on air,water and so goes the effort




Perhaps this is one of the factors In Chinas and Indias  very rapid move to wind and solar power and closing of coal fired powered stations?
https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/business/investment-deals/china-switch-to-renewable-electricity/
https://www.dw.com/en/china-leads-in-global-shift-to-renewable-energy/a-43266203


----------



## basilio (3 January 2019)

If you want to see a turbo charging of  Global Heating just watch as Bolsonaro clears the rest of the Amazon in the name of progress and turns  it from a carbon sink to a creator of CO2. Didn't have to wait long to see his priorities did we ?

* Jair Bolsonaro launches assault on Amazon rainforest protections *
Executive order transfers regulation and creation of indigenous reserves to agriculture ministry controlled by agribusiness lobby

Dom Phillips in Rio de Janeiro

 
 @domphillips 
Thu 3 Jan 2019 04.33 AEDT   Last modified on Thu 3 Jan 2019 09.56 AEDT


1:29
Jair Bolsonaro's provocative views in six clips – video
Hours after taking office, Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, has launched an assault on environmental and Amazon protections with an executive order transferring the regulation and creation of new indigenous reserves to the agriculture ministry – which is controlled by the powerful agribusiness lobby.

The move sparked outcry from indigenous leaders, who said it threatened their reserves, which make up about 13% of Brazilian territory, and marked a symbolic concession to farming interests at a time when deforestation is rising again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/02/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-amazon-rainforest-protections

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/


----------



## Darc Knight (5 January 2019)

"University of Queensland snake expert Professor Bryan Fry says climate change has brought longer periods of warm weather, which means snakes are active for longer periods of each year.

"Their activity season may now stretch to April or May, where in some areas it may have previously slowed down by March as things cooled down," he said on Saturday.

"Snakes are another indicator of this unnatural strain on nature as the climate gets hotter for longer."

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/po...-overnight-in-queensland-20190105-p50pqz.html


----------



## basilio (7 January 2019)

And now for something *compleeeteeely* different. A Climate change story like you've never seen before.
Give it  a few minutes.  Give it a bit longer.  See if you can't spot every meme, distraction, misdirection, or flying snowball. 

Not to mention watermelon earth


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2019)

Not only are land temperatures rising, so are the oceans.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ceans-equivalent-to-an-atomic-bomb-per-second


----------



## basilio (9 January 2019)




----------



## explod (16 January 2019)

51 celsius at 12.37 in Mildura today.


----------



## explod (16 January 2019)

Our planet is 4.6 billion years old.

If we scale that to 46 years we have been here for four hours,

the industrial revolution began one minute ago and in that time we have destroyed more than half the world's forests. 

Trees make the rain and our oxygen.

A bit off topic which is why we need a general chat on climate to take it all in together.  But then it's just party time in fact


----------



## basilio (18 January 2019)

Back in the real world of an Australia that is cooking..

* Australia heatwave: overnight minimum of 35.9C in Noona sets new record *
On fifth day of record-breaking extreme weather, temperatures in parts of Victoria, ACT and NSW forecast to soar above 40C, including in Sydney’s west
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...west-to-hit-45c-after-week-of-extreme-weather


----------



## basilio (18 January 2019)

explod said:


> .
> 
> A bit off topic which is why we need a general chat on climate to take it all in together.  But then it's just party time in fact




Your right Explod. Did you check out  the  Confounds the Science song  above? It did pull it all together nd was very powerful in doing so.


----------



## explod (18 January 2019)

Yes Bas, good.

And that other type of thread is aimed at keeping those not sure about climate change in the uncertain lane.  And the deniers will throw all the rubbish they can on the reality of what even us laypeople can see and are experiencing.

And bitumen roads are melting all over the place and possums falling dead out of the trees.


----------



## rederob (18 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Back in the real world of an Australia that is cooking..
> 
> * Australia heatwave: overnight minimum of 35.9C in Noona sets new record *
> On fifth day of record-breaking extreme weather, temperatures in parts of Victoria, ACT and NSW forecast to soar above 40C, including in Sydney’s west
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...west-to-hit-45c-after-week-of-extreme-weather



Lots of people focus on maximum temperatures for climate change, but if ever there were a yardstick to sort the wheat from the chaff, its record minimums.
The simple reason for this is that CO2 *traps *heat rather than amplify it. See pages *43,43 here* for Australian trends.


----------



## Joules MM1 (18 January 2019)

explod said:


> Our planet is 4.6 billion years old.
> 
> If we scale that to 46 years we have been here for four hours,
> 
> ...




Trees are one small component of oxygen, most of the oxygen comes via phytoplankton, depending on who's data you refer to the total output is above 50% with a mean of 65%


----------



## explod (18 January 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> Trees are one small component of oxygen, most of the oxygen comes via phytoplankton, depending on who's data you refer to the total output is above 50% with a mean of 65%



Not just that, trees circulate and keep water fresh also, but importantly are the makers of primary rain bearing clouds.  And temperature too is reduced with cloud cover.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2019)

explod said:


> 51 celsius at 12.37 in Mildura today.



Think of the benefits.

You'll save on heating costs for a start. 

Plus you're getting a sauna free of charge. People pay good money for those you know. 

Move along, nothing to see here.... 

Seriously, 51 is rather warm yes.


----------



## qldfrog (19 January 2019)

Anyone knows what is actually the liveable limit without air cond, i mean with good house design, etc


----------



## rederob (19 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Anyone knows what is actually the liveable limit without air cond, i mean with good house design, etc



Ask the folk at Coober Pedy where every maximum this coming week is expected to be over 40 degrees:





Gotta love the need for a fireplace.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Ask the folk at Coober Pedy where every maximum this coming week is expected to be over 40 degrees



I've never been to Coober Pedy but I've spent a night in a dugout at White Cliffs in NSW which is a similar opal mining town. It's very quiet and quite pleasant underground.

White Cliffs was also home to the world's first commercially operated solar power station back in the 1980's by the way. It's no longer in use but it's still there as such.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Anyone knows what is actually the liveable limit without air cond, i mean with good house design, etc



I don't know but a lot would depend on an individual's health I expect.

I'd expect that babies, the elderly, pregnant women and anyone with pretty much any illness (especially those which raise body temperature) would be particularly at risk. Just an assumption, I'm not a doctor.

A related issue is that there's a mix of housing types people actually live in in practice. Someone in an uninsulated place built of sheet metal or fibro in full sun is going to be in a very different situation to someone with a double brick place shaded by trees.

Also related is people going about day to day activities. Eg someone simply sitting down doing nothing of a physical nature is going to be in a different situation to someone performing any sort of physical labour. 

My understanding is that present day weather does produce an excess of deaths during extremes of hot or cold. It's not people dropping dead everywhere but the total number of deaths does increase on a very hot or very cold day. That's my understanding at least.


----------



## sptrawler (19 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Anyone knows what is actually the liveable limit without air cond, i mean with good house design, etc



My wife, myself and 3 kids under 4, lived in Exmouth W.A, in the early 80's for two years with no air con.
The house was low pitch roof, asbestos and tin, on stumps. 
One period of 13 days it never went below 36deg C day or night, 44-47 during the day 36-40 overnight.
It was uncomfortable, but we managed, at least we had ceiling fans, many of the early settlers had nothing.


----------



## basilio (19 January 2019)

We have had this discussion on the physical limits of heat and humidity on the human body. In fact there are climate science studies that  point out with the steady increase in global temperatures there will large areas of the earth that will produce temperatures that will kill people quite quickly.  This will happen in humid areas where temperatures reach 34-35C and people are unable to  sweat to cool themself.

Dry heat is a bit easier to survive.

*South Asia May Become Too Hot for Humans to Survive by 2100*
By  Tracy Staedter, Live Science Contributor  |  August 7, 2017 12:30pm ET













Families cool off in a pond during a heat wave on June 2, 2012, in New Delhi, India.
Credit: Daniel Berehulak /Getty Images
By the end of this century, temperatures in South Asia — a region where about one-fifth of the world's population lives — could become too hot and humid for people to survive, according to a new study.

Climate change in Pakistan, Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka could be so severe by the late 21st century that temperatures and humidity may exceed the upper levels of human survivability, scientists reported in a study published online Aug. 2 in the journal Science Advances. The hazard posed by such extreme conditions over a crescent-shaped region where 1.5 billion people live could have disastrous effects, the authors wrote. [The 8 Hottest Places on Earth]
https://www.livescience.com/60059-south-asia-may-become-too-hot-to-survive.html


----------



## basilio (19 January 2019)

Where is the world in terms of the effects of Global Heating ? As California was trashed with the most intense and extensive wild fire ever the National Climate Assessment issued it's report on what is happening with the  Earths climate and where we are heading.

The report was released and buried.

*A Grave Climate Warning, Buried on Black Friday*
In a massive new report, federal scientists contradict President Trump and assert that climate change is an intensifying danger to the United States. Too bad it came out on a holiday.

Robinson Meyer  Nov 23, 2018




Firefighters battle the King Fire near Fresh Pond, California, in September 2014.Noah Berger / Reuters

 Share
 Tweet
 Email
On Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, the federal government published a massive and dire new report on climate change. The report warns, repeatedly and directly, that climate change could soon imperil the American way of life, transforming every region of the country, imposing frustrating costs on the economy, and harming the health of virtually every citizen.

Most significantly, the National Climate Assessment—which is endorsed by NASA, NOAA, the Department of Defense, and 10 other federal scientific agencies—contradicts nearly every position taken on the issue by President Donald Trump. Where the president has insisted that fighting global warming will harm the economy, the report responds: Climate change, if left unchecked, could eventually cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and kill thousands of Americans to boot. Where the president has said that the climate will “probably” “change back,” the report replies: Many consequences of climate change will last for millennia, and some (such as the extinction of plant and animal species) will be permanent.

The report is a huge achievement for American science. It represents cumulative decades of work from more than 300 authors. Since 2015, scientists from across the U.S. government, state universities, and businesses have read thousands of studies, summarizing and collating them into this document. By law, a National Climate Assessment like this must be published every four years.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/national-climate-assessment-black-friday/576589/


----------



## basilio (21 January 2019)

The  hole in the ozone layer crisis would have destroyed most of life on earth if left unchecked. 
How did scientists  discover the problem?  How did we collectively manage to  address it  to the point that the hole is now gradually repairing ?

This story has much to offer in the current efforts to address global heating.

* How to stop the climate crisis: six lessons from the campaign that saved the ozone *
Thirty years ago, all 197 countries got together to ban the gases damaging the Earth’s ozone layer. Now we need to unite to combat an even greater threat. What can we learn from 1989?

Jonathan Watts

Mon 21 Jan 2019 02.00 AEDT   Last modified on Mon 21 Jan 2019 06.26 AEDT


 
Shares
1,704
* Comments*
 309 




The ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases has been an incredible success story. Composite: Alamy/Guardian Design
Amid the anti-globalist chest-thumping of Brexit, Donald Trump, and the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, it may sound like the stuff of folklore. But there was a time in the recent past when all the countries of the world moved quickly to discuss a common threat, agreed an ambitious plan of action and made it work.

The Montreal protocol, which came into effect 30 years ago, was drawn up to address the alarming thinning of the ozone layer in the Earth’s stratosphere. It was the first agreement in the history of the United Nations to be ratified by all 197 countries. Since it came into effect on 1 January 1989, more than 99% of the gases responsible for the problem have been eradicated and the “ozone hole” – which, in the late 80s, vied for headline space with the cold war, Diana, Princess of Wales, and Madonna – is receding in the sky and the memory.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...essons-from-the-campaign-that-saved-the-ozone


----------



## basilio (22 January 2019)

At what point will Australian towns become uninhabitable because of extreme temperatures and lack of water ? Maybe sooner than we think.
*Walgett loses all water, some air conditioning as heatwave pushes temperatures near 40 degrees*
ABC Western Plains
By  Lucy Thackray 
Updated 5 Jan 2019, 12:34am




* Photo:* The Barwon River continues to be a series of stagnant pools with the region reliant on bore water. (ABC News: Danielle Bonica) 
*Related Story:* When the drought forces communities to dig for drinking water
*Related Story:* The town with two rivers but no water left to drink
*Related Story:* Spring rain brings some short-term relief in NSW
Walgett residents have been left without water for a day after a breakdown at the local treatment plant, which also left some people without air conditioners, as western New South Wales sweated through a heatwave.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-04/crisis-as-walgett-loses-all-water-during-heatwave/10685466

* For centuries the rivers sustained Aboriginal culture. Now they are dry, elders despair *
An aerial image of the dried-out Namoi River outside Walgett. Photograph: Carly Earl for the Guardian
Indigenous people and farmers alike fear Walgett has only six months left if they don’t get water

by Lorena Allam and Carly Earl



Supported by
  About this content
Tue 22 Jan 2019 04.00 AEDT   Last modified on Tue 22 Jan 2019 11.33 AEDT

Shares
2,688
 
* Comments*
 5 
Driving across a bone-dry riverbed at Walgett, it’s easy to believe the worst predictions of climate disaster are happening as the temperature gauge on the car dashboard hits 49C.

Two rivers meet outside Walgett in north-west New South Wales: the Barwon and the Namoi. They are major tributaries in the Murray Darling system.

But they’re both empty, and this has never happened before.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...aboriginal-culture-dry-elders-despair-walgett

Gamilaraay and Yuwalaraay elders who have lived on these rivers all their lives cry when they say they have never seen it as bad as this, and they doubt it can ever be recovered.


----------



## rederob (22 January 2019)

basilio said:


> At what point will Australian towns become uninhabitable because of extreme temperatures and lack of water ? Maybe sooner than we think.



Bas
I was just reading through the "fake news" thread.
Clearly the linked photo @ post 1336 was taken in the dead of summer where there's an oxbow lake to the main river.
Everyone knows the river is always full in *winter*, after the seasonal heavy rains there. 
Everyone knows the ABC is full of *lefties *and *greenies *and cannot be trusted with the truth.
My thanks to noco for alerting me to Bas's trickiness .


----------



## basilio (22 January 2019)

rederob said:


> My thanks to noco for alerting me to Bas's trickiness .




Well that's dangerously clever..if Noco is still with us.. Or are you channeling him ?

Anyhow the question of when  towns become uninhabitable because of failing water supplies and sustained high temperatures  has to be considered. As each summer gets hotter and drier  I suggest the strains will tell.


----------



## rederob (22 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Well that's dangerously clever..if Noco is still with us.. Or are you channeling him ?
> 
> Anyhow the question of when  towns become uninhabitable because of failing water supplies and sustained high temperatures  has to be considered. As each summer gets hotter and drier  I suggest the strains will tell.



My uni thesis back in the 70's was on the drying of the Murray by 2000 unless there was federal intervention.  Over 40 years later we know that droughts are getting longer and more severe across the nation
I am in constant disbelief that governments continue to fail to act in advance of what we can forecast with near certainty.
Maybe the feds are leaving it to the states? dunno...........
Our farmers are world class, but they are literally a dying breed.  Who would want to be a farmer nowadays?


----------



## Ann (22 January 2019)

rederob said:


> My uni thesis back in the 70's was on the drying of the Murray by 2000 unless there was federal intervention.  Over 40 years later we know that droughts are getting longer and more severe across the nation
> I am in constant disbelief that governments continue to fail to act in advance of what we can forecast with near certainty.
> Maybe the feds are leaving it to the states? dunno...........
> Our farmers are world class, but they are literally a dying breed.  Who would want to be a farmer nowadays?




I know this is a bit off topic Rob but given your interest in the Murray did you see this article from last year?

* Australia gets UN to delete criticism of Murray-Darling basin plan from report *
_*Exclusive: *Co-author of study expresses shock at ‘complete ineptitude’ of government’s intervention

The federal government has successfully put pressure on the United Nations to delete all criticism of Australia’s $13bn effort to restore the ailing Murray-Darling river system from a published study, according to the author of an expert report.


The so-called “Australia chapter” has been removed from the UN report “Does Improved Irrigation Technology Save Water?” published online by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).   More....
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...cism-of-murray-darling-basin-plan-from-report
_


----------



## basilio (22 January 2019)

That was an appalling piece of deliberate misinformation by the government. I'm trying to remember when the water scandal issues blew up ?


----------



## basilio (22 January 2019)

Appros to Anns post the massive  fish kill in the Menindee  lakes  has just highlighted a litany of atrocious water use decisions by State and Federal Governments. 

* The Darling River fish kill is what comes from ignoring decades of science *





John Quiggin
Culture warriors’ policy amounts to listening to what scientists say we need to do, then doing the opposite

 
 @JohnQuiggin 
Tue 22 Jan 2019 15.27 AEDT   Last modified on Tue 22 Jan 2019 15.29 AEDT


Shares
32





‘Events like the Menindee fish kill bring home the cost of treating the environment as a cultural battleground.’ Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
The mass death of fish in Menindee Lakes is a disaster that has been a long time in the making. The story goes back to another disaster on the Darling River, a massive outbreak of blue-green algae that poisoned hundreds of kilometres of the river in 1991 and 1992. The outbreak was a dramatic illustration of decades of warnings from scientists and economists that too much water was being extracted from the river.

The first response was the imposition, in 1995 of a cap on extractions. The cap was meant as an emergency measure to prevent further disasters while a long-term policy was worked out. Nearly 25 years later, it is still in effect. The cap is supposed to be replaced later this year by a system of sustainable diversion limits, worked out on the basis of scientific evidence. But a litany of disastrous policy failures, of which the fish kill is among the more dramatic outcomes, cast doubt on whether this schedule can be met.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-what-comes-from-ignoring-decades-of-science


----------



## rederob (22 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Appros to Anns post the massive  fish kill in the Menindee  lakes  has just highlighted a litany of atrocious water use decisions by State and Federal Governments.
> 
> * The Darling River fish kill is what comes from ignoring decades of science *
> 
> ...



Bas
What would a scientist know?
(I mean, apart from everything the politician does not!)


----------



## Darc Knight (23 January 2019)

*Europe's mightiest river is drying up, most likely causing a recession in Germany. Yes, really.*
*https://www.businessinsider.com.au/germany-recession-river-rhine-running-dry-2019-1*


----------



## rederob (23 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> *Europe's mightiest river is drying up, most likely causing a recession in Germany. Yes, really.
> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/germany-recession-river-rhine-running-dry-2019-1*



DK, that was an interesting link, and more so because last night I was trying to coordinate a trip to the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan.








Although what has  happened to the Aral Sea was not a direct consequence of climate change, what has happened to it has affected the local climate and serves to show what a warmer future holds for us.


----------



## basilio (24 January 2019)

This analysis expands on the research that showed how ice loss is rapidly accelerating in Antarctica .  
Fascinating punch line at the end though.
*After Decades of Losing Ice, Antarctica Is Now Hemorrhaging It*
Global warming has already cost the continent 2.7 trillion tons of mass.

... Why? It has to do with one of the stranger mechanisms in ice physics. Glaciers, it turns out, don’t just alleviate sea-level rise by freezing water and keeping it out of the ocean. Their gravity fields are strong enough that they actually attract ocean water from elsewhere on the planet. The farther you go from a certain patch of glacier, the _greater_ the gravitational effects—and West Antartica is very far from the United States. So Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers essentially swaddle themselves with water that would otherwise slosh against the beaches of the East Coast.

But if West Antarctica’s ice melts, and it loses mass, then its gravitational field will also lose its protective power. And North America will suffer the consequences. For example, for every bit of West Antarctic ice that tumbles into the sea, sea levels in Boston will bear an additional sort of gravity tax of 25 percent.  

“For every centimeter [of sea-level rise] from West Antarctica, Boston feels one and a quarter centimeters. And that extends down the East Coast,” said DeConto.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...s-antarctica-is-now-hemorrhaging-mass/562748/


----------



## basilio (25 January 2019)

*Ben Phillips*‏ @*BenPhillips_ANU*
Adelaide had 4 days of 40+ temps between 1955 and 1966 and 39 days between 2005 and 2015. How will the end of this century look? source: BOM. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ 

Sobering ?


----------



## basilio (28 January 2019)

Perhaps we need some Hopeless Realism ?

*Hopeless Realism*
19th November 2018

No effective means of stopping climate breakdown is deemed “politically realistic”. So we must change political realities.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 14th November 2018

It was a moment of the kind that changes lives. At a press conference held by Extinction Rebellion last week, two of us journalists pressed the activists on whether their aims were realistic. They have called, for example, for carbon emissions in the UK to be reduced to net zero by 2025. Wouldn’t it be better, we asked, to pursue some intermediate aims?

A young woman called Lizia Woolf stepped forward. She hadn’t spoken before, and I hadn’t really noticed her, but the passion, grief and fury of her response was utterly compelling. “What is it that you are asking me as a 20-year-old to face and to accept about my future and my life? … this is an emergency – we are facing extinction. When you ask questions like that, what is it you want me to feel?”. We had no answer.

Softer aims might be politically realistic, but they are physically unrealistic. Only shifts commensurate with the scale of our existential crises have any prospect of averting them. Hopeless realism, tinkering at the edges of the problem, got us into this mess. It will not get us out.
https://www.monbiot.com/2018/11/19/hopeless-realism/


----------



## basilio (28 January 2019)

Or another way of expressing Hopeless Realism.

*A 16-year-old tells world leaders, ‘I don’t want you to hope, I want you to panic’*
In August 2018, at the age of 15, Swedish student Greta Thunberg went on strike from school in protest at the lack of action on climate change. Five months later, the movement she sparked has led tens of thousands of students around the world to refuse to go to school on Fridays. And Thunberg herself has become one of the most prominent voices on the climate today.

*Train, not private jet*
Last week, world leaders arrived in Davos, Switzerland (many by private jet) for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. Thunberg, now 16, was there too – she spent 32 hours on the train, having stopped flying “for climate reasons”.

*“I don’t want your hope”*
In a speech to the forum, Thunberg said:

*"Adults keep saying, we owe it to the young people to give them hope. But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day and then I want you to act."*
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...-i-dont-want-you-to-hope-i-want-you-to-panic/


----------



## basilio (28 January 2019)

This kid has class and guts and clarity.
*Swedish teen climate activist in Davos: 'It's time to get angry'*
AFP/The Local
news@thelocal.se
@thelocalsweden
24 January 2019
07:46 CET+01:00
greta thunbergdavosclimateenvironmentclimate change
*Share this article*


 

 

 






Greta Thunberg took the train to Davos from Sweden. Photo: Valentin Flauraud/Keystone via AP
Will young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg manage to persuade the global elite in Davos to take action?
The 16-year-old has galvanized protests by schoolchildren around the world, after delivering a fiery speech to world leaders at last month's UN climate talks in Poland.
"I would like to talk to people in power," the Swedish crusader told AFP shortly after arriving in Davos for the annual World Economic Forum.
Unlike many of the movers and shakers gathered in the Swiss ski resort, Thunberg has not zipped into town for a few quick meetings at luxury hotels.
*With the train trip from Stockholm, which took 32 hours, Thunberg was making a statement in opposition to many of the Davos elite, who flew in by private jet.

  "I have stopped flying for climate reasons, because I don't want to say one thing and do another thing. I want to practise as I preach," she said.

  "I think it is insane that people are gathered here to talk about the climate and they arrive here in private jet."
https://www.thelocal.se/20190124/swedish-teen-climate-activist-in-davos-its-time-to-get-angry*


----------



## basilio (28 January 2019)

George Monbiot on CC in 2019.
*This is the political fight of our lives*


----------



## Knobby22 (30 January 2019)

Some good news, the Sun is continuing to cool! in fact, if it wasn't for all the heating up by CO2 we would be entering a mini ice age. Perhaps we will anyway?

https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/


----------



## rederob (30 January 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Some good news, the Sun is continuing to cool! in fact, if it wasn't for all the heating up by CO2 we would be entering a mini ice age. Perhaps we will anyway?
> 
> https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/



If you had been following climate science then you would know your link has the credibility of Trump.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2019)

January 2019 Australia's hottest in recorded history.



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...r-hottest-month-on-record-in-january/10769392



But, it's just summer don't you know !


----------



## explod (2 February 2019)

*Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy*

*https://www.latimes.com/world/europ...opf_8kcm6jeAN-KntNrAk6eaaIZVL9l4mUX5QF3DmX9Sw*


----------



## basilio (2 February 2019)

What is the place between wilful denial of CC, pained ignorance and just trying to get on with our life?
How do we deal with the speed with which our climate is changing and effects this is having on our world ?
Very challenging. 
This story pulls together threads.

* ‘The devastation of human life is in view’: what a burning world tells us about climate change *
Composite: The Guardian Design Team
I was wilfully deluded until I began covering global warming, says David Wallace-Wells. But extreme heat could transform the planet by 2100

I have never been an environmentalist. I don’t even think of myself as a nature person. I’ve lived my whole life in cities, enjoying gadgets built by industrial supply chains I hardly think twice about. I’ve never gone camping, not willingly anyway, and while I always thought it was basically a good idea to keep streams clean and air clear, I also accepted the proposition that there was a trade-off between economic growth and cost to nature – and figured, well, in most cases I’d go for growth. I’m not about to personally slaughter a cow to eat a hamburger, but I’m also not about to go vegan. In these ways – many of them, at least – I am like every other American who has spent their life fatally complacent, and wilfully deluded, about climate change, which is not just the biggest threat human life on the planet has ever faced, but a threat of an entirely different category and scale. That is, the scale of human life itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-tells-us-about-climate-change-global-warming


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2019)

basilio said:


> *Ben Phillips*‏ @*BenPhillips_ANU*
> Adelaide had 4 days of 40+ temps between 1955 and 1966 and 39 days between 2005 and 2015. How will the end of this century look? source: BOM.



And has already had 5 such days in 2019 using data from the BOM monitoring station on West Terrace (the official "Adelaide" site) and 8 such days if the Kent Town BOM station, which was previously the official "Adelaide" site, is used. 

New all time temperature records were also set at both sites being 46.6 and 47.7 degrees respectively for West Terrace and Kent Town. Some suburban BOM sites recorded temperatures exceeding 48.

So the first month of 2019 set a new all time record and had more 40+ days than occurred in a full decade from the mid-1950's to the mid-1960's.

Adelaide has also recorded zero rainfall thus far in 2019 and the duration of zero rain is also a new all time record according to media reports.

Move along now everybody, nothing to see here, move along now.....

PS - For dealing with the heat in SA my cat recommends the fish flavoured ice cubes we made. Nice and cool, fun to play with until they start to melt and eating them supplies the cat with water as well. Plus free entertainment watching a human mop the floor afterward to clean up the mess.


----------



## qldfrog (2 February 2019)

Maybe we have to accept large part of australia will soon be inhabitable


----------



## qldfrog (2 February 2019)

A


explod said:


> *Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy*
> 
> *https://www.latimes.com/world/europ...opf_8kcm6jeAN-KntNrAk6eaaIZVL9l4mUX5QF3DmX9Sw*



And rely on french produced nuclear energy sold to them below production price?


----------



## rederob (3 February 2019)

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=import-export&year=2019&month=1


qldfrog said:


> A
> 
> And rely on french produced nuclear energy sold to them below production price?



Do you ever rely on facts?


----------



## Joules MM1 (3 February 2019)

can you see the oxymoronic disposition of this editorial.....obviously, they don't !

ever pondered the difference between the employment of the words "fact" versus "evidence" ?


----------



## basilio (4 February 2019)

rederob said:


> https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=import-export&year=2019&month=1
> Do you ever rely on facts?




That was an excellent reference Rederob. I think most posters would be particularly interested in the second URL
*Germany’s energy consumption and power mix in charts*
Fossil fuels Renewables

A wealth of numbers and statistics describe the energy generation and consumption of nation states. This factsheet provides a range of charts (and data links) about the status of Germany’s energy mix, as well as developments in energy and power production and usage since 1990. [Updates graphs on power generation and energy consumption to include 2018 data.]
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts


----------



## basilio (4 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Maybe we have to accept large part of australia will soon be inhabitable




Maybe... 
What would be the implications of  that for us ? Where would the people who live in those areas go ? What about the national infrastructure that goes through Australia and these regions ? Roads, power and so on.
Who takes the financial losses of all that property ?

Uncomfortable questions but realistic IMV.


----------



## qldfrog (4 February 2019)

basilio said:


> Maybe...
> What would be the implications of  that for us ? Where would the people who live in those areas go ? What about the national infrastructure that goes through Australia and these regions ? Roads, power and so on.
> Who takes the financial losses of all that property ?
> 
> Uncomfortable questions but realistic IMV.



Not the moon yet, people have survived in saudi Arabia etc.but we need different infrastructure, different road surface etc
Normally normal common sense should be enough but in Australia will take the form of more compliance and building code red tape.. that will keep unemployment low.a bonanza
New regulations on whether or not you can have metallic slides in playground based on zoning, etc etc
A lot of marginal land will turn to dust, less beef and sheep to the utter joy of the vegans, mine settlements mostly automated with air-conditioned for the living in trucks offices and dungas
Anything west of the range will become marginal, cities like melbourne and adelaide taking a bashing every summer.cyclones down to Brisbane
We already have the crocs, box jellyfish at the border.
Higher re price in nz and parts of Tasmania
No rocket science....


----------



## qldfrog (4 February 2019)

basilio said:


> That was an excellent reference Rederob. I think most posters would be particularly interested in the second URL
> *Germany’s energy consumption and power mix in charts*
> Fossil fuels Renewables
> 
> ...



A big difference between capacity, production and actual needs
In the same way we are heading here, Germany has a lot of renewable capacity but what you do not see on any of the graphs is that when s,it happens, they rely on french nuclear power stations while at the same time Germany is closing both coal and nuclear stations.
the irony or hypocrisy..your call
Similar on how qld coal power stations are now preventing many power outages in both SA and Victoria as expertly  explained by Smurf
Switch to renewable is a good move but we need some practical engineering in charge, not ideology especially during the transition


----------



## Darc Knight (4 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> We already have the crocs, box jellyfish at the border.
> .




The Crocs found around Brisbane have been Juveniles which has usually been reported as pets dumped once they've gotten too big. Gold Coast creeks are full of people every weekend, luckily colder Winter weather deters Croc migration here ATM. North of Gympie seems to be the start of occassionial adult Croc sitings.
The Irukandji may have started it's invasion south though.


----------



## qldfrog (4 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> The Crocs found around Brisbane have been Juveniles which has usually been reported as pets dumped once they've gotten too big. Gold Coast creeks are full of people every weekend, luckily colder Winter weather deters Croc migration here ATM. North of Gympie seems to be the start of occassionial adult Croc sitings.
> The Irukandji may have started it's invasion south though.



Croc wise, down to Mary river/fraser
A mix of protection status increased population and warming i believe
I am still safe around my creek dams


----------



## basilio (4 February 2019)

Where could one go to "escape global warming ?"
*Let’s say I wanted to escape climate change. Where should I go?*
https://grist.org/article/lets-say-i-wanted-to-escape-climate-change-where-should-i-go/


----------



## basilio (5 February 2019)

One of the HUGE issues facing a much hotter world is the effect on glaciers. In particular  what will be the effect on the Himalayan glaciers which feed the Indian subcontinent.
A five year study has been released which examines the loss of ice from these  huge natural  water storages.
* A third of Himalayan ice cap doomed, finds report *
Even radical climate change action won’t save glaciers, endangering 2 billion people

Damian Carrington Environment editor

 @dpcarrington 
Mon 4 Feb 2019 22.45 AEDT   Last modified on Tue 5 Feb 2019 05.15 AEDT

Shares
10k





Melting ice on Khumbu glacier in the Everest-Khumbu region. Himalayan glaciers are a water source for 250 millions people. Photograph: Alex Treadway/ICIMOD
At least a third of the huge ice fields in Asia’s towering mountain chain are doomed to melt due to climate change, according to a landmark  report, with serious consequences for almost 2 billion people.

Even if carbon emissions are dramatically and rapidly cut and succeed in limiting global warming to 1.5C, 36% of the glaciers along in the Hindu Kush and Himalaya range will have gone by 2100. If emissions are not cut, the loss soars to two-thirds, the report found.

The glaciers are a critical water store for the 250 million people who live in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya (HKH) region, and 1.65 billion people rely on the great rivers that flow from the peaks into India, Pakistan, China and other nations.

“This is the climate crisis you haven’t heard of,” said Philippus Wester of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod), who led the report. “In the best of possible worlds, if we get really ambitious [in tackling climate change], even then we will lose one-third of the glaciers and be in trouble. That for us was the shocking finding.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...imalayan-ice-cap-doomed-finds-shocking-report


----------



## qldfrog (5 February 2019)

basilio said:


> One of the HUGE issues facing a much hotter world is the effect on glaciers. In particular  what will be the effect on the Himalayan glaciers which feed the Indian subcontinent.
> A five year study has been released which examines the loss of ice from these  huge natural  water storages.
> * A third of Himalayan ice cap doomed, finds report *
> Even radical climate change action won’t save glaciers, endangering 2 billion people
> ...



Only a third...if we diminish indian population by half,all good and gw mitigation become reachable whereas otherwise, the remaining 2/3 are gone....
But no, tax red meat is the answer i am sure.
Gw, tackle the real cause


----------



## Darc Knight (5 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Only a third...if we diminish indian population by half,all good and gw mitigation become reachable whereas otherwise, the remaining 2/3 are gone....
> But no, tax red meat is the answer i am sure.
> Gw, tackle the real cause






Genocide probably isn't too politically correct nowadays Frog, but I admire your enthusiasm.


----------



## basilio (5 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Only a third...if we diminish indian population by half,all good and gw mitigation become reachable whereas otherwise, the remaining 2/3 are gone..



Diminish..?" Isn't that a bit of a euphemism ? Do we then diminish the Chinese, rest of Asia, Africa, South America ?
I don't think that is a very productive direction.  If we want to address the causes of GW we need to look at the impact of all people and objectively speaking, the societies that have the most impact per capita

xxx


----------



## qldfrog (5 February 2019)

So we can have 1 billion extra persons on earth and it is all good if each one is using only half or a sixth of the horrible American/Australian?


----------



## qldfrog (5 February 2019)

You 


Darc Knight said:


> Genocide probably isn't too politically correct nowadays Frog, but I admire your enthusiasm.



Do not have to commit genocide but a one child policy done 50 years ago would have sorted it, and this is in no way even started in Pakistan Bangladesh egypt Indonesia nigeria..do i go on?
The key issue of population is not and has not been tackled.nor do we want to deal with it.we can buy all prius and solar panel in the west, we are screwed and powerless


----------



## qldfrog (5 February 2019)

How abd to be fair in term of religion.philippine...


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> So we can have 1 billion extra persons on earth and it is all good if each one is using only half or a sixth of the horrible American/Australian?



Consumption per person x number of persons = scale of problem.

Consider someone now aged 80 so statistically near end of life.

100% of all nuclear power ever produced has taken place in their lifetime. 100%.

Virtually all electronics, natural gas and plastics produced thus far were produced in their lifetime.

The overwhelming majority of oil ever used has been used in their lifetime and so has most of the coal.

If we continue the growth trend then the above will remain largely true. For a child born today, by the time they're 80 they will also be able to say that most of the resources ever used by man were used in their lifetime.

You ain't seen nothing yet in terms of how many resources we're about to use if we keep going as we are.


----------



## qldfrog (5 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> How abd to be fair in term of religion.philippine...



Bloody problem with auto correction changing my posts
I meant
And to be fair.....


----------



## Joules MM1 (6 February 2019)

*National Snow and Ice Data Center*‏ @NSIDC 14h14 hours ago
If #Thwaites Glacier in #Antarctica collapses, sea levels could rise by two feet – flooding coastal cities around the world. Researcher Ted Scambos comments: “It’s completely plausible. Thwaites has a really perfect storm going for it.” @CIRESNews
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...-glacier-big-enough-fit-two-thirds-ncna965696





	

		
			
		

		
	
 Sinking areas at Thwaites Glacier are shown here in red and rising areas in blue. The growing cavity (red mass, center) caused the greatest sinking.NASA/JPL-Caltech


----------



## qldfrog (6 February 2019)

It is coming from Basilio's favourite source, not that old and explain why so many liberals do not like democracy..sorry now called populism
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...pollution-initiative-1631-washington-rejected


----------



## basilio (6 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> It is coming from Basilio's favourite source, not that old and explain why so many liberals do not like democracy..sorry now called populism
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...pollution-initiative-1631-washington-rejected




Great find QLDfrog.  Certainly highlighted the effectiveness of the fossil fuel industry in driving their agenda of unrestrained use/exploration of oil and gas.

Who said the oil companies have now seen the light on global warming ? Just greenwash clearly.

____________________________________

That story from Joules on the huge hole in the Thwaites glacier is just scary.
Perhaps another analogy might be a better way to explain it.
How would we feel if we discovered there was a  10,000 megaton nuclear  timebomb with a clock that was running down to an uncertain time in relatively immediate future. Would that focus our attention on doing whatever had to be done to stop the clock ? 
The collapse of the Thwaites glacier would be as catastrophic for all  coastal cities around the world.


----------



## Darc Knight (6 February 2019)

The Oil and Fossil Fuel Industry and those heavily invested in Oil and Fossil Fuel have a lot to answer for when it comes to  spreading false and misleading information concerning Climate Change. Do they not have a conscience or a moral compass!


----------



## satanoperca (6 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Do they not have a conscience or a moral compass!




Do you need to ask the question when you know the answer?

Hint : NO


----------



## basilio (6 February 2019)

One could fill a book (or an encyclopedia ..) on the effects of global warming. This one bears thinking about.

*Rising seas could knock out the internet — and sooner than scientists thought*
New research says 4,000 miles of internet cable could be underwater by 2030.

From severe coastal flooding to unusually destructive hurricanes, climate change-related sea level rise is being blamed for some big environmental ills. Now comes a new worry: Rising seas could flood the underground cables that carry the internet, potentially causing widespread outages.

Seawater is likely to submerge more than 4,000 miles of internet cable in the U.S. and engulf more than a thousand data centers that house servers, routers and other hardware, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Oregon said in a paper presented July 16 at an internet conference in Montreal.






Overlap of internet infrastructure and seawater in New York, left, and Miami with average sea level rise of 6 feet.Ramakrishnan Durairajan et al / University of Oregon
The researchers identified New York, Miami and Seattle as the metropolitan areas at greatest risk for flooded internet infrastructures. Three carriers were identified as especially vulnerable: CenturyLink of Monroe, Louisiana; Chicago-based Inteliquent; and AT&T, which is based in Dallas.

“We believe that these results highlight a real and present threat to the management and operations of communications systems and that steps should be taken soon to develop plans to address this threat,” the scientists said in their paper’s conclusion.

The inundation could come within 15 years. “That was a little bit unexpected,” said study co-author Paul Barford, professor of computer sciences at the University of Wisconsin. “We sort of expected that it might be parceled out over a longer period of time, but that's not the case.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...internet-sooner-scientists-thought-ncna896256


----------



## SirRumpole (6 February 2019)

One of the world's largest glaciers is melting.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...gigantic-cavity-in-antarctic-glacier/10785282


----------



## explod (6 February 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> One of the world's largest glaciers is melting.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...gigantic-cavity-in-antarctic-glacier/10785282



Yes, it's about to fall in anytime, if not this summer certainly the next and apparently it will cause a sea level rise pretty well instantly of two feet.

The houses on the low side where my Sister is currently trying to help her Daughter in Townsville know that on top of the current floods the future there is no more.

How long have I been telling you all to "just party" and our authorities so called  in Govmint don't give fkn shite. 

Suggestions any one ?   ?


----------



## basilio (6 February 2019)

explod said:


> Yes, it's about to fall in anytime, if not this summer certainly the next and apparently it will cause a sea level rise pretty well instantly of two feet.




That's a big call Explod.  What sources are suggesting that collapse of the Thwaites glacier is that close ?


----------



## basilio (6 February 2019)

This article from Wired does good job of explaining what is happening with Thwaites glacier

*The Race to Understand Antarctica’s Most Terrifying Glacier*
https://www.wired.com/story/antarctica-thwaites-glacier-breaking-point/


----------



## explod (7 February 2019)

"Scientists have discovered a giant cavity at the bottom of a disintegrating glacier in Antarctica, sparking concerns that the ice sheet is melting more rapidly than expected.

Researchers working as part of a Nasa-led study found the cavern, which they said was 300 metres tall and two-thirds the size of Manhattan, at the bottom of the massive Thwaites glacier.

The space is big enough to have contained 14bn tonnes of ice and most of that ice has melted during the past three years."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-manhattan-discovered-under-antarctic-glacier


----------



## basilio (7 February 2019)

explod said:


> "Scientists have discovered a giant cavity at the bottom of a disintegrating glacier in Antarctica, sparking concerns that the ice sheet is melting more rapidly than expected.
> 
> Researchers working as part of a Nasa-led study found the cavern, which they said was 300 metres tall and two-thirds the size of Manhattan, at the bottom of the massive Thwaites glacier.
> 
> ...




I saw that in the story Explod.  It is  (very) concerning. I don't believe there was anything else in the article that indicated the whole glacier was in imminent danger of collapse  But certainly it has raised fears that the melt is quicker than thought and that collapse could be sooner rather than later.


----------



## basilio (8 February 2019)

NASA carries the ice cavity story in  more detail.
I have to say that it is a worry. A few years ago the Thwaites glacier was viewed as potentially one that could collapse over a period of centuries.
Last year the researchers discovered how much water was flowing *under* the glacier and lifting it off the bedrock that was supporting. The rate of ice movement had doubled in  a few years.  They were concerned enough to demand an immediate 5 year investigation to work out just how soon this glacier could collapse.

At that stage there was serious talk of collapse as soon as 30-50 years.

The discovery of this huge ice cavity has to have scientists quickly reviewing their expectations. It is completely unexpected and suggests an exponential rate of decay that is currently not on their books.

*When these glaciers collapse they go quick. *There is every likelihood that a significant collapse of part of the glacier will crate a domino effect Basically 300 foot high ice cliffs cannot  easily support themselves.

(Might be time to start selling the beach house and the  beach side  mansions)

*Huge Cavity in Antarctic Glacier Signals Rapid Decay*
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7322
________________________________
There are some really cool stories on that NASA sight.


----------



## basilio (8 February 2019)

There was another story on the NASA website which should ring alarm bells.

It concerned a huge landslide that happened in California after the succession of droughts and then extreme rains. 
There are similarities with the potential collapse of the Thwaites glacier. Essentially extreme conditions weakening an environment  which is already moving  (land or glacier) which then collapses into a new more stable form. 

The landslide had in fact been happening slowly for a long time. But after the floods everything just came unstuck.
*Drought, Deluge Turned Stable Landslide into Disaster*

Stable landslide" sounds like a contradiction in terms, but there are indeed places on Earth where land has been creeping downhill slowly, stably and harmlessly for as long as a century. But stability doesn't necessarily last forever. For the first time, researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and collaborating institutions have documented the transition of a stable, slow-moving landslide into catastrophic collapse, showing how drought and extreme rains likely destabilized the slide.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7329


----------



## explod (13 February 2019)

"
...He certainly has his allies. Richard Alley, a well known glaciologist at Penn State University who has published with DeConto and Pollard, wrote in an email that "cliff retreat is not some strange and unexpected physical process; it is happening now in some places, has happened in the past, and is expected wherever sufficiently high temperatures occur in ocean or air around ice flowing into the ocean."

The Eemian - but worse?

There's one important thing to consider - the Eemian occurred without humans emitting lots of greenhouse gases.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide was far lower than it is today. The event was instead driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, leading to more sunlight falling on the northern hemisphere.

The big difference, this time around, is that humans are heating things up far faster than what is believed to have happened in the geologic past.

And that makes a key difference, said Ted Scambos, an Antarctic researcher who is leading the US side of an international multimillion dollar mission to study Thwaites Glacier, and who is a senior researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.

"The current pace of climate change is very fast," Scambos said, and the rate of warming might cause glaciers to behave differently than they did in the past.

Accordingly, Scambos says he sees the current debate as fruitful - "it's the discussion that needs to happen" - but that it doesn't lessen his worry about the fate of Thwaites Glacier if it retreats far enough.

"There's no model that says the glacier won't accelerate if it gets into those conditions," said Scambos. "It just has to."

Humans were nowhere near the Antarctic in the Eemian - and we have never, in the modern period, seen a glacier as big as Thwaites retreat. It's possible something is going to happen that we don't have any precedent or predictions for.

Just last week, for instance, scientists reported a large cavity opening beneath one part of the glacier - something they said models could not have predicted.

There is a massive stake involved now in at least trying to figure out what could happen - before it actually does. It will help determine whether humans, now organized and industrialized and masters of fossil fuels, are poised to drive a repeat of our own geological history.

2019 © _The Washington Post"

https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-...15-000-years-ago-when-the-sea-was-much-higher_


----------



## sptrawler (13 February 2019)

explod said:


> Yes, it's about to fall in anytime, if not this summer certainly the next and apparently it will cause a sea level rise pretty well instantly of two feet.
> 
> The houses on the low side where my Sister is currently trying to help her Daughter in Townsville know that on top of the current floods the future there is no more.
> 
> ...




Everyone in the World, stand on the coast, with a bucket. When the glacier falls, everyone fill a bucket, put them in the sun and let evaporation sort it.

https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20050801_floatingice.html

The one good thing about all this debate, it is keeping a lot of people in a job, which is a good thing.


----------



## Joules MM1 (13 February 2019)

snow in Hawaii 
-------------------------------

12 February 2019
*Arctic sea ice has been in decline for decades, according to a new scientific paper*
*https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arc...ecline-decades-according-new-scientific-paper*

*https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nyas.13856*


----------



## basilio (24 February 2019)

If you really want to understand what we are facing with CC,  what has happened, what needs to happen Greta Thunbergs TED talk last year is about the best I have ever seen.


----------



## basilio (27 February 2019)

Another large chunk of ice is about to come adrift in Antarctica. Apparently this is  not quite normal for this region..

* Iceberg twice the size of New York City is set to break away from Antarctica *
Once a rapidly spreading rift intersects with another fissure, an iceberg of at least 660sq miles is set to be loosened, Nasa says

...This process, also known as calving, occurs naturally with ice shelves but “recent changes are unfamiliar in this area” and could lead to the destabilization of the Brunt ice shelf, Nasa warned.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/26/iceberg-break-away-antarctica-ice-shelf


----------



## basilio (28 February 2019)

The more we learn about global warming the worse it looks.
About 12-15 years ago scientists started to talk about tipping points. This was opening the conversation about how particular eco systems could change in a way that* accelerated *CC .  For example the melting of Arctic ice meant that more heat from the sun would penetrate the ocean (rather than be reflected by ice ), raising temperatures further and melting more ice and so on.

Latest analysis is scary....

*These clouds could go extinct, drastically speeding up warming, modelling suggests*


Thursday 28 February 2019 4:45pm


Mail
 Twitter 
 Facebook 
_Within less than 150 years the Earth's climate could warm to a level similar to 56 million years ago, when crocodiles swam in the Arctic and parts of the equator were uninhabitable for warm-blooded creatures, according to new climate change modelling._

The study published in _Nature Geoscience_ models how very high levels of CO2 affect the formation of stratocumulus clouds - the low, flat decks that cover about 20 per cent of subtropical oceans and reflect about 30 per cent the sun's light.

Stratocumulus clouds.

After two years of supercomputer calculations, the researchers observed a sudden transition when the simulated CO2 in the atmosphere passed 1200 parts per million. The stratocumulous clouds broke apart and disappeared, leaving blue skies.

This would cause a sudden spike in temperature as the heat that would have been reflected into space would be absorbed by the ocean instead.

The loss of stratocumulus clouds would add another 8C of warming on top of the amount already predicted, the researchers concluded.
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/prog...o-extinct-speeding-up-global-warming/10858850


----------



## explod (3 March 2019)

This article encompasses a lot of my own feelings and well expressed, but it's from a young person's perspective,  just an excerpt but recommend the entire article :-

"I started working in the climate change advocacy world somewhat by accident when I got a job editing policy for an environmental advocacy organization. I cared about the earth, of course, but I wasn’t a hardcore environmentalist.

I spent my first year deeply immersed in detailed reports on climate policy. No detail was spared. Day in and day out, I read about the reckless course we were on and all the foolish ways we were digging our hole even deeper. It was terrifying.

I had known climate change was real. I had an inkling that it was not far away. But I didn’t know just how bad it was. I didn’t know how many innocent  people were already suffering hideously. Pick a natural disaster — wildfire, hurricane, mudslide, or heat wave, many of which research shows have already been exacerbated by climate change — it’s always the people with the least to lose who get hurt the most. I didn’t know how many people had been marked as allowable casualties because they were born in the wrong places under the wrong circumstances. Right at that very moment.

I knew I would see bad things accelerate in my lifetime, but I didn’t know it was going to happen before I turned 50. Nor did I realize how many of them I’d actually already seen. After all, I was with my mother in Mississippi during Hurricane Katrina and here in New York during Sandy. And if you’re thinking that climate change and hurricanes aren’t related, they’re not exactly divorced either.

*My stages of grief*
I didn’t know it then, but that first year I spent reading policy papers, I went into mourning. I skipped denial and went right to shock. I floated around on a dark, dark cloud. I frequently and randomly burst into tears, and I’d refuse to admit to myself that I knew exactly why I was crying"

https://www.vox.com/first-person/20...SKm-9o-3n0LJIzaCfKZfheb6Pn3upfbqk1DiC8YAh916Y


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2019)

explod said:


> This article encompasses a lot of my own feelings and well expressed, but it's from a young person's perspective,  just an excerpt but recommend the entire article



I could sum up the problem by saying I've met many who are concerned, some extremely so, but few who are willing to take action unless government forces them.

Now, if you're not willing to do something without being forced well then actions speak louder than words and it says an awful lot.

Reality is that if it involves buying something then 9 times out of 10 it's part of the problem not the solution. Cutting back consumption isn't a popular idea however.


----------



## basilio (3 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I could sum up the problem by saying I've met many who are concerned, some extremely so, but few who are willing to take action unless government forces them.
> 
> Now, if you're not willing to do something without being forced well then actions speak louder than words and it says an awful lot.
> 
> Reality is that if it involves buying something then 9 times out of 10 it's part of the problem not the solution. Cutting back consumption isn't a popular idea however.




Interesting response. 
In my view the overwhelming trouble with CC is  the size of the problem and having to acknowledge it's reality and  out need to respond to it (unless we are happy to cook us and our planet) . It's true most of us don't really want to know about problems. That's human nature. But there are consequences to this deliberate avoidance.

I can see a point about "buying something being part of the problem". But frankly re engineering our world to live within our ecological footprint as well as undoing the disasters we have already created will require massive investment. But we certainly need less stuff in our lives..


----------



## basilio (3 March 2019)

One effort to help people buy less stuff.  
And the challenges it brings.
*'Right to repair' regulation necessary, say small businesses and environmentalists*
ABC Capricornia
By  Jemima Burt 
Posted about 7 hours ago





* Photo:* At 'repair cafes' in Sydney, people can get help to fix anything from electronics to furniture. (Supplied: Bower Reuse and Repair Centre) 
*Related Story:* It's my tractor and I'll do what I want to — farmers spearhead 'right to repair' fight
*Related Story:* Tractor-hacking farmers in the US fight for right to repair
Australian proponents of the 'right to repair' movement say the environment, consumers and small business are suffering without regulation.

An Australian environmental charity has celebrated Clean Up Australia Day weekend by opening a new facility to help members of the public repair electronics.

The Bower Reuse and Repair Centre is a Sydney-based not-for-profit, which provides facilities and guidance for people to fix, rather than discard, goods.

Manager Guido Verbist, one of the volunteers behind the 20-year-old charity, said today's disposable society had significant environmental implications.

"A powerful business model that the industry has been pushing is that they want you to buy new rather than hold on to your old items," Mr Verbist said.

"That's creating many problems, as you know, in terms of waste and pollution. 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-03/does-australia-need-a-right-to-repair/10864852


----------



## Ann (3 March 2019)

basilio said:


> One effort to help people buy less stuff.
> And the challenges it brings.
> *'Right to repair' regulation necessary, say small businesses and environmentalists*
> ABC Capricornia
> ...




My Braun blender's motor burnt out recently. I found a place to repair it as the housing and bowl are fine all it needs is a new armature. I am hoping they will be able to get a spare part. I doubt I am going to be saving any money but it is the principle of repair, re-use, re-purpose, recycle. It is great to know a good small appliance repairman, it means things can be repaired and not end up as landfill.

I think your article is great Bas! I love this concept.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2019)

basilio said:


> I can see a point about "buying something being part of the problem". But frankly re engineering our world to live within our ecological footprint as well as undoing the disasters we have already created will require massive investment. But we certainly need less stuff in our lives..



Random examples which come to mind:

*Knocking down perfectly good houses just because they're 50 years old and built from brick, a durable material, and not the current fashion of rendered blueboard which requires ongoing maintenance. 

*Throwing out a perfectly good phone because the new one comes with a different means of connecting headphones or some other trivial change. Even cars these days are becoming throw away items.

*Lots of people seemingly wanting airlines to provide more space between seats whilst overlooking the financial and emissions benefits of cramming as many people as possible onto the plane thus meaning fewer flights in total.

And so on. Consumption for the sake of it isn't going to help the planet.


----------



## Darc Knight (7 March 2019)

I was reading how a lot of these GW models have under estimated how bad how fast things are gunna get.
Another day over 30 for Brisbane. Can't wait for next Summer


----------



## satanoperca (7 March 2019)

Why repair when it is cheaper to buy new and exploit the labor from overseas, we are all guilty of it, where are the cloths that you have on today made?. Throw the old in the bin and get a new one, rinse and repeat, with the exception of where does the old appliance end up and how much energy and damage to the environment did the new take to make? Answer, very few people care.

The only answer to GW is reduce the global population, that would mean global growth would take a hit, not going to happen.

I cannot see anything changing, this is the same cycle that has been around since life forms existed on this planet.

Fast forward beyond this forum and 100 years, humans will have f--cked the planet, they will perish but some will survive and the cycle will start again. 

Really, all we are experiencing is evolution turbo charged.


----------



## Darc Knight (7 March 2019)

"Fast forward 100 years" ......."Some will survive"?
Some of these CC sites are talking mere decades before Humans are extinct. I assume some are alarmists, but this Permafrost melt sounds BAD, particularly the Methane increase already.


----------



## explod (11 March 2019)

I was right to suggest we party, had hoped it was wrong but a scientist I personally know told me two years back we only had five years (3 years now)before catastrophes really hit.  He was right.:- 

"As recently as a year ago, when I explored worst-case scenarios for climate change, alarmism of this kind was considered anathema to many scientists, who believed that storytelling that focused on the scary possibilities was just as damaging to public engagement as denial. There have been a few scary developments in climate research over the past year — more methane from Arctic lakes and permafrost than expected, which could accelerate warming; an unprecedented heat wave, arctic wildfires, and hurricanes rolling through both of the world’s major oceans this past summer. But by and large the consensus is the same: We are on track for four degrees of warming, more than twice as much as most scientists believe is possible to endure without inflicting climate suffering on hundreds of millions or threatening at least parts of the social and political infrastructure we call, grandly, “civilization.” The only thing that changed, this week, is that the scientists, finally, have hit the panic button."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018...tiRG09O3177K_q8hYLoYG-Y50bOjncJAJZBzJz_jj96Ro


----------



## basilio (11 March 2019)

The overwhelming challenge of Global Heating is... devastating. Explod suggest "Lets Party" . I recognise that sentiment and to be fair it is one that us older people can take given we have had full lives. (But as we do it we realise our children and grandchildren are bearing thebrunt of our collective failure.)

In that context it's worth looking at how a single, very obscure, Swedish school girl has  recognised the coming disaster and refused to  look away.

At least hear her story.

* Greta Thunberg, schoolgirl climate change warrior: ‘Some people can let things go. I can’t’ *
Jonathan Watts
 The G2 interview 
 Greta Thunberg 

One day last summer, aged 15, she skipped school, sat down outside the Swedish parliament – and inadvertently kicked off a global movement

 
 @jonathanwatts 
Mon 11 Mar 2019 06.00 GMT   Last modified on Mon 11 Mar 2019 10.45 GMT

Shares
4,230
* Comments*
 402 



Greta Thunberg … ‘I have always been that girl in the back who doesn’t say anything.’ Photograph: Michael Campanella/The Guardian
Greta Thunberg cut a frail and lonely figure when she started a school strike for the climate outside the Swedish parliament building last August. Her parents tried to dissuade her. Classmates declined to join. Passersby expressed pity and bemusement at the sight of the then unknown 15-year-old sitting on the cobblestones with a hand-painted banner.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-warrior-some-people-can-let-things-go-i-cant


----------



## basilio (13 March 2019)

There have been many discussions about the totally foreseeable consequences of global heating.  Widespread flooding, multiple extreme weather events, long term changes to local climates, complete upheaval in ecosystems.

What  possible effect could any of this have on the  economy ?! 

The latest person to join the dots and make clear "What effect this could have on the economy "  is the Reserve Bank Deputy Governor. Perhaps it's having a look at one's share portfolio in this light ?

* Climate change poses risk to Australia's financial stability, warns RBA deputy governor *
Guy Debelle urges policymakers and business to address global warming as a trend rather than a temporary weather cycle

Katharine Murphy Political editor

 
 @murpharoo 
Tue 12 Mar 2019 09.08 GMT   Last modified on Tue 12 Mar 2019 09.09 GMT

Shares
2,096

 
Reserve Bank of Australia deputy governor Guy Debelle warned that ‘companies that generate significant pollution might face reputational damage or legal liability from their activities’. Photograph: David Moir/AAP
A deputy governor of Australia’s central bank has issued a stark warning that climate change poses risks to financial stability, noting that warming needs to be thought of by policymakers and business as a trend and not a cyclical event.

As a debate over coal and energy fractures the Morrison government, Guy Debelle warned a forum hosted by the Centre for Policy Development on Tuesday that climate change created risks for Australia’s financial stability in a number of different ways.

“For example, insurers may face large, unanticipated payouts because of climate change-related property damage and business losses,” he said. “In some cases businesses and households could lose access to insurance.

*“Companies that generate significant pollution might face reputational damage or legal liability from their activities, and changes to regulation could cause previously valuable assets to become uneconomic.


“All of these consequences could precipitate sharp adjustments in asset prices, which would have consequences for financial stability.”

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...financial-stability-warns-rba-deputy-governor*


----------



## basilio (13 March 2019)

And the heat goes on...
* Queensland heat records for March broken as state's south-east soars above 40C *
Gatton, Beaudesert and Archerfield among towns with record-breaking maximum temperatures for the month

Lisa Cox

Wed 13 Mar 2019 06.04 GMT   Last modified on Wed 13 Mar 2019 06.05 GMT


 

 
Shares
51




The bureau of meteorology says the heatwave in Queensland is partly due to an inland surface trough pulling hot air from the interior of the continent further east. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP
Multiple Queensland heat records have been broken for March, with some areas recording temperatures of more than 10 degrees above their average maximum.

Highs of 40C or more in the state’s south-east were recorded for the first time in March, with the town of Gatton reaching 40C on Monday and 41.1C on Tuesday, about 11 degrees above its average maximum temperature for the month.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...h-broken-as-states-south-east-soars-above-40c


----------



## kahuna1 (13 March 2019)

Its all fake news ....

I  read it on twitter. Donald Trump cited a lobbyist for the fossil industry, who claims, CLAIMS he was a co-founder of Greenpeace as his source. The dummy ... the Greenpeace claimant, did work for Greenpeace from 1981 till 1986 and since then as a lobbyist for awful companies.

*Since Greenpeace was founded in 1970* ... and this fool on FOX news, Trumps only source of fiber and fun non-facts, if he didn't start work till 11 years after it was founded, does this mean I can claim I created the planet ?

In other fun news, Gordon Joyce, AKA Billby .... Bushby .... or whatever the hell his name is .... Tim Apple ... leader ... whoops ex leader of the Nationals want to build a new coal fired plant on every corner and threatens to throw a tantrum if no one pays any attention.

Meanwhile, in real news, methane in Artic regions is going nuts. There are about 1,000 people in the whole field and thats Arctic Ice experts, and Permafrost ones where 1.7 trillion tons of CO2 and about 2-4% of that methane live frozen for now ... so far ... of the permafrost guys and girls about 400 or so ... the 13th paper just written by two lead authors predicting a massive initial release of CO2 and Methane which, by the way the atmosphere cant deal with at all  even now and its estimated instead of 28 or so years for the Methane, CH4 to break down, the lowest estimate for this gas which is 26 times worse than CO2 will take 86 years, the highest is 100 years, well anyhow all 13 papers, peer reviewed say the same thing.

Welcome the imminent arrival within 10 years of a 50 billion ton baby as the Permafrost frozen for a million years begins to thaw. To put this into perspective, the whole 1.7 billion tons which will take some time to thaw and release is 300% of all greenhouse gasses released by Humans.

For today's prize, the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate chage the peak body, at Untited nations report ... which scared a few, contained NOT A THING about this. Nor the fact even the ocean acidity had risen 50% in 50 years, or the rise in the ocean which absorbs over 50% of the heat is up 1.5 degrees since 1900.

President Trump and Barnaby ... celebrate the NEW USA ambassador to the UN, wife with NO work experience pre 2015, other then 3 kids and 3 marriages, she is the wife of a coal barron in the USA and he donated 3 million to elect Trump and Barnaby ....

She, believe in BOTH sides of climate science. Hilarious  and on Utube this bimbo. Would be funny if it was not so bad. She maybe can liaise with the USA EPA enforcement people .... whoops sorry they got cut in half already and Trumps budget for 2020 proposes the budget will be cut to the USA environmental protection agency by another 30%. Head of the EPA in the USA is none other than another coal person, this one who lobbied exclusively for the coal industry for 25 years.

Speaking to a friend today, he rated the chances of sea level rising as does the IPCCby 25 cm by 2050 at 99.9999% and this is without things they ignored, like .... science and the fact a bloody icebreaker went to the North Pole in Summer last year, Canadian at 13 knots. When and its close, when the Artic ice hits the NO Ice region and thats in summer and less than 10 years away, Bangladesh and its 100 million people will call the USA home ? Is that Trumps plan since he likes all those colored folk, science and Fox did not say during black history month they should get over being slaves .... because none of them were slaves, nor their grandparents.

Hilarious the USA and its love of movies USA saves the world ... Asteroids ... deep Impact or Armageddon ... Aliens and there are so many ... V ... the Series to Independence day. So so funny they are the ones not saving the world, but the ones ending it within 200 years via greed and need to make profits.

Sorry must run and have my fake news cornflakes whilst I still can !!

I did laugh so hard when idiot Trump called CO2 the building block of all life. THAT STUPID, IS A POISONOUS GAS .... CO2 ... did you mean CARBON .... as opposed to a gas I would like you to be fed alone ? Its got two oxygen atoms ... its better for you Mr Trump. As for Bushby and his coal fired plants ... off to Bangladesh for the idiot, with water wings.


----------



## basilio (14 March 2019)

Latest research on CC and it's effects on global temperatures is very grim.
It seems that temperatures in the Arctic regions will increase 3-5C regardless of anything we do.
The implications for unleashing methane from the frozen tundra are  horrifying.

* Sharp rise in Arctic temperatures now inevitable – UN *
Temperatures likely to rise by 3-5C above pre-industrial levels even if Paris goals met

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent

Wed 13 Mar 2019 19.01 GMT   Last modified on Wed 13 Mar 2019 19.44 GMT

Shares
100


  Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate ‘tipping point’. Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images
Sharp and potentially devastating temperature rises of 3C to 5C in the Arctic are now inevitable even if the world succeeds in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement, research has found.

Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN.

Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate “tipping point” as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ature-rises-must-be-urgently-tackled-warns-un


----------



## basilio (14 March 2019)

This is the totally forseeable situation facing hundreds of thousands of people - not mention the banks that own their homes...

And I suggest the time frame for insurance problems is far closer than
* The runaway insurance effect *
By Inga Ting, Ri Liu, Nathanael Scott and Alex Palmer

Digital Story Innovation Team

Updated 14 Mar 2019, 10:10am
Published 13 Mar 2019, 6:06am
For most of us, the problem is in someone else’s backyard, in some other neighbourhood.

But for an increasing number of Australians, it’s right on their doorsteps. Many just don’t know it … yet.

Roughly 850,000 homes — nearly one in 10 — could be “uninsurable” within a few generations unless there are fundamental changes to where and how properties are built, a leading climate analyst says.

.... “We see a particularly dangerous market failure,” he says.

The cornerstone of that failure, he says, is that insurers can effectively abandon policies or areas from one year to the next if they decide the risk has become too severe.

Because all prospective homeowners need insurance to secure a mortgage, this creates a ripple effect.

“Once insurance becomes very expensive or unavailable it becomes very difficult to sell that house because the next person can’t get proper insurance to get their mortgage,” Dr Mallon says.

“So the effects of insurance becoming unavailable are potentially catastrophic for areas which are exposed to current or future extreme weather.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...ls-australias-worst-affected-regions/10892710


----------



## basilio (19 March 2019)

The Victorian Government is recognising the economic effects of CC particularly in the form of heat waves.
https://www.climatechange.vic.gov.a...-economic-impact-of-heatwaves-on-Victoria.pdf


----------



## explod (24 March 2019)

The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

Increasingly they are using social media to successfully push their agenda to weaken and oppose any meaningful legislation to tackle global warming.

In the run-up to the US midterm elections last year $2m was spent on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads by global oil giants and their industry bodies, promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according to the report published on Friday by InfluenceMap."

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...HGMMMLIlIeLYx3nwU1DrZIHmgOXDO106dffAUK5XsKY3A


----------



## explod (25 March 2019)

So maybe we have to get creative and change what action means. And do it





About this website

SCIENCEALERT.COM

It's Official: There's Nothing We Can Do Now to Stop Arctic Temperature Rise


----------



## explod (26 March 2019)

*Antarctic mission reveals Totten Glacier secrets, along with rethink on sea level rise*
By Jessica Hayes

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...X3bRNc4coV0YohmKd9Kymnc_qY8mTMDSXUyPiLnQCAiV0

Time to sell that seaside shack and Party in the hills


----------



## explod (27 March 2019)

So both ends of the globe showing clear signs of catastrophe but most people are discussing guns.

*It's Official: There's Nothing We Can Do Now to Stop Arctic Temperature Rise*

CARLY CASSELLA
15 MAR 2019
No matter what we do, the Arctic of the future is going to be poles apart from the one we know today.

A new paper from the UN reveals that even if we pull the plug on all carbon emissions tomorrow, our hands are ultimately tied; the Arctic region is still going to warm by up to 5 degrees Celsius come the end of the century.


The reality is, we've simply emitted too many greenhouses gases, and now there's no escaping the consequences.

Even under the terms of the Paris Agreement, the research shows that winter temperatures in the Arctic are set to rise by at least 3°C by 2050 and 5 to 9°C by 2080 compared to pre-industrial levels.

The Arctic region is the virtual bullseye of climate change, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world gets off scot-free. As the top of our planet begins to melt, the consequences are certain to trickle down like a dripping ice-cream cone.

There is plenty of research to suggest that climate changes in the Arctic region will unleash dangerous sea level rises around the world, causing coastal flooding, erosion, and damage to buildings and infrastructure. It will also flip ecosystems on their head, contaminate drinking water, and drive mass human migration.

https://www.sciencealert.com/there-...FwzclDsKTq6iQHooasPffMh0s3bS6hextAoxPVlOIqf2c


----------



## Ann (27 March 2019)

This is an article from a very depressed young lady Carly Cassella who lives with Chronic Fatigue. Chronic Fatigue can make people seek out depressing subjects and situations to re-enforce how they are feeling. Clearly she will not be looking for any positive articles to feature from the climate papers. There is no way we can verify what she is saying as the link to the paper she is quoting won't link. (Not doubting her, just like to see how things are worded).

Before anyone has a go at me about talking about her Chronic Fatigue, I lived with it for nearly 26 years before I found the cause and flicked it. I can bring it back at will to prove the cause is actually the cause (for me). I know how she is feeling.


----------



## explod (27 March 2019)

Ann said:


> This is an article from a very depressed young lady Carly Cassella who lives with Chronic Fatigue. Chronic Fatigue can make people seek out depressing subjects and situations to re-enforce how they are feeling. Clearly she will not be looking for any positive articles to feature from the climate papers. There is no way we can verify what she is saying as the link to the paper she is quoting won't link. (Not doubting her, just like to see how things are worded).
> 
> Before anyone has a go at me about talking about her Chronic Fatigue, I lived with it for nearly 26 years before I found the cause and flicked it. I can bring it back at will to prove the cause is actually the cause (for me). I know how she is feeling.



What has this to do with CC Ann ??


----------



## explod (27 March 2019)

And now the east side, getting worse quickly:-


In recent years, researchers have warned that Totten Glacier, a behemoth that contains enough ice to raise sea levels by at least 11 feet (about 3 meters), appears to be retreating because of warming ocean waters. Now, researchers have found that a group of four glaciers sitting to the west of Totten, plus a handful of smaller glaciers farther east, are also losing ice.

"Totten is the biggest glacier in East Antarctica, so it attracts most of the research focus," said Catherine Walker, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who presented her findings at a press conference on Monday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in Washington. "But once you start asking what else is happening in this region, it turns out that other nearby glaciers are responding in a similar way to Totten."

For her research, Walker used new maps of ice velocity and surface height elevation that are being created as part of a new NASA project called Inter-mission Time Series of Land Ice Velocity and Elevation, or ITS_LIVE. Researchers with ITS_LIVE will be launching a new initiative in early 2019 to track the movement of the world’s ice, which includes the creation of a 30-year record of satellite observations of changes in the surface elevation of glaciers, ice sheets and ice shelves, and a detailed record of variations in ice velocity starting in 2013.

Walker found that four glaciers west of Totten, in an area called Vincennes Bay, have lowered their surface height by about 9 feet (almost 3 meters) since 2008—before that year, there had been no measured change in elevation for these glaciers. Farther east, a collection of glaciers along the Wilkes Land coast have approximately doubled their rate of lowering since around 2009, and their surface is now going down by about 0.8 feet (0.24 meters) every year.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2832/more-glaciers-in-east-antarctica-are-waking-up/


----------



## Ann (27 March 2019)

explod said:


> What has this to do with CC Ann ??



One has to wonder how many papers she looked through related to Climate Change to eventually find one with such a miserable conclusion.  As the old saying goes, 'misery loves company'. A person's state of mind plays a great bearing on what they focus on. Bad outcomes, bad news, negativity all go hand in hand with ones' outlook if in a state of depression.  This helps to feed the misery and despair in others, this would make her fell better to know she is able to depress other people. Whereas an upbeat study on CC would not fit her mental state. I guess I am just looking at this as a potential negative bias yet again from a journalist. Been a bit of this going around of late!


----------



## explod (27 March 2019)

There is considerable evidence that climate change is having devastating effects on our young people.  But putting heads in the sand and trying to hide it is not the solution.  We need to hit politicians everywhere to start doing something about it.  Your posts are also putting a net over mine to decrease attention.  Anyway:-


https://www.sciencealert.com/there-...FwzclDsKTq6iQHooasPffMh0s3bS6hextAoxPVlOIqf2c


----------



## HelloU (27 March 2019)

I expect to fly to Bonn in June and intend to raise those concerns.


----------



## explod (27 March 2019)

A much worse scenario for ice loss would be if the bedrock under the glaciers sloped downward inland of the grounding line. In that case, the ice base would get deeper and deeper as the glacier retreated and, as ice calved off, the height of the ice face exposed to the ocean would increase. That would allow for more melt at the front of the glacier and also make the ice cliff more unstable, increasing the rate of iceberg release. This kind of terrain would make it easier for warm circumpolar deep water to reach the ice front, sustaining high melt rates near the grounding line.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2832/more-glaciers-in-east-antarctica-are-waking-up/


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 March 2019)

explod said:


> Time to sell that seaside shack and Party in the hills



Look on the positive side.

Getting rid of that pesky ice will make it easier to drill for oil. 

Also cheaper to open cut mine for coal without having to dig through all that ice first.

Plus brilliant opportunities to sell bottled Antarctic water from the melting ice.

Yes I'm being sarcastic but sadly there's probably someone somewhere planning exactly that and unlike me they're serious.


----------



## explod (27 March 2019)

Yes you are probably right Smurf,

we must party on


----------



## rederob (27 March 2019)

Ann said:


> I guess I am just looking at this as a potential negative bias yet again from a journalist. Been a bit of this going around of late!



The person linked to a paper previously linked science paper.
About the only thing going around in your world is denial of climate science.


----------



## ghotib (28 March 2019)

Ann said:


> This is an article from a very depressed young lady Carly Cassella who lives with Chronic Fatigue. Chronic Fatigue can make people seek out depressing subjects and situations to re-enforce how they are feeling. Clearly she will not be looking for any positive articles to feature from the climate papers. There is no way we can verify what she is saying as the link to the paper she is quoting won't link. (Not doubting her, just like to see how things are worded).
> 
> Before anyone has a go at me about talking about her Chronic Fatigue, I lived with it for nearly 26 years before I found the cause and flicked it. I can bring it back at will to prove the cause is actually the cause (for me). I know how she is feeling.



Ann,
Why do you think that Carly Cassella is depressed?

She doesn't say so. She says https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/c...syndrome-is-a-chronic-frustration_a_21442362/ ) she's "Tired of explaining to friends that their desire to take a nap is not equivalent to debilitating fatigue. Tired of endless blood tests and waiting lists. Tired of jaded university doctors dismissing multiple referrals. Tired of being told that my symptoms are all in my head. Exhausted. Shattered. Spent." She says that the symptoms of CFS ..."include, but are certainly not limited to, unrelenting exhaustion, chronic muscular pain, fatigue following physical activity, unrefreshing sleep and the dreaded 'brain fog', a form of cognitive impairment that makes studying with a hangover feel like a breeze." Her Huff Post bio ( https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/author/carly-cassella/ ) says that she is "... a long-time Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferer and activist. She is the founder of Fatigued AF, a social media campaign targeted at young CFS sufferers." I understand that depression is part of CFS for some people, but I don't see anything to suggest that Carly Cassella is one of them. In fact, since the bio and her article about CFS are dated 2016, it's possible that she's given CFS the flick as effectively as you have.

I'm asking this because you seem to suggest that her article should be dismissed because she's depressed. You further suggest that she dismissed some unspecified subset of climate papers till she found one that would match her assumed state of depression. Forging such a chain of assumptions that have nothing to do with the content of her article is a painfully inefficient way to assess the reliability of her source or her article. Why not tackle the real subject matter and search for current projections for future conditions in the Arctic? 

The paper she is reporting is not original research. It's a press release about a report from the UN Environment Programme:  https://gridarendal-website-live.s3.amazonaws.com/production/documents/:s_document/466/original/Press_release.pdf?1552482132  

And according to her Twitter bio Cassella herself is now a professional science writer. I speculate (it's my turn ) that she simply wrote a piece about the UN report when it crossed her desk. No seeking out of articles, positive or negative, required.


----------



## basilio (28 March 2019)

The issue of unaffordable  property insurance as a result of climate change is now in plain sight.

* Climate change could make insurance too expensive for most people – report *
Munich Re, world’s largest reinsurance firm, warns premium rises could become social issue

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ance-too-expensive-for-ordinary-people-report


----------



## Ann (28 March 2019)

ghotib said:


> Ann,
> Why do you think that Carly Cassella is depressed?




_"Tired of explaining to friends that their desire to take a nap is not equivalent to debilitating fatigue. Tired of endless blood tests and waiting lists. Tired of jaded university doctors dismissing multiple referrals. Tired of being told that my symptoms are all in my head. Exhausted. Shattered. Spent." She says that the symptoms of CFS ..."include, but are certainly not limited to, unrelenting exhaustion, chronic muscular pain, fatigue following physical activity, unrefreshing sleep and the dreaded 'brain fog', a form of cognitive impairment that makes studying with a hangover feel like a breeze."_

Read what she says, feeling depressed goes without saying living like this, I can tell because she is feeding her brain with doom and gloom.  It gives her a good reason to be depressed. I can't imagine how depressing it must be to have this doomsday mindset all the Global Warmers carry around with them. If it is ever reported it would be interesting to know if more and younger children are committing suicide now they have been told there is no time left it will be all over in twelve years. It is like one enormous doomsday cult handing out the kool aid to the children. 



ghotib said:


> I'm asking this because you seem to suggest that her article should be dismissed because she's depressed.



No I did not say it should be dismissed, but was making a point to be aware of her potential bias toward information. In all subjects we should look for a bias so that we can judge its merit and give it proper balance. 



ghotib said:


> Why not tackle the real subject matter and search for current projections for future conditions in the Arctic?



Because it would be a futile exercise trying to find balanced facts now that it appears Google to be filtering information. I have wondered for a long time why there hasn't been more balance in scientific based evidence to be found and how hard it is to find any refuting evidence which there should be for any subject. Good debate has all but been shut down online regarding this subject. Can't fight a one sided agenda, when there is a lack of balanced information from which to draw to offer an alternate view, it is pointless. 
Discussing any topic with people who have closed minds and a doomsday mentality is simply foolish that is why I don't bother any more. 



ghotib said:


> And according to her Twitter bio Cassella herself is now a professional science writer. I speculate (it's my turn ) that she simply wrote a piece about the UN report when it crossed her desk. No seeking out of articles, positive or negative, required.




Highly unlikely she is behind a desk. She is probably propped up in bed browsing her computer for anything she feels agrees with her opinions and that of the site she writes for. 
She is writing online for a privately owned Australian site legitimizing itself with a name containing the word 'science'. This employs ten contributors who appear to have a focus toward the environmental agenda, if one reads the contributors profiles. There is no reference as to who is funding the site other than to say it is funded by the 'adverts' which appear on the site. My best guess would be Robert Purves . He has a special fund called the Purves Environmental Fund
He is the major funder of the Climate Council among many other environmental and focus group areas in Australia.


----------



## rederob (28 March 2019)

Ann said:


> She is writing online for a privately owned Australian site legitimizing itself with a name containing the word 'science'. This employs ten contributors who appear to have a focus toward the environmental agenda, if one reads the contributors profiles. There is no reference as to who is funding the site other than to say it is funded by the 'adverts' which appear on the site. My best guess would be Robert Purves . He has a special fund called the Purves Environmental Fund
> He is the major funder of the Climate Council among many other environmental and focus group areas in Australia.



Ann
Why not just focus on *actual content*?
It is not that hard.
It seems that those who deny climate science, - people like you - go to extremes to present completely irrelevant information.
If you do not understand the science, ask legitimate questions.
There is enough ignorance in cyberspace without the need to add to it.


----------



## Ann (29 March 2019)

*Interruption of two decades of Jakobshavn Isbrae acceleration and thinning as regional ocean cools*
_Article | Published: 25 March 2019
Jakobshavn Isbrae has been the single largest source of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the last 20 years. During that time, it has been retreating, accelerating and thinning. Here we use airborne altimetry and satellite imagery to show that since 2016 Jakobshavn has been re-advancing, slowing and thickening. We link these changes to concurrent cooling of ocean waters in Disko Bay that spill over into Ilulissat Icefjord. Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid 1980s. *More...*_


----------



## basilio (29 March 2019)

*So how and where did you find this piece of science Ann *?  Does this mean that you are open to examining a range of scientific analysis of ice melt in the Arctic and Antarctic ?


----------



## Ann (29 March 2019)

basilio said:


> *So how and where did you find this piece of science Ann *?  Does this mean that you are open to examining a range of scientific analysis of ice melt in the Arctic and Antarctic ?



You have a problem with a bit of news about arctic ice _re-advancing, slowing and thickening? _Why do you sound so shocked that I found it Bas? The link is there, it is intact, I checked it.

I know, it is pretty amazing this snuck by the Google censors, I guess they missed that it was not doom and gloom news. I was pleased to see it if just for the sake it was one that got away.

No doubt it won't be too long before they issue a quick modelling to say, it won't last it is really all doom and gloom and this is a total aberration, won't last, will melt again. Then next time they will vet this sort of  study and stop it from getting into general circulation.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 March 2019)

Golly gee ...



*Declining Sea Ice Trend Continues - NASA Confirms in 2019*

If your talking about 2 inch thick salt filled ice .... which you are ... since a Canadian icebreaker went to the north pole at 13 knots .... last summer ... even I am floored by some peoples stupidity, beliefs and crap they believe.


*How People Become Flat-Earthers*
Maybe the flat earth society is for you ?


Oh and by the way ,,, the temperature is now at a record 40 degrees above the ave in parts of the ARCTIC  ... F ... so 22 C above norm highs ...  or so for March ... so that thin .. salty ice ... *ITS GONE !!*


----------



## rederob (29 March 2019)

Ann said:


> You have a problem with a bit of news about arctic ice _re-advancing, slowing and thickening? _Why do you sound so shocked that I found it Bas? The link is there, it is intact, I checked it.



Yes, it's a good piece of science.



Ann said:


> I know, it is pretty amazing this snuck by the Google censors, I guess they missed that it was not doom and gloom news. I was pleased to see it if just for the sake it was one that got away.



Google does not affect science.



Ann said:


> No doubt it won't be too long before they issue a quick modelling to say, it won't last it is really all doom and gloom and this is a total aberration, won't last, will melt again. Then next time they will vet this sort of study and stop it from getting into general circulation.



Ann, it appears you have no idea what the article means.
Ala Khazendar, the studies lead author, said it's a natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters which likely caused the glacier to reverse course.
Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation—a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific.
Josh Willis, a study co-author, pointed out that while this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought.


----------



## Ann (29 March 2019)

I knew what the article meant but one has to ask is if scientists didn't know that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, what else don't they know or are misinterpreting?  Much store has been put into glacial melts, if this caught them by surprise there may be more surprises in store for scientists of things they previous thought was so but is not.


----------



## explod (29 March 2019)

Ann said:


> I knew what the article meant but one has to ask is if scientists didn't know that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, what else don't they know or are misinterpreting?  Much store has been put into glacial melts, if this caught them by surprise there may be more surprises in store for scientists of things they previous thought was so but is not.



Sorry Anne but I have a Nephew supporting a scientific team in antarctica and I'm afraid it is all bad.  Just party my dear as we the humans are doomed.

Apart from the extinction from the volcanic activity one and the meteor situation there has never ever been anything like or as fast as the deteriorating situation we have now.  However you will still find false news trying to squeeze the last quid out of the suckers, but of course that's business.

Try not to be part of the suckers Ann, start to enjoy life as I'm starting to and perhaps then your psychological issues can switch you over to some pleasure.  And get to one tablet a day too.


----------



## Ann (29 March 2019)

explod said:


> Sorry Anne but I have a Nephew supporting a scientific team in antarctica and I'm afraid it is all bad. Just party my dear as we the humans are doomed.



That is an interesting sort of job, what is his role there explod and how long has he been down there?


----------



## explod (29 March 2019)

Ann said:


> That is an interesting sort of job, what is his role there explod and how long has he been down there?



Has to be careful what he says but has been involved for about five years.  So is not specific but he is worried for us.  My concern is my many Grandchildren of course.  Gave up the smoke a few years back but always enjoyed a rollie so thinking about going back to them.  Where do you live Anne, would be good to get together for a chinwag sometime.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 March 2019)

The Arctic is the canary ...

this is the man ...
Peter Wadhams is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, *University of Cambridge
*
North pole last summer was above ZERO ....  listen to it ... he I might add on the UN ... the IPCC is very critical of their numbers and DOES ,,,, unlike some who claim to work WITH them ,, *
*
*
*
I would add,* the Great Barrier reef is 25% the size of what it was 30 years ago and it is unlikely to be more than 10% of what it was in 1985 by 2050. 
*
If someone can explain why the worlds leading expert on Arctic Ice is wrong, along I might add with 30 other fellow of similar qualifications, I am all ears .... oooh and NASA and the EU unit doing the same with two brand new satellites which are bringing in lots of depressing data on ICE thickness in Antarctic regions as well. as Arctic and Greenland every few hours.


----------



## explod (29 March 2019)

Did not like giving you that tick, when are we going to go into emergency mode to try and save the planet.

Stop cutting down trees and start planting, fck the car, walk or ride the bike, stop eating meat, grow as much veggies as you can and share, talk to your next door nabour about it and spread the word.  Become a vegan green nut and enjoy a new party mode.  XXXOO xo


----------



## qldfrog (29 March 2019)

But explod you know as well as i do that 3 billions Indians and chineses do not give a ****, so enjoy car cruising if you want to, buy a 4wd and fly to hk for a week end with the missie
Eat steak while you can, and guess what good meat has great taste too


----------



## Ann (29 March 2019)

explod said:


> Has to be careful what he says but has been involved for about five years.  So is not specific but he is worried for us.  My concern is my many Grandchildren of course.  Gave up the smoke a few years back but always enjoyed a rollie so thinking about going back to them.  Where do you live Anne, would be good to get together for a chinwag sometime.



He may not need to worry, I think it will sort itself out. I believe it is amazingly spectacular down there. 
However if I am wrong about GW I think we will need to take immediate positive action. All SUVs should be banned except for specific rural needs. All domestic air flights should be banned worldwide and only electric trains should be used to shuttle the population around their countries. No international flights unless on urgent business, international flights should be reduced to a bare minimum. Overseas holiday trips only on board ships. All cars must have emission controls fitted before they can be re-registered and it must be certified. Sales tax should be removed from all EVs and people encouraged to change over their petrol cars. If we do get into a temperature crisis and need more air-conditioning we must invest in cleaner filtering of coal and gas. We need more provision for electricity production. We are working toward the new sustainables but the problem with those is they will cause a lot of waste pollution when their life is up and we will still need ship loads of power to produce the new sustainables to replace them. They may not end up being particularly sustainable longer term with the end of life pollution they will cause. 

Now I will be upsetting you but it needs to be said, given I am talking in hypotheticals,  cattle should be bunch grazed on permanent grasslands. Vast grasslands are the best carbon sinks, better than trees because if grasslands burn the carbon is stored under ground in their roots but trees when burnt give off stored carbon dioxide. We need the animals to graze to keep fuel down and replenish the land with their dung. One of the thoughts I have had about the increase in carbon dioxide in the air are the new machines which are cultivating the land, it is no longer a man behind a beast opening the soil for crops, it is massive machines that can plow the earth in massive acreage. Every time the earth is plowed it releases carbon. Cattle keeps fuel down, grasslands are carbon sinks, plowed earth releases carbon. In one way if we went totally meat eating and crop free we may see a large reduction of released carbon. 

I am bringing the rest of your comments into the CF thread to keep this thread from getting out of context, I find it a bit irritating when that happens.


----------



## explod (29 March 2019)

Love your excellent thoughts Ann, however, trees (full grown) provide oxygen for eight people and are being cut down here in Victoria at a frightening rate. 

And unfortunately this Is not taken in to by the general community.

Love your interest, but,,,,, its time for another drink as no one else really cares.

Can you help ?


----------



## basilio (29 March 2019)

Anyone else taking The Road to Damascus ?


----------



## Ann (29 March 2019)

explod said:


> Love your excellent thoughts Ann, however, trees (full grown) provide oxygen for eight people and are being cut down here in Victoria at a frightening rate.




I wasn't for a second suggesting we do away with trees, I was suggesting we have more grazing land and less crop land. Trees and grasslands can co-habit very well shade for the cattle and grass for their feed, wonderful carbon sinks and great nutrients for the soil from animals and trees, croplands and trees are not compatible. There is a lot of clear felling for croplands. I think a number of the trees are being cut down because of the threat of bushfires as more people are spreading into the previously uninhabited areas, they need to be protected from fire.


----------



## Ann (29 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Anyone else taking The Road to Damascus ?



Not me Bas, I am simply playing devils advocate. If everyone is genuinely wanting to do something productive regarding carbon emissions, stop finger pointing and start becoming pro-active within the boundaries in one's own control. We control what we drive, how often we fly, how wasteful we are with power usage, we can install our own solar, some can grow their own vegetables, we can buy all things from second hand shops. Buy a second hand house, a second hand car, second hand clothes, second hand books. Buy nothing new. These are immediate steps we as individuals can take, if each person who genuinely believes we have a problem, takes these actions, it will make a massive difference right now. Standing around waving hysterically worded banners is just a feel good wank. Do something yourself, it is within your own control. Have all the children who were protesting at Parliament House refused to travel to school in their parents cars? I bet they haven't, I bet they hop aboard mum's SUV to be driven the mile to school every day and think nothing of it. I have no idea why you all so desperately want to be taxed by un-elected, shadowy figures from another country? Taxes will definitely not fix the problem, if in fact one exists. 

The thing is, this sort of low consumer life has been a part of my behaviour forever. It is my philosophy. Tread softly on the planet, leave no trace. It isn't hard. Put your lifestyle where your mouth is!


----------



## rederob (30 March 2019)

Ann said:


> I knew what the article meant but one has to ask is if scientists didn't know that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, what else don't they know or are misinterpreting?  Much store has been put into glacial melts, if this caught them by surprise there may be more surprises in store for scientists of things they previous thought was so but is not.



That would be dishonest of you Ann, else you would not have said " it is pretty amazing this snuck by the Google censors, I guess they missed that it was not doom and gloom news."
In fact *it is doom and gloom news*.  
The ability to now measure much more accurately than ever the effects of climate on glaciers means it is likely that sea level forecasts are overly conservative.


----------



## qldfrog (30 March 2019)

Outside the fact that my living in China show me how futile this is :considering the billions of people producing the huge majority of co2 do not give a fxck, well i should say consuming fossil energy which is definitively a crutial problem

If by amiracle we could remove that hard fact, the current regulatory system is a terrible waste
I am currently moving a cottage on my block..second hand wooden qlder moved from city to outer suburb..best reuse you can think of

The amount of red and green tape is abysmal and a major cost not only in money but in waste and resources.
change all windows , doors for fire regulation or building code yet.perfectly good andi wouldwsay better than the  aluminium windows replacing them..and see the energy cost
Mandatory water tanks useless in my case
Mandatory screening for esthetic reasons so wood and bolts etc for a house on a 42 acre block hidden among trees, has to look new..yeap mandatory
The current regulation first, one rule fits all is a terribly inefficient use of resources and multiplying it on all aspects of our society must be a tremendous cost to the environment.
This is something I have just become aware of


----------



## basilio (30 March 2019)

Ann said:


> Not me Bas, I am simply playing devils advocate. If everyone is genuinely wanting to do something productive regarding carbon emissions, stop finger pointing and start becoming pro-active within the boundaries in one's own control. We control what we drive, how often we fly, how wasteful we are with power usage, we can install our own solar, some can grow their own vegetables, we can buy all things from second hand shops. Buy a second hand house, a second hand car, second hand clothes, second hand books. Buy nothing new. These are immediate steps we as individuals can take, if each person who genuinely believes we have a problem, takes these actions, it will make a massive difference right now. Standing around waving hysterically worded banners is just a feel good wank. Do something yourself, it is within your own control. Have all the children who were protesting at Parliament House refused to travel to school in their parents cars? I bet they haven't, I bet they hop aboard mum's SUV to be driven the mile to school every day and think nothing of it. I have no idea why you all so desperately want to be taxed by un-elected, shadowy figures from another country? Taxes will definitely not fix the problem, if in fact one exists.
> 
> The thing is, this sort of low consumer life has been a part of my behaviour forever. It is my philosophy. Tread softly on the planet, leave no trace. It isn't hard. Put your lifestyle where your mouth is!




Come on Ann be real.
Of course we can all "do something" about our immediate effect on the environment. But unfortunately as individuals we can't do something individually about  the biggest issues that are creating havoc with our environment.

*To do that we need collective action developed by our representative government and implemented through well framed laws. And to get that action we need to make it clear as a united community we ant this to happen*

Simple examples
1) The threat posed by  CFC's destroying the ozone layer could only be addressed by firstly identifying the problem (CFC's) then banning its use and at the same time finding an alternative product. 

2) Industrial poisoning of the environment by dangerous products (ie lead in petrol, paint, consumer goods) could only be stopped by again identifying the source of the problem and then passing and *enforcing laws *to prevent this happening again. 

Human caused global warming is the biggest threat facing our planet and our societies. We know the cause. We know the solutions. We know the consequences of inaction.

Get on board or get out of the way.


----------



## kahuna1 (30 March 2019)

Trees ?

One must be kidding ? Or not able to do math.
One hectare of trees removes 4 tons of CO2.* IF you ignore what was growing there*.

Australia emits 500 million tons of CO2 each year. So we would need 125 million HECTARES of trees JUST to make it neutral for ONE year .... or 1.25 million sq KM .... which is impossible for many many reasons.

Globally 37 billion man made tons ... again NOT possible ... there is NOT enough land left after that being cultivated and grazed upon added to urban sprawl and 50 million sq km of ALPS mountains or under the arctic and Antarctic. 

Morrison our fearless but just as stupid as Trump leader plans to plant a billion trees over 15 years. At 2000 tress per hectare, that is 500,000 hectares OR .... 5,000 SQ km compared to the 1.25 million SQ km needed to capture what we emit each year. *That is 0.4% ... of WHAT we emit each year*.

I will add, trees live and die so they STOP being net CO2 capture when they mature, die and rot so after 40 years, this CYCLE goes on again, so a tree will only capture it for 40 years.

When I hear people talking about tree's its instantly obvious how little they KNOW and think they know about CO2 and the last 5 times the planet had an extinction event. It is absurd, idiotic and insulting to even suggest tree's are the answer. THEY are just not good enough at absorbing the CO2. To suggest anything along planting trees as a solution is one way to have everyone know your an idiot in the room.

A combination of a lot of measures will be needed if we are to tackle this event. OR NOT .... it may be a good thing a greedy cruel species dies out within 200 years. Maybe the slate wiped clean is a good thing and in light of some of the comments of late, a very good thing.

Not only CAPTURE of CO2 will be needed, but something to ablate the effects of the sun and reflect it back, along with something into the ocean so it DOES NOT enter what is likely a feedback loop post 2100 where the carbon it captures, well over 65% of it, is not released  and the atmosphere. There is clearly one feedback loop about to occur, one from the Arctic and Permafrost. That is itself a massive historical carbon capture area which ended the LAST extinction event 65 million years ago in part. Releasing 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 and a high percentage of methane will triple ... YES TRIPLE the amount of CO2 in the air released. First off, there will be what amounts to a fart as frozen vegetation and dead bodies frozen for a million years starts to thaw in earnest and 50 billion tons of CO2 and hopefully .... HOPEFULLY ... less than 2 million tons of Methane is release ... CH4. 

I say hopefully less than 2 million tons pf Methane because letting that much GO ... at once will not enable the atmosphere which already struggles with breaking CH4 down ... well the best estimate is that it will hit like a bloody hammer and be not 26 times worse than CO2 but a minimum of 86 times worse. That is a 2 billion ton methane fart. Any bigger and its over 100 times or say a hit of 20 PPM of CO2 per million tons. Doesn't sound like much but that's just the start of ARCTIC melt.

If like Trump, or Morrison .... or Barnaby and are in denial ... that too is fine. There have been 5 events that caused 76% to 99% of every animal plant and living thing to die. MOST took millions of years and even the last one, a meteor hitting took 35,000 years to kill 50% of species, and 200,000 years to hit 2,000 PPM CO2 from 250. We will hit the first milestone post industrial by 2100 of killing 50% of all life. As to the 2,000 PPM, myself as a highly regarded predicative model builder especially for non linear events,  put it at best ... AT BEST .... 2150 ... likely 2130.

So post 1850 to 2130 is 280 years, NOT 200,000 years. I am by the way only taking PART of one feedback loop and a tiny part of another into account. The ocean, which provides over 60% of the oxygen we breathe I sadly suspect will be HIT much harder and quicker and its ability to absorb will we slashed along with oxygen production. I am sure it will over time adapt. OVER TIME ... naturally it would take over a million years as it did in the past. 

We can alter this outcome, or NOT. We have the ability to adapt and change, FOR NOW. Its about to disappear. TOTALLY ... with current technology that is.

TREE's whilst positive are an idiots response to a wing falling off a plane in flight that they will superglue it back on ... in flight. There are far better solutions and barring the inventions of free massive power such as cold fusion and being able to remove CO2 via brute force, using the same energy that drives your car to remove it ... we are going to need some serious work.

IF ... as I suspect, along with all 300 experts in the Permafrost of the ARCTIC agree, there will be an initial release of the 1.8 trillion tons of captured and frozen trapped CO2 and methane within 5-10 years, of around 50 billion tons, part methane so around 7-8 years AT ONCE of CO2 released, making an immediate feedback loop of warmer and warmer ARCTIC regions, less white snow to reflect the sun and so on ...  when I hear someone like Trump speak about MORE ice, and YES last year if you listened to the worlds leading expert from CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY he did not go  into the actual details that need another bloody expert and that one is CANADIAN on ice, the guy who went to the NORTH pole at 13 knots last summer .... the ICE, whilst on camera looks good, its less than 30 cm thick, filled with salt and lasts less than a month in warmer weather. WHEN we have a summer with less than 1.5 million sq km of ice left, and its likely SOON if not this year as its not looking good, well .... that methane fart begins.

Then again, I can ignore it. Most alive today CAN ignore it. Unless your in Bangladesh or some low lying place, the 25 cm by 2050 is not going to hit you. Even by 2075, a mere 50 cm as the rise rapidly accelerates as the ocean warms and the last ARCTIC ice melts and even Greenland hits issues, even by 2100 a mere 85 cm rise in oceans is NOT the point.

When we have 3 degrees added to the tropics, outside Air Conditioning, in summer at over 40 degrees your kidneys DO NOT FUNCTION that well. Middle east highs at well over 50 degrees and same for Australia in part, with 10 billion verses 7.2 billion people, the ability to even grow food is unlikely without massive crop fails globally. That is of course in the future. One or more crop fails is likely on a grand scale pre 2050 with a poorer nation hit with a few events droughts, followed by cyclones, followed by floods then drought and 2 cyclones in a single season, 100 year ones and hey presto ... 

Depressed ? Going to plant a tree ? We only have ONE tool ... A VOTE. ... and whilst not amused by either parties plans and the fact the USA and most others around the globe are NOT aware how dire it is ... or caring , even when the UN and IPCC releases a report that says much the same ... all be it watered down ... missing totally impossible to avoid events like ARCTIC PERMAFROST frozen vegetation actually thawing and rotting ... or the ocean acidification being 50% more than 30 years ago ... 

USA media in 2018 reported climate change 45% LESS than 2017 .... which says we, as a planet are stuffed. Stuffed totally following a corrupt USA which is being run via Billionaires and the United nations representative for the USA is a bloody housewife, with NO WORK EXPERIENCE .... other than 3 kids and 3 marriages but she is there ... because her last husband is a coal BARON and donated 3 million to elect Trump ... I kid you NOT !! 

To be honest, even with technology .... even being most positive self ... and I am aware of the cutting edge of most of the emerging technologies, I believe sadly the USA is the highest per capita emitter and DOESN'T CARE ... its all a hoax. Sadly Trump in till 2024 ? Then his son ? Or does a civil war break out as those outside the top 1% with no healthcare act ? Without draconian action .... and post 2030 IT WILL NOT MATTER .... even if we stopped emitting all together ... the ARCTIC ice and permafrost not covered in meters of snow but a dusting which will melt and the thaw will be in earnest and even the bloody North Pole was ABOVE FREEZING .... ABOVE freezing last summer .... so releasing 3 times what already is up there .... leading to one, two and likely 3 other feedback loops making things worse ... 

Time is basically UP .... either radical change politically occurs. So too with trade ,,, you emit ... we tax you like no tomorrow ... and then we as a planet merely switch a few things around ... cost under 1% of GDP ... less than oil and gas enjoy as tax breaks and subsidies ...     and we have a chance ... NOW in 2019 2020 .... by 2030 ... well ... harder at 450 PPM CO2 v around 50 million years at 250 PPM .... and at 450 PPM about to be hit without doubt by Permafrost issues ... so 1,000 PPM by 2100 ... and setting off some nasty other things so ... 

well go plant a tree !! Seriously .... 

We know what stopped all 5 of the past extinction events where CO2 was 1,500 PPM or above and everything dies. Saying CO2 or the last one gave rise to humans is correct and the ARCTIC and down south were vast warm swamps ... mind you it took about a million years for the soil to change up there and down there to support the life, in the meantime the slate was wiped CLEAN ...  sure some life survived but NOT 10 billion needy GREEDY humans !! 

Even I am depressed writing this. There is HOWEVER hope and USA either elects a new regime in 2020 ... OR WE as a a species must abandon .... totally abandon them !! They certainly are not Australia friends and Google not paying any taxes with Apple and Microsoft and the rest ... Chevron and so on cost 30 billion a year !! Similar for the EU via USA based oligarchy members tax evasion and theft. IT WOULD PAY ... all alone for a fighting chance .

Enuf ... out to plant those trees.


----------



## Ann (30 March 2019)

rederob said:


> That would be dishonest of you Ann, else you would not have said " it is pretty amazing this snuck by the Google censors, I guess they missed that it was not doom and gloom news."
> In fact *it is doom and gloom news*.




I am wondering if in fact these are scientists trying to get the truth out that it is not all doom and gloom with the rebuilding of the ice but knowing unless they keep to the party line of bad news, their stuff will not be disseminated*. *No idea if this is so but being the perennial optimist, it is something I shall watch for. 
This info came out a while back, another way scientists are telling us things may not be so bad as they just made mistakes in their science. *Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming*
If you can't read that link for the article, here is another site with the same article.



basilio said:


> Get on board or get out of the way.




This does seem to be a recurring theme among the whole GW  agenda, debate is always shut down. People with other views are ostracized, vilified, insulted and shunned if there is the least bit of opposition to the propagandized viewpoint. Number one red flag of a problem with popularly held beliefs.


----------



## explod (30 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Trees ?
> 
> One must be kidding ? Or not able to do math.
> One hectare of trees removes 4 tons of CO2.* IF you ignore what was growing there*.
> ...




That is a very good post kahuna 1.  

However it is disturbing to say the least as here we have solid facts, not beliefs or thoughts on the sudden and real destruction of our planet.  

The time for thinking is over as clearly voiced by the young teenagers around the world recently.

I recommend ASF members take Kahuna's post in carefully and spread it.   Everyone needs to sit up and act now.


----------



## rederob (30 March 2019)

Ann said:


> I am wondering if in fact these are scientists trying to get the truth out that it is not all doom and gloom with the rebuilding of the ice but knowing unless they keep to the party line of bad news, their stuff will not be disseminated*. *No idea if this is so but being the perennial optimist, it is something I shall watch for.
> This info came out a while back, another way scientists are telling us things may not be so bad as they just made mistakes in their science. *Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming*
> If you can't read that link for the article, here is another site with the same article.
> 
> This does seem to be a recurring theme among the whole GW  agenda, debate is always shut down. People with other views are ostracized, vilified, insulted and shunned if there is the least bit of opposition to the propagandized viewpoint. Number one red flag of a problem with popularly held beliefs.



Ann, you have mastered ignorance.
You are clueless on climate and continue to make comments which simply do not accord with reality.
The Greenland issue is a natural phenomenon, well explained, but until now, difficult to precisely measure.
The paper is peer reviewed science, so your comments about dissemination reflect how little you appreciate about science.
Your optimism appears based on the ignorance which pervades you - read what else the authors of the linked paper had to say as it is the opposite of what you think.
No AGW debate is shut down: where did you get that idea - the science continues.
Unfortunately those of your ilk don't grasp what is happening, obfuscate, confuse, misdirect and want to blame others for what you do not understand.
You are not being "vilified", as you claim.  You are being called out for your utter incompetence in this realm.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 March 2019)

basilio said:


> But we certainly need less stuff in our lives..




True, we can do without a lot of stuff, mainly imported rubbish.

Are we willing to pay more for sustainable goods, and how are companies that rely on planned obsolescence going to react ?


----------



## Ann (30 March 2019)

rederob said:


> That would be dishonest of you Ann






rederob said:


> Ann, you have mastered ignorance






rederob said:


> your utter incompetence




...and that is just from two posts, I could find so many, many more examples of your rude, arrogant, bombastic and bullying manner toward me. I have respect for Bas and explod and others because even though they may disagree with what I am saying, which is fine, at least they display good manners and common courtesy. Good manners, at all times should always be a starting point in any communication or conversation.


----------



## kahuna1 (30 March 2019)

*"rebuilding of the ice ?"*

If your kidding, you win !!  Troll worked. I did provide U tube from the worlds leading expert on the topic. ICE ... I have in the past given the second and third best. on Arctic issues.

You did NOT even bother listening to it. That much is clear. He talked about POLAR vortex and WHY lat year it broke and we saw massively low temps much further SOUTH in the USA because the ARCTIC was too bloody warm.

That said, the ICE .... salt filled ice ... yes did cover 1 million sq KM more at its peak than the previous year. It was THIN ... SALT filled and RIGHT NOW .... not even into the summer ... ITS GONE .... GONE and 2019 will be a new LOW for Summer cover without too much doubt. Its over the cliff .... WELL past any hope of recovery, and SINCE satellites have been watching it since 1978 ..... that's 40 years .... and the new ones MEASURE the thickness, its actually 10% as THICK ... ARCTIC ICE  ... over the whole 15 million SQ km region it inhabits .... 10% as THICK as in 1984.

10% as THICK .... yes still some close to coast glacier type stuff, but NOT much of that left and its been eroded during summer.

I have said this before, scientific and not my findings but a consensus of 99% on Arctic Ice and Permafrost exists with scientists, MORE than the overall 97% consensus on climate change issues.

For some, the Earth is always flat. For some, NASA with 100,000 people who sent people to the moon it was all faked. That a laser can be shot at the moon, at the reflectors there and BOUNCE back, showing clearly some mirror or reflector is on the surface of the moon is THERE. Still, around 25% of Americans believe they may not have gone to the moon.

We, as  a species, Humanity, with oil and coal barons running the USA along with other rich 1% who have agendas similar, to make money and bugger everyone else, WE ARE DOOMED. Doomed without change. *Doomed as a species* much like the movies Sudden Impact, and Independence Day or Armageddon where USA saves the day from an asteroid, or Alien invaders. We in a *parody* of those movies and will not be saved by USA saving the day. WE ARE STUFFED by the USA. No superman in USA flag costume or Wonder Woman in the same is going to save us.
*
 We, as a greedy, weak and shameful species will be consumed by a few peoples greed and political influence and 10,000 various members will decide the fate of 7.3 billion others.*

Then again, 15% of the population has an IQ under 85. With google and Facebook and media feeding you news that you like, climate denier ... gets fed that diet, race hater, gets fed that, the number of imbeciles is likely 40%. Unable to think with the 3 kg of meat on their shoulders called a brain.

Less than 2% of Humans have an IQ over 130. The people I tend to try and quote and learn from are not the lower 40%  but the top 2%. People with IQ's over 140, and in many ways its a curse, are a mere 0.5%. So about one in 200. On the climate side, the top guys and without exception are of a well founded view temperature will rise by more than 4 degrees by 2100. Without action, which is impossible since eventually even the stupid will follow, its unlikely we will prevail as a species.

Not in the numbers here now, or likely 10 billion souls by 2050. Maybe, and a big maybe, that this planet is even inhabitable post 2300. Oh and that guy, a man with ALS who passed away, is about a one in a million IQ called Stephen Hawking. I did not agree with his conclusion because, I have HOPE and some hope, until proven wrong.  Then again, I am a mental midget compared to most. He and some others, might disagree but then again he is no longer here. I am irrelevant either way. 

Take care,
Mark K.


----------



## rederob (30 March 2019)

Ann said:


> ...and that is just from two posts, I could find so many, many more examples of your rude, arrogant, bombastic and bullying manner toward me. I have respect for Bas and explod and others because even though they may disagree with what I am saying, which is fine, at least they display good manners and common courtesy. Good manners, at all times should always be a starting point in any communication or conversation.



First, you are either dishonest in your remarks, or not bright enough to work out you were.
Second and thirdly, you have displayed utter ignorance of climate science in the majority of your posts.
I really don't care who you respect here as it does not change what you post, nor the science which you are incapable of appreciating, even after being told.
You feign vilification, whereas you will not stop posting rubbish.


----------



## Ann (30 March 2019)

rederob said:


> First, you are either dishonest in your remarks, or not bright enough to work out you were.
> Second and thirdly, you have displayed utter ignorance of climate science in the majority of your posts.
> I really don't care who you respect here as it does not change what you post, nor the science which you are incapable of appreciating, even after being told.
> You feign vilification, whereas you will not stop posting rubbish.




As I was saying folks...Rob has a rude, arrogant, bombastic and bullying manner and just does not seem to be able to recognize his problem or control himself as confirmed by his current post.


----------



## kahuna1 (30 March 2019)

Anne,

you mentioned you have adult dyslexia, AKA Dementia. I was wondering maybe, if your having a bad day ? 

I read your posts, and do wonder.


----------



## rederob (30 March 2019)

Ann said:


> As I was saying folks...Rob has a rude, arrogant, bombastic and bullying manner and just does not seem to be able to recognize his problem or control himself as confirmed by his current post.



Ann, defend what you write on climate and there will be no problems.
However, you claimed to have understood something, then made successive posts which show you did not (as confirmed also in Kahuna's posts) and now you are upset that you were called out.
As I repeat in these threads, those who do *not *understand the science try every diversion conceivable, as Ann has now demonstrated.


----------



## Ann (30 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Anne,
> 
> you mentioned you have adult dyslexia, AKA Dementia. I was wondering maybe, if your having a bad day ?
> 
> I read your posts, and do wonder.




No Kahuna, dyslexia has no relation to Dementia!

Dyslexia is not a disease! The word dyslexia comes from the Greek language and means difficulty with words.

Individuals with dyslexia have trouble with reading and spelling despite having the ability to learn. Individuals with dyslexia can learn, they just learn in a different way. Often these individuals, who have talented and productive minds, are said to have a language learning difference.

Research has indicated that we should be wary about automatically assuming that language processing difficulties/differences or cognitive difficulties/differences associated with dyslexia are deficits. Some of the cognitive differences that dyslexic individuals display may actually confer advantages for some kinds of thinking or encourage them to find different paths to learning.

*The following are some of the strengths that individuals with dyslexia may display:*

Inquiring mind

Problem Solving

Comprehending new ideas

Generating ideas Analytic thinking

Creative thinking

3-D construction

Finding different strategies

Seeing the big picture

Insightful thinking

_References: Singleton, The Dyslexic Advantage, The Difference Theory (Dr. G.Sherman and Associates)

*List of people diagnosed with dyslexia*
_


----------



## kahuna1 (30 March 2019)

*Dementia and the Late Onset of Dyslexia *

This post examines the differences between  *Semantic dementia (SD)*, a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by loss of semantic memory in both the verbal and non-verbal domains AND _*Semantic Aphasia (AD)*_, a progressive neurodegenerative disorder or aphasia, characterised by the loss of recognition of the meaning of words and phrases.

https://dyslexiauntied.blogspot.com/2012/08/dementia-and-late-onset-of-dyslexia.html


----------



## explod (30 March 2019)

Report this morning:-

"The World Meteorological Organisation report warns the impacts of Climate Change are accelerating and emissions are rising to dangerous levels."

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/experts...Ldy6_IR-zM8AnlwF9WI3slfhBAe0205GJ1LLKS9IxHeY4


----------



## Ann (30 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *Dementia and the Late Onset of Dyslexia *
> 
> This post examines the differences between  *Semantic dementia (SD)*, a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by loss of semantic memory in both the verbal and non-verbal domains AND _*Semantic Aphasia (AD)*_, a progressive neurodegenerative disorder or aphasia, characterised by the loss of recognition of the meaning of words and phrases.
> 
> https://dyslexiauntied.blogspot.com/2012/08/dementia-and-late-onset-of-dyslexia.html




I have had dyslexia all my life, it was only *discovered* when I was an adult.


----------



## kahuna1 (30 March 2019)

If the NHS, the peak body on that topic ... does not sway you, so be it.

You magically discovered you cant read as an adult. Sorry, I tend to, given the displayed evidence and the peak body, follow the science.

Take care


----------



## basilio (2 April 2019)

Back to what is happening with regard to Global  warming. A nerw reality that is not going to go away or become cooler.

* March was Australia's hottest on record, with temperatures 2C above average *
Hot weather came after sweltering summer and unusually dry season in Western Australia and the Northern Territory 
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-on-record-with-temperatures-2c-above-average


----------



## basilio (2 April 2019)

* Australia's extreme heat is sign of things to come, scientists warn *
Hottest month ever shows temperatures rising faster than predicted, say climate experts

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ign-of-things-to-come-scientists-warn-climate


----------



## Ann (2 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Back to what is happening with regard to Global  warming. A nerw reality that is not going to go away or become cooler.
> 
> * March was Australia's hottest on record, with temperatures 2C above average *
> Hot weather came after sweltering summer and unusually dry season in Western Australia and the Northern Territory
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-on-record-with-temperatures-2c-above-average





Bas, I don't understand this. I am guessing it is my dyslexia, so I will talk it through with you and perhaps you can clarify it for me....

On the BOM site it says...

_*(1)* March was the warmest on record for Australia as a whole. 
_
(OK, I am understanding this statement, I believe) It was the hottest March the whole of Australia has ever had since records began. (OK so far?)
_
*(2) *The national mean temperature was warmest on record, at 2.13 °C above average. _

(I am understanding this statement I believe) The mean temperature for all of Australia was 2.13C above average for the whole of Australia since records began. (OK so far?)
_

*(3)* The mean maximum and minimum temperature for the month were both second-warmest on record, at 2.35 °C and 1.90 °C above average respectively.
_
This statement at (3)  is what is getting me stumped. If I translate this it says to me, the mean maximum and minimum temperature for March for the whole of Australia were both the* second-warmest March on record but not the warmest March on record* as said in (1) and (2).
*
*

This is the problem with dyslexia, I have to translate in my mind every word I read and then I have to make sure when I put those words together it makes sense. This can take several readings in order not to be misunderstanding things. It is a long process. Occasionally, as in this instance I cannot come to a conclusive understanding of what is being said as it appears to me to have two different conclusions.


----------



## kahuna1 (2 April 2019)

*World Scientists' 2nd Warning to Humanity (2017*

Virtually every scientist in the field, ALL OF THEM ... signed the 2017 paper by early 2018.USA celebrated and climate change was mentioned in 2018 ... 45% LESS BY THE MEDIA ...  than the year before. Its  only 24,000 scientists who  PEER reviewed the paper he speaks about. ALL OF THEM .... agree.

Debate all one likes, its pretty silly to do so.



If I said *America is stupid*, corrupt and greedy, that mainstream media coverage is down 45% ... in 2018 ... speaks volumes how sad their society is. We are NOT that far behind. Vote for Barnaby and a coal power station on every corner.


----------



## bellenuit (2 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Bas, I don't understand this. I am guessing it is my dyslexia, so I will talk it through with you and perhaps you can clarify it for me....
> 
> On the BOM site it says...
> 
> ...




Although I haven't read the BOM data, those 3 statements are not incompatible from a mathematical point of view Anne.

As I see it, the first two are relating to the average temperatures between 0:00 and 24:00 for March for the whole of Australia and the 3rd is relating to the average maximum and average minimum for each day in March for the whole of Australia.

Firstly the 3rd piece of data can be relative to March data from two different years. The average for this March for the 24 hours is the highest on record. However, the minimum average may be less than that of March in year X that had a higher minimum average and the maximum average may be less than March in year Y that had a higher maximum average. March year X may have had fairly high minimum averages but not particularly high maximum averages. The opposite for year Y. It may have had high maximum averages, but the night time temperatures were not particularly high.

And it is even possible to have 3 still valid if X and Y are March of the same year. In March of that year the daily minimums may have been high and the maximums were also high, but the later may have been reached just for say 1 hour in the day and quickly fell back. For this year, the minimum and maximum for March may have been lower than March that year, but during the day the temperature stayed near the high point for several hours in the day.

It's the distribution of temperatures throughout the day that allows those statements to be compatible.


----------



## Ann (2 April 2019)

*The Apocalypse Has Been Postponed*

_In recent years, the controversial subject of global warming and a potential “climate disaster” has received a lot of media attention.


There are progressive politicians who are now arguing that unless profound changes in public policy are made to reduce worldwide carbon emissions, we face an impending world-wide climate related catastrophe.


Former Presidential aspirant and Vice-President Al Gore was one of the first national personalities to raise the subject of global warming and the potentiality of an impending climate related catastrophe with the release of his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth in 2006.


Needless to say, such dire prognostications have gained the attention of both the scientific and political communities. So important is the issue of global warming, in 2016, many different countries around the world agreed to sign the “Paris Agreement,”  an accord within the United States Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), pertaining to greenhouse gas-emissions and other climate related issues.


The Paris Agreement’s long-range aspiration is to regulate the economy to keep the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels; and to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, since this, it is claimed, would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change.


However, the Paris Agreement has had its detractors, as evidenced by U.S. President Donald Trump who announced in June 2017, that he would withdraw the United States from the agreement.


In the nation of France itself, the Paris Agreement has been controversial and gave impetus to the “Yellow Vests movement,” a populist grassroots protest movement that saw hundreds of thousands of citizens mobilize against French President Emmanuel Marcon and his government for significantly raising taxes at the pump in an effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption out of concerns related to global warming.


Conversely, many political progressives in the United States have decried and protested President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement and have argued that the citizens of earth are sitting on a virtual ticking time bomb and have issued dire warnings that we have just a decade to avert an unparalleled catastrophe of unfathomable proportions.


Some of these progressive politicians and purveyors of the “Green New Deal” have argued that unless the United States government spends trillions of dollars on combating the epic destruction almost certain to come in approximately a decade or a little more, it is almost certain that the world will come to an end due to climate related foods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves without parallel in human history.


While I will not contest that we all need to care about the environment and avoid polluting the earth, I find it interesting that those who say that there is an impending climate disaster, keep pushing the date further into the future when such a worldwide cataclysm is supposed to take place.


Case in point: Al Gore distributed his documentary An Inconvenient Truth to the American public in 2006. In that film, Gore argued that the world come to an end in ten years due to global warming from the release of that film.


However, that was thirteen years ago, and we now find ourselves in the year 2019 and the global warming apocalypse has not yet taken place.


Similarly, progressive superstar Rep.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  (D-N.Y.) said recently that she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will "destroy the planet" in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.


The fever pitched alarmism over global warming seen in the contemporary progressive circles appears to be a form of “secular apocalypticism,” that foretells that the eminent destruction of the earth is just right around the corner.


The main function appears to be to convince voters and taxpayers to acquiesce to ever-higher taxes to combat climate change. But it has apparently become necessary to keep pushing the date for such an impending climate related catastrophe further and further into the future. As the Steve Miller Band song once said, “Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' into the future.”_


----------



## kahuna1 (2 April 2019)

Yes and NASA did not go to the moon.

All 100,000 employees have kept the secret for 50 years.
Firing a laser at the moon and ot reflects back, off the mirrors there is ... caused by something else.

Its amazing what people believe. Since an icebreaker, a Canadian one went to the NORTH pole in summer last year at 13 knots vs a full speed in open sea of 14 knots, is there much ice there ?

EVen the fact the great barrier reef is 25% of the size it was 30 years ago, and still we have flat earthers and people who swallow the garbage, and prefer to believe what is NOT real.

*I suppose 24,000 Scientists, 200 Nobel prize winners are all wrong.*

Hilarious and sad, how effective throwing a spanner in the works here and there, and its all a conspiracy. Maybe not wearing your seat-belt and hitting a tree will work ?

I do realize in your case Anne you have dementia and I now read you suffered for 26 years chronic fatigue syndrome, so, well .... it is what it is with you. No matter how much one can present to some people, its all ok to not wear a seat-belt, or a parachute whilst parachuting .... or actually read, or even listen objectively. Or is just trolling ? Or is this a bad day ? I suspect a mix of all of it.

Maybe the doom and gloom thread you just started is where you should be. Not only do you deny there is an issue with climate change, which is interesting, this thread, if you can read today, is whether it is unstoppable .... not a total denial ... so maybe start another thread ? Climate deniers, MOON landing deniers and so on ?

Such is life, mine is filled with beauty and joy. Many wonderful memories and things I look forward to.  I would prefer the same for my great great grand-kids.


----------



## Ann (2 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Although I haven't read the BOM data, those 3 statements are not incompatible from a mathematical point of view Anne.
> 
> As I see it, the first two are relating to the average temperatures between 0:00 and 24:00 for March for the whole of Australia and the 3rd is relating to the average maximum and average minimum for each day in March for the whole of Australia.
> 
> ...




Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to try to explain this to me bellenuit.  My takeaway from what you said is it all depends on how figures are presented as to what the outcome may be. Got it!


----------



## basilio (2 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to try to explain this to me bellenuit.  My takeaway from what you said is it all depends on how figures are presented as to what the outcome may be. Got it!




Not quite true Ann.  In this case the issue is that  the figures are measuring different questiosn. As bellenuit pointed out one could pick out extreme high average temperatures in one year (the average mean maximum)   but if the average low temperatures (the average mean minimum)  is not that high then the overall average temperatutrer difference will be mathematically lower.

But in the end the salient point is that temperatures around Australia are at record levels and these records  are now being breached almost every year. The consequences of these continual weather extremes  are seen in the extensive bleaching of  coral reefs, the mass deaths of wildlife that has reached the end of its capacity to cope and at some stage the breakdown of ecosytems that can't survive the change in climate.

With regard to the other item you posted. It's just claptrap from a person who either deliberately or otherwise has absolutely NFI idea of what is happening around the world with the elevation of temperatures.  Just one particular example to make my point clear.

The increase in global temperatures has  now demonstrably affected the Arctic and Antarctic to the point we can see rapid breakdowns in the icepacks.  The effect of this meltdown will be a apocalyptic.  This clown has clearly no understanding of what is happening in the real world.

Your welcome to believe him if it makes you feel better.  But that won't re freeze the ice shelfs.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Ann said:


> This statement at (3)  is what is getting me stumped. If I translate this it says to me, the mean maximum and minimum temperature for March for the whole of Australia were both the* second-warmest March on record but not the warmest March on record* as said in (1) and (2).



Monthly average temperatures use each the measured maximum and minimums.  This inclusive figure was the warmest for a March month in Australia.
Separately the maximum temperatures are averaged, and the minimum temperatures are averaged.
There has been one hotter mean maximum March and one hotter mean minimum March.


bellenuit said:


> t's the distribution of temperatures throughout the day that allows those statements to be compatible.



Not that I am aware as we do not yet use technology which measures hourly temperatures and averages these across the day. See here.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Ann said:


> *The Apocalypse Has Been Postponed*
> 
> _In recent years, the controversial subject of global warming and a potential “climate disaster” has received a lot of media attention.
> 
> ...



None of your post was about the actual science.
As soon as anyone uses Al Gore in their diatribe, you can pretty well throw their message out the window.


----------



## Ann (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Monthly average temperatures use each the measured maximum and minimums. This inclusive figure was the warmest for a March month in Australia.
> Separately the maximum temperatures are averaged, and the minimum temperatures are averaged.
> There has been one hotter mean maximum March and one hotter mean minimum March.



OK, I think I am getting this Rob with your more succinct delivery, thank you. So with the first one they are measuring the average high temperatures for each day of March which some are higher than on record and then they measure the average low temperatures for the month. Then they average these figures.

The second one takes the temperatures over each day in March averaging the daily temperatures of high and low for each day. So a lower low might negate a higher high on the same day? That then is averaged over the month and found to be the second hottest March on record. 
I hope this is what is happening because I can understand this.
So would it be fair to say March was our second hottest March on record?
At the same time saying we experienced the single hottest days in March on record?




rederob said:


> As soon as anyone uses Al Gore in their diatribe, you can pretty well throw their message out the window.




Yes I agree. I tend to do just that.


----------



## kahuna1 (2 April 2019)

This is reminding me of Groundhog day ... A movie I love ...

the line out of it I loved was when Bill Murray asked the woman in the Bed and Breakfast if she ever had Deja Vu ? and she responds .... she will go ask the chef if he can make it.

This circular conversation about climate change, I thought maybe it was serious, then looked back to another thread, and it went around and around, same person, seemingly asking questions and quoting a Mad Magazine as their source for good stuff.

Of course one listens to others opinions, with an exception and this one is clear. Sadly so. 

How does one keep an idiot in suspense ? ( put your phone on hold and leave it ) 

Much like Einsteins comments about definition of insanity. That is doing the same experiment over and over and over again, getting the same result .... and expecting it will change the next time.

Opinion is one thing, whether the sun rises the next day is quite another. Of course, some will and do choose to believe it will NOT rise tomorrow. What would you do if someone was to speak to you for 15 minutes about this, how about do it time and time and time again ?  Would you be polite even after 5 minutes the first time ? 

Thankfully, one can ignore trolls and imbeciles on the internet. Not that another s opinion is to be ignored, one examines it, searches for their view, compares it to factual evidence, presents it back .,,  and well if it goes on and on and on and on and on and on ... and its something that is frankly beyond even being able to questioned ....  

Either you are insane .... or they are ... or in the case of 24,000 scientists and 200 Nobel prize winners, the issue is pretty clear what side of the coin your on if you are not either stupid, ill, or just fishing for a response. 

Must run, they have Deja Vu on the menu and the sad fact is, I think I may have said similar prior to this, different thread, different topic, same people I might add.  Just like the movie. 

Good thing about loosing your memory, mind or not having it in the first place, is that your kids can give you the same book every birthday and Christmas and its all new, even after reading it 1,000 times.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

All this discussion about the planet heating up has a lot in common with the history of tobacco and asbestos.

Cigarette smoking was not common among men until the early 20th century. After about 1930 the rate of lung cancer started to increase, tripling by 1940 and then doubling again in 1950.

Meanwhile the rate of such cancers in women increased only slowly. Cigarette smoking among women did not become common until the 1930's.

Now let's see, based on knowledge at the time what were the possibilities here?

It had to be due to something which had changed given the huge rate of increase.

Whatever the change was, it was something affecting mostly men. This rules out changes in the home or living environment as a likely cause and suggests the cause to be either occupational or due to something men did that women didn't commonly do.

If the cause was occupational then whatever the specifics, it was something common to both white collar and blue collar work performed by men, but not common to any work commonly performed by women. Now there aren't too many chemicals or other things common to both blue collar and white collar work but which are not found at home or otherwise in the lives of women.

At that point, circa 1950, anyone with a shred of intelligence could see that cigarette smoking was the most plausible explanation for the rapid increase in the incidence of lung cancer.

Then the inevitable happened and from about 1960 lung cancer rates in women started to skyrocket just as they had with men 30 years earlier. Exactly the expected outcome given that smoking became common among women 30 years later than men, but still the tobacco companies denied it and many believed them. Covered up so well that the % of women who smoked continued to rise through the 1970's.

Much the same could be said with asbestos. The first deaths were recorded a very long time before most mining of the stuff occurred and in quite a few countries the stuff is still mined today.

I see a lot of parallels between the history of those two and the climate debate. A lot.

You don't need to be a climate scientist to see that there's a change underway which is taking place quite rapidly. As was the case with both tobacco and asbestos, there's a known likely explanation for the cause and as with tobacco and asbestos those profiting from that cause are doing everything possible to deny the link.


----------



## bellenuit (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Not that I am aware as we do not yet use technology which measures hourly temperatures and averages these across the day.




I stand corrected. I was just trying to show how the 3 statements in Ann's post were not incompatible. It is still applicable to the extent that the average daily temperature is just an average of the maximum and minimum for that day rather than, as I had incorrectly assumed, an average of all temperatures of the day.

However, using the method you described, for this March average high and average low each to be second place would require the March that recorded the highest average daily maximum to be in a different year to the March that recorded the lowest average daily maximum. It would not be possible to construct a scenario that would allow them to be the same year.


----------



## kahuna1 (3 April 2019)

Well said.

The analogy is correct, except this time, we are not talking about an abstract possible cancer in someone else. We have had 5 extinction events in the past 400 million years. All the same end results. All with 75% to 98% of everything on the planet dying before the recovery.

Some took not so long to happen, about 200,000 years. ONE, the last one the initial cause was an asteroid hitting the planet. Still it took a minimum of 35,000 years to wipe 50% of all species out. Yes, close to the impact area and for 1,000 miles if not 2,000 miles things were toast immediately or very near that. It did however take a very long time for events to take the atmosphere to where we will take it by 2200 without draconian action to REMOVE a lot of CO2.

Gold star to humans !! More stupid than any animal on the planet.* We as a group, humanity, ruled by 10,000 or so, make the dumbest person. animal or species look brilliant !!*  I do not include the Oligarch members in the human species group, nor many of their helpers.


----------



## kahuna1 (3 April 2019)

Trump knows a lot about WIND ....



And this is the leader ? Of Humanity ? I thought the EU generated over 15% of its power via wind ? Maybe connect a few pipes to Trump and free methane ?


----------



## explod (3 April 2019)

*Canada warming at twice the global rate, climate report finds*


Report by Environment and Climate Change Canada suggests the majority of warming is the result of burning fossil fuels

Leyland Cecco in Toronto

Wed 3 Apr 2019 01.29 AEDTLast modified on Wed 3 Apr 2019 06.25 AE






 The Snowy mountain wildfire, visible from Cawston, British Columbia, on 2 August 2018. Photograph: Canadian Press/REX/Shutterstock
Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, a landmark government report has found, warning that drastic action is the only way to avoid catastrophic outcomes.

“The science is clear – Canada’s climate is warming more rapidly than the global average, and this level of warming effectively cannot be changed,” Nancy Hamzawi, assistant deputy minister for science and technology at Environment and Climate Change Canada, told reporters on Monday.

The report, released late on Monday by Environment and Climate Change Canada, paints a grim picture of Canada’s future, in which deadly heatwaves and heavy rainstorms become a common occurrence. Forty-three government scientists and academics authored the peer-reviewed report.

While global temperatures have increased 0.8C since 1948, Canada has seen an increase of 1.7C – more than double the global average.

And in the Arctic, the warming is happening at a much faster rate of 2.3C, the report says.


While the increased warming in the Arctic is not yet fully understood, snow and ice play a critical role in reflecting the sun’s radiation and heat. But scientists say the retreat of glaciers and disappearing sea ice both contribute to a feedback loop of warming, which is one of the factors contributing to Canada’s disproportionate temperature increase.

The report suggests the majority of warming felt in Canada and around the globe is the result of burning fossil fuels.

Canada has already pledged to cut emissions by 200m tonnes by 2030 – a cornerstone of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national climate strategy – largely through a federally mandated carbon tax and shuttering coal-fired plants.

Despite the urgency of the report, Canada remains mired in a political battle over climate policy.

Trudeau has pushed for a national carbon pricing strategy, and on Monday the federal government imposed the tax on four provinces that refuse to implement one. Conservative politicians have pledged to remove the tax if they win this fall’s general election, arguing that it is too much of a burden for Canadians.

But under the current plan, households will receive rebate cheques from the federal government to offset any added expenses from the tax – meaning costs to the average consumer are negligible.

The report makes clear that Canada faces markedly different outcomes, depending on the policies it chooses to reduce emissions.

Under a scenario in which global emissions are dramatically reduced, average temperatures will rise only 3C across the country by 2100, including the Arctic region.

But if countries – including Canada – fail to act aggressively, increases of 7-9 degrees are likely, and the Arctic faces the prospect of 11 degrees of warming.

Under the report’s worst-case scenario, the risk of deadly heatwaves increases tenfold bring with it droughts and forest fires. Western Canada has already grappled with two years of record forest fire seasons. The risk of major rain events also doubles, meaning cities will be inundated with catastrophic urban flooding.

Access to critical sources of fresh water will also be constrained, due in large part to reduced winter snowfall, which in turn becomes a source of clean water when the snowpack melts.

Many of the previously documented effects – melting permafrost, disappearing sea ice and glacial retreat – are only set to intensify in the coming years.

“We are already seeing the effects of widespread warming in Canada,” said Elizabeth Bush, a climate science adviser at Environment Canada, told reporters. “It’s clear, the science supports the fact that adapting to climate change is an imperative. Urgent action is needed to reduce emissions.”


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Gold star to humans !! More stupid than any animal on the planet.



I think we have a broader crisis of having been captured by so-called "elites" who in practice are anything but when it comes to their actual abilities.


----------



## basilio (4 April 2019)

This is  what the scientists are telling us happened the last time we had 400 + PPM CO2 in the atmosphere.
* Last time CO2 levels were this high, there were trees at the South Pole *
Pilocene beech fossils in Antarctica when CO2 was at similar level to today point to planet’s future

Damian Carrington Environment editor

 @dpcarrington 
Wed 3 Apr 2019 17.22 BST   Last modified on Wed 3 Apr 2019 17.41 BST

Shares
2,021





Leaves of the extinct southern beech (_Nothofagus beardmorensi_) found at Oliver Bluffs, in the Transantarctic mountains, Antarctica. Photograph: J Francis, A Ashworth
Trees growing near the South Pole, sea levels 20 metres higher than now, and global temperatures 3C-4C warmer. That is the world scientists are uncovering as they look back in time to when the planet last had as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does today.

Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3m to 2.6m years ago.

Many scientists use sophisticated computer models to predict the impacts of human-caused climate change, but looking back in time for real-world examples can give new insights.

The Pliocene was a “proper analogy” and offered important lessons about the road ahead, said Martin Siegert, a geophysicist and climate-change scientist at Imperial College London. “The headline news is the temperatures are 3-4C higher and sea levels are 15-20 metres higher than they are today. The indication is that there is no Greenland ice sheet any more, no West Antarctic ice sheet and big chunks of East Antarctic [ice sheet] taken,” he said.

Fossil fuel burning was pumping CO2 into the atmosphere extremely rapidly, he said, though it took time for the atmosphere and oceans to respond fully. “If you put your oven on at home and set it to 200C the temperature does not get to that immediately, it takes a bit of time, and it is the same with climate,” Siegert said, at a Royal Meteorological Society meeting on the climate of the Pliocene.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ree-fossils-indicate-impact-of-climate-change


----------



## Lantern (4 April 2019)

When you read articles that claim that fifteen (15) of the worlds largest ships produce the same amount of pollution as ALL the world's cars, I'd would have to say yes. 

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...orld-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars


----------



## kahuna1 (4 April 2019)

A report on BBC came out overnight about a magic CO2 removal system.

I am NOT going to provide the link. Reason being, whilst promising a removal of CO2 costing UNDER $100- a ton, its one that USES massive amounts of energy to do so. This one backed by oil companies and even BHP is one that is also similar to the feel good Gates one.

This one, an absurdity, that sounds good, cannot and never will get around laws of chemistry/ thermo-dynamics and those being the same amount of energy is REQUIRED to reverse a chemical reaction. One cannot exceed the OTHER ...In this one, the magic CO2 system, it turns CO2 via massive fans then concentration, then baking it to 900 degrees a calcium carbonate solid or pure CO2 to send down wells to flush the last oil out. 

In essence, as with most things, one can create petrol from coal, but it requires around 40% of the energy produced to do so. Next worst is TAR sands, one thing the USA declared open season on in 2006 for the Canadian ones. It requires heating TAR .... very thick oozy stuff to 80 degrees C via natural gas and making it more flowing or viscous and then add thinners so it can be refined. I might add, the tar sand contain about 20 awful contaminants and pollutants and as such the whole process needs 30% if not 35% of the power produced to refine and extract it.

Whilst I applaud some efforts, any efforts to remove CO2 on a commercial stage, to remove even what we emit in one year, humans, ignoring its about to double if the Arctic Melts and permafrost is released and that 300% of ALL emissions since 1800 .... to remove JUST 37 billion tons, let alone what is likely 1.8 trillion MORE tons over 40 or so years post 2030, the CO2 we emit overall is going to rise, NOT fall. rise under IPCC and whilst developed nations will be reducing the overall per capita number, the emerging ones where some are emitting at 5% of USA levels, the leader in CO2 per capita release, will take the 37 billion tons in 2018 to close to 100 billion by 2100 under the current plan.

Ignoring all that, removing even 37 billion tons via this NEW magic method, due to laws of thermo dynamics will require a DOUBLING of total GLOABL power capacity ... DOUBLING ... just to remove it.

Clearly. even at even a glance, its a stupid idea. Gates and Buffet have a similar one which is also just as absurd energy wise. Then again their focus is on the border issue with Buffet and his sons ranch on the border and Gates and buffet both more interested in abortion clinics in the USA verses community health and welfare where they do not a thing or close to it. One gets 50 times more spent on it than the other and as for the climate side, that's even worse, less than 1%. Interesting their agendas and a bit sad.

I suppose, it is possible, if one watched the Movie "The Saint" I think from 2004 and free cold nuclear fusion providing limitless free cheap energy was invented .... and it is possible they DO cross that barrier at some time, but it seems about as likely as say Gates and Buffet who spent 4 billion on abortion clinics in the USA which are 80% used by Latino and African Americans, when that amount would have funded all community healthcare centers for 10 years which service 25 million Americans as primary health care givers, its .... better in their eyes to fund 5 million abortions verses healthcare for 25 million for 10 years.

Much the same with this, new magic .... solution from the oil companies. A sad, sick ... joke.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> In essence, as with most things, one can create petrol from coal, but it requires around 40% of the energy produced to do so. Next worst is TAR sands, one thing the USA declared open season on in 2006 for the Canadian ones. It requires heating TAR .... very thick oozy stuff to 80 degrees C via natural gas and making it more flowing or viscous and then add thinners so it can be refined. I might add, the tar sand contain about 20 awful contaminants and pollutants and as such the whole process needs 30% if not 35% of the power produced to refine and extract it.




Simple explanation = world is run by economists not engineers.

Have this discussion with anyone with a technical background and it goes down one path.

Have the same discussion with anyone from an economics background and it goes down the exact opposite path.


----------



## explod (4 April 2019)

*Australian Youth Climate Coalition*
BREAKING: Scott Morrison has just announced he wants to give taxpayer dollars to big coal and gas companies for their new climate-wrecking projects.




AYCC.ORG.AU

SIGN NOW: No taxpayer money for new coal and gas
Authorised by G. Borgo-Caratti, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053
Sign Up


----------



## explod (4 April 2019)

There is a pathway that is working-
"
Dear James,

Regional communities right around the country are adopting renewable-powered technologies to combat climate change and take ownership of economic opportunities. And *in the race to become Australia’s first renewable-powered community, one shire is emerging as a clear frontrunner.*

Traditionally known as the Spa Capital of Australia, *Victoria’s Hepburn Shire is fast making a name for itself on climate and renewable energy, with today’s launch of its clean energy plan.* The plan incorporates an ambitious target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and 100% renewable energy by 2021 - a mere _two years_ from now.

*And they’re well on their way.*

*Community-owned Hepburn Wind farm, with its two turbines affectionately named Gale and Gusto, already produces enough energy to power over 2000 homes.* But the Shire’s ambitious 2030 net-zero emissions reduction plan will rely on more than renewable power to get the job done. It will also incorporate rapidly reducing greenhouse gas pollution from transport, agriculture, manufacturing and stationary energy use (that includes things like diesel and gas consumption for energy, such as domestic heating).

*Many of us can only imagine living in a truly renewable community,* where each and every activity we undertake - from the morning commute, right through to cooking the evening meal - is powered by renewable energy.

*For the residents of Hepburn Shire, this dream will soon become reality.*

By 2030, the Shire’s clean energy plan will have prevented about 260,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution from entering the atmosphere annually. That’s the equivalent of *taking 60,000 fossil-fuelled cars off the road."*


----------



## Ann (4 April 2019)

explod said:


> There is a pathway that is working-
> "
> Dear James,
> 
> ...





Hepburn Springs/Daylesford is my favourite holiday destination. I regularly holiday there mostly in the cooler months as it is a very forested area and bushfires are a serious risk. They have been very ecologically aware since forever. The food is wonderful and they have some excellent bookshops and second hand/antique stores. A very important Permaculture display farm is also there and it is wonderful. It is a great destination for anyone who is ecologically minded, loves clean food, clean air or who is gay, as it has been a welcoming place for gay and lesbian folk for decades. 
There is a slight touch of irony about their drive to achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions. Virtually all homes have fireplaces and in winter everyone is burning wood in their fireplaces with the delicious smell of wood fires everywhere. It is what I look forward to, the big fires in the fireplace. They always have mountains of firewood ready for burning. It was always seen as ecological and renewable! I don't see them getting rid of the fireplaces in a hurry, this place can have snow in winter. Perhaps they think the CO2 from burning timber isn't as bad as the CO2 from burning gas.


----------



## qldfrog (4 April 2019)

explod said:


> There is a pathway that is working-
> "
> 
> By 2030, the Shire’s clean energy plan will have prevented about 260,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution from entering the atmosphere annually. That’s the equivalent of *taking 60,000 fossil-fuelled cars off the road."*



so in ten years , these efforts will have saved 1/20 of what a cruise ship burn in a day if my computations are right
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...e-the-same-as-1-million-cars-report-1.4277180
So this is all good but we and I mean the media/greens need to stop fooling ourselves, there are real actions to be taken, against ships (from memory 15 biggest ship pollute as much as the whole world cars but I might be wrong),
against China and India for GW (60pc plus and growing), against overpopulation (conflict with Islam ahead) and against the same above countries as well as Malaysia Philippines etc for plastic in the ocean, no point removing plastic bags in Alice Spring: who are we thinking we are fooling?
Wake up
We have an instagram style green movement in the west: dumb,scientifically/technically illiterate, feel good, opportunist picture perfect but fake.
I do my part..sure but you would do better by ensuring that whoolies is selling corn and asparagus grown here, not in China or Peru, and your kids could also inject less chemical in their body in the process
No point jumping in the car with the kids to march against GW, better make sure your roof is not black and cycle to work


----------



## explod (4 April 2019)

Agree with you qldfrog.  I mean where does one start.

 Aircraft alone is one of the greatest polluters.  Hard to have any optimism at all.

I purchase only food that is not wrapped in plastic and I've become totally vegan now, stopped eggs recently, grow a lot of my own, walking more and more and trying to think of new ways all the time.


----------



## qldfrog (4 April 2019)

M


explod said:


> Agree with you qldfrog.  I mean where does one start.
> 
> Aircraft alone is one of the greatest polluters.  Hard to have any optimism at all.
> 
> I purchase only food that is not wrapped in plastic and I've become totally vegan now, stopped eggs recently, grow a lot of my own, walking more and more and trying to think of new ways all the time.



Maybe Explod, you could work within the Greens and stop the west blaming stories, look at where problems are and ensure the Greens target them, not side issues or effect not cause..
Stopping meat is an heresy: what will grow in steep hills, what do you do with your kitchen scraps, they could feed a chicken 
Instead of composting these,you got eggs at no environment cost at all and manure for the garden
Basically take a step back and use independent thinking.
Fish is good for you..true but farmed fish is horrendous for both environment and your body..you are much better off eating a steak from grass fed beef than corn fed salmon
So look at all the studies critically.look at who benefit..always and dig the opposite information.
And work within the greens and your friends to pass the right messages
That might lead to real changes.
as is the west is being screwed by its own grand principles while the planet is being slaughtered by the developing/emerging nations
That is the inconvenient truth


----------



## Darc Knight (5 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> so in ten years , these efforts will have saved 1/20 of what a cruise ship burn in a day if my computations are right
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...e-the-same-as-1-million-cars-report-1.4277180
> So this is all good but we and I mean the media/greens need to stop fooling ourselves, there are real actions to be taken, against ships (from memory 15 biggest ship pollute as much as the whole world cars but I might be wrong),
> against China and India for GW (60pc plus and growing), against overpopulation (conflict with Islam ahead) and against the same above countries as well as Malaysia Philippines etc for plastic in the ocean, no point removing plastic bags in Alice Spring: who are we thinking we are fooling?
> ...




Good post Frog. While we (Australia) need to do our fair share perhaps spending more time trying to apply leverage to the bigger polluters is needed. Leading by example is all well and good but we (Australia) are but a small part of the problem.

@Joe Blow can you please permanently ban this account and device if possible. The temptation to post is too great - I thought my tongue lashing of a member last post would've done this.

To that person/member, I haven't and won't read your PM or anything you write. To everyone else goodbye farewell and best of luck. To those who wish me ill, get nicked


----------



## Darc Knight (5 April 2019)

Looks likes Joes asleep so one last Post.
You guys do see that the major CC denier here is a regular poster in the Oil thread. Investment in Fossil Fuels is certainly a good motivator to be a denier. Not very honourable or ethical but certainly a motivator. Yep, complain to Joe again, or perhaps attack me when I'm gone this time.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Looks likes Joes asleep so one last Post.
> You guys do see that the major CC denier here is a regular poster in the Oil thread. Investment in Fossil Fuels is certainly a good motivator to be a denier. Not very honourable or ethical but certainly a motivator. Yep, complain to Joe again, or perhaps attack me when I'm gone this time.



Unless I've missed something then I see no reason to be banning anyone? 

As for the issue, one thing about all this energy and environment debate is there's a few who are willing to take an objective view even when it's not in line with their current business.

BHP have made a pretty strong argument as to why coal is a problem. Yes they mine the stuff but credit where it's due for acknowledging that change must come and BHP have indeed reduced production of thermal coal (the stuff used in power stations).

Shell have certainly made the point that we're not going to be using oil and gas forever.

Origin and AGL are both publicly committed to ending their use of coal. At present AGL not only burns the stuff but mines it on a massive scale too but they see the problem certainly.

So there's definitely some acknowledgement within the energy industry about all this.


----------



## rederob (5 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> as is the west is being screwed by its own grand principles while the planet is being slaughtered by the developing/emerging nations
> That is the inconvenient truth



It's a perversion and desperate lie from a classic "blamer".
When I was posting on climate change around 15 years ago the average Australian was responsible for around 20 times the amount of CO2 as a person in India. Now it's a bit under 10 times the amount.
By your reckoning we are doing a really good thing if we can again prevent these nations from developing while we bask in our comparative luxury.
The world's 2 most populous nations are also making massive investments in renewable energy.


qldfrog said:


> Stopping meat is an heresy



Only if you deny the science, which shows that livestock contributions to warming are possibly underestimated.

We can all make some lifestyle changes to reduce our GHG footprint, but don't shroud your ideas with ignorance of the facts.


----------



## Ann (5 April 2019)

rederob said:


> It's a perversion and desperate lie from a classic "blamer".
> When I was posting on climate change around 15 years ago the average Australian was responsible for around 20 times the amount of CO2 as a person in India. Now it's a bit under 10 times the amount.
> By your reckoning we are doing a really good thing if we can again prevent these nations from developing while we bask in our comparative luxury.
> The world's 2 most populous nations are also making massive investments in renewable energy.




I don't remember you talking about this back then on Incredible Charts forum Rob! I remember Spider getting his knickers into a twist about bird flu. I told him at the time it was all bullsh!t but he wanted to worry and fret and panic so, meh whatevr.
Anyhoo, I know this is a crap site full of propaganda. I know the best info about CC comes from the Guardian and BBC however it is relevant to what you and qldfrog were talking about.

It is all clearly just silly propaganda from the mid-middle but what can I say? No one mentioned Al Gore.  Enjoy!

*Climate Change Alarmists Routinely Ignore Chinese Flouting Of Paris Accords*


----------



## kahuna1 (5 April 2019)

Anne,

you mentioned you have adult dyslexia, AKA Dementia. I was wondering maybe, if your having a bad day ?

I read your posts, and do wonder.

I yet again ask the question ? Are you somehow more intelligent than 200 Nobel Prize winners and 24,000 PHD's ?  

It seems so !!


----------



## Knobby22 (5 April 2019)

kahuna. 
You are betraying troll like tendencies.


----------



## Joe Blow (5 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Unless I've missed something then I see no reason to be banning anyone?




As a matter of policy if someone asks for their account to be suspended I always do it because I want to respect their wishes. However they are then always welcome to ask for their account to be re-activated. Self-suspended members are always welcome to return at any time.

I guess it's like asking to be excluded from the casino.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 April 2019)

I for one would be sorry to see Darc Night go, but if he has better things to do...


----------



## Value Collector (5 April 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> To everyone else goodbye farewell and best of luck. To those who wish me ill, get nicked




Bye Todd.


----------



## kahuna1 (6 April 2019)

Troll like ?

I am being polite. Whilst welcoming two way discussion, Anne has herself told us she had dementia and suffered chronic fatigue for 26 years, so* I AM NOT trolling. Nor being rude. *

When presented with facts, and presenting non facts, as Anne does, with also dyslexia its a deliberate full time trolling she engages in. It is unclear if she actually believes the stuff she posts, or is merely just ill.
I might add, going to numerous threads, on numerous topics, she is posting the same.

When its done over 5 threads at once its worse. IT certainly gets responses, and people to engage, but frustrates the hell out of the rest.

It is NOT trolling , sorry but if I was trolling, I would call her a moron and use other abusive comments. *She is to be pitied*, she is ill  and I cant remove her rubbish . Reading this thread, with her contributions such as they are, makes little sense. She is I believe in her last post talking about bird flu whilst claiming she told someone it was all a hoax, whilst trying to equate bird flu, with climate change ? Because she supposedly told someone abut it 10 years ago.

On climate change, if we look at this persons posts, as the typical denier. If you read the posts, they are designed, each time to cast doubt over the issue. A deliberate and somewhat idiotic attempt to frustrate them. Doesn't matter when presented with the peer reviewed best source of facts, NO its not about any of that.

There are three types in each discussion and one is left side, one is the middle and the other is right side. On the left, more open to ACTION and the middle is open to most extents on the topic. The RIGHT is in denial their is any issue. Of course there are even extremes to this.

We all can have opinions, and since 25% of people believe NASA did not go to the moon and 100,000 NASA employees for 50 years have kept a secret, and shooting a laser at the moon at the mirrors they left there and IT REFLECTS back is merely a co-incidence, ....

If someone tries presenting the flat earth theory ... or NASA non moon landing theory time and time again, I did take the time to read some of this persons thread and posts, and well .... 26 years chronic fatigue and dementia aka dyslexia in an adult ...

IT is what it is ... I find the ability of not being able to read or comprehend displayed in living color in 10 different threads ......  well ... I am not her family, nor her friend ... and I do have boundaries and I have NOT called her a stupid person who cant be bothered even listening. She is ILL ....


----------



## kahuna1 (6 April 2019)

As Bernie ... says ...
*
Take your absurd ideas and put them back where they came from !!* 

Hilarious what Trump and his devoted delusional followers believe. We have them here .... the Barnaby party ... wants coal fired power stations and its part of the Liberal. National party. Howard expresses views identical to Trump .... and they are serious !! 



*Newsflash: Mr. Trump, Wind Mills Do Not Cause Cancer*

Listening to idiots however does cause .... serious side effects ...I think I listed them already.


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I yet again ask the question ? Are you somehow more intelligent than 200 Nobel Prize winners and 24,000 PHD's ?



Link me to the list of names of all these academics and their specialties who are so well qualified to comment on CC please? Also would you show where they have given their support for the climate change theory.



kahuna1 said:


> If someone tries presenting the flat earth theory ... or NASA non moon landing theory time and time again, I did take the time to read some of this persons thread and posts, and well .... 26 years chronic fatigue and dementia aka dyslexia in an adult ...




Please link to any comments I have made even in passing about these two subjects you mention above. Although I think _you_ may have mentioned it on a thread with faked pictures, not interested in hunting for it at the moment.

Linking Dyslexia and Dementia simply shows your lack of knowledge.  Dementia is a disease now being looked at as a type of diabetes. I do not have nor have I ever had Diabetes. Dyslexia is not a disease, it is a condition people are born with.


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> If someone tries presenting the flat earth theory ... or NASA non moon landing theory time and time again, I did take the time to read some of this persons thread and posts, and well .... 26 years chronic fatigue and dementia aka dyslexia in an adult ...





Ann said:


> Please link to any comments I have made even in passing about these two subjects you mention above. Although I think _you_ may have mentioned it on a thread with faked pictures, not interested in hunting for it at the moment.




Here is the link to _your_ mention of one of these subjects.


----------



## MARKETWINNER (6 April 2019)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/02/canada-climate-change-warming-twice-as-fast-report
Canada warming at twice the global rate, climate report finds

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-climate-change-affecting-australia
*HOW IS CLIMATE CHANGE AFFECTING AUSTRALIA?*

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/30/asia/china-coal-emissions-climate-change-intl/index.html
China's greenhouse gas emissions rising, undermining Xi's climate push

https://development.asia/insight/how-east-asia-can-reduce-climate-change-impact
*How East Asia Can Reduce Climate Change Impact*

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323
*Why India needs to worry about climate change*

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/the-arab-worlds-best-weapon-against-climate-change-its-youth/
*The Arab world’s best weapon against climate change? Its young people*

https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/climate-change/climate-change-europe
*Climate change in Europe*


----------



## kahuna1 (6 April 2019)

A more succinct .... look at the denial side of the equation.

Less than one in a million is the chance humans do not and are not changing the climate.

Its all about money .... and GASLIGHTING .... a distraction is sadly a reality.

* Trump, The Koch Brothers and Their War on Climate Science*
**


----------



## rederob (6 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I don't remember you talking about this back then on Incredible Charts forum Rob!



Maybe because back then, like now, I post in other forums as well.


Ann said:


> Enjoy!
> *Climate Change Alarmists Routinely Ignore Chinese Flouting Of Paris Accords*



Just another link to a stupid article that ignores the reality of per capita contributions being greatest in the developed world. 
The level of ignorance of the author to was displayed many times.  In terms of data, rather than show changes in CO2 contributions since the Paris accord, it showed the change since 1990 - that's unforgivable.
But what was never mentioned was the fact that both India and China are still in the process of industrialising, so they are far from mature economies.
India's population is 4 times greater than the USA but emits half as much CO2. Meanwhile China's per capita CO2 emissions are still not at US levels, but China is adding significantly more renewable energy in gross terms than the USA.


----------



## basilio (6 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Maybe because back then, like now, I post in other forums as well.
> Just another link to a stupid article that ignores the reality of per capita contributions being greatest in the developed world.
> The level of ignorance of the author to was displayed many times.  In terms of data, rather than show changes in CO2 contributions since the Paris accord, it showed the change since 1990 - that's unforgivable.
> But what was never mentioned was the fact that both India and China are still in the process of industrialising, so they are far from mature economies.
> India's population is 4 times greater than the USA but emits half as much CO2. Meanwhile China's per capita CO2 emissions are still not at US levels, but China is adding significantly more renewable energy in gross terms than the USA.




It's also worth checking the background of the "Free Market Shooters" writers.
Yep they are "Blood on the Sand " supporters of  ""responsible gunrights" for anyone with a pulse in the US.
Yep they support free market economics to the hilt. 
They don't believe the Mainstream media. 
In my view another NRA/Koch brothers sock puppet.

If you havn't seen the  undercover videos which allow the NRA an the Koch brothers to talk free about their agendas and how they go about spreading them - have a look.
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/how-to-sell-a-massacre


----------



## HelloU (6 April 2019)

The climate is changing - fact - there has never been a world without climate change.

Easy for me to see climate change as a problem in the sense that problems are matters that involve doubt and uncertainty. When I view climate change, using the definition of a problem as an issue that requires a solution, i stumble a little. 

Serious question, is the world a better place or a worse place, in 2019, for no longer having the Woolly Mammoth?  or is it just a different place?

....... and in the same context, would the world be a better place, or a worse place, in 5,000 years if humans no longer existed?  or would it just be a different place?


----------



## rederob (6 April 2019)

HelloU said:


> The climate is changing - fact - there has never been a world without climate change.



Science does not care if there is a change in long term climate.
It cares if the scientific sense of *climate change* is met, and this means something statistically significant at a generational level.


HelloU said:


> Easy for me to see climate change as a problem in the sense that problems are matters that involve doubt and uncertainty.



All science has "uncertainty."  In this case the *certainty *that this is beyond doubt is 99%.  Maybe you can recalculate your idea of when something is a problem?


HelloU said:


> When I view climate change, using the definition of a problem as an issue that requires a solution, i stumble a little.



Perhaps you should consider using *science *to guide you.


HelloU said:


> Serious question, is the world a better place or a worse place, in 2019, for no longer having the Woolly Mammoth? or is it just a different place?



If that is your idea of a serious question, then you should post in a forum on comedy.


HelloU said:


> ....... and in the same context, would the world be a better place, or a worse place, in 5,000 years if humans no longer existed?  or would it just be a different place?



A person thinking rationally would ask if they helped leave the planet a better place for the next generation, and that this iteration ran continuously.
But the last answer is a definitive *yes* - each moment makes a difference, so try to make it a positive one.


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

rederob said:


> In terms of data, rather than show changes in CO2 contributions since the Paris accord, it showed the change since 1990 - that's unforgivable.




In terms of data, I would always prefer more data to less data with anything I look at. 



rederob said:


> But what was never mentioned was the fact that both India and China are still in the process of industrialising, so they are far from mature economies.




Which says to me there is a lot worse to come from those countries. They won't be touchy feely about the environment, they will just want energy in massive quantities to feed their industries. Solar and wind won't cut it for them.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Which says to me there is a lot worse to come from those countries. They won't be touchy feely about the environment, they will just want energy in massive quantities to feed their industries. Solar and wind won't cut it for them.



I take heart in the continual improvements in renewable energy. When a state like Texas is taking it up with gusto you know everyone will eventually, even backward countries like Australia.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Which says to me there is a lot worse to come from those countries. They won't be touchy feely about the environment, they will just want energy in massive quantities to feed their industries. Solar and wind won't cut it for them.



On the contrary.  China is the global leader in most forms of renewables in terms of investment dollars and capacity build.  India is making massive investments in renewables, considering their lack of wealth.
China still has still has tens of millions while India has hundreds of millions of rural folk living in third world conditions.  I think it reasonable that these nation aspire to give them a semblance of western world lifestyle benefits.


----------



## HelloU (6 April 2019)

so, to help this layman, is the problem the 'rate of change' rather than the actual fact it is changing?  (previous blokes response was unhelpful to my understanding)

If it is indeed the rate of change that is of concern (awaiting confirmation there)  then are we heading to same climate change "end point" just faster ? or to another end point entirely?


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I take heart in the continual improvements in renewable energy. When a state like Texas is taking it up with gusto you know everyone will eventually, even backward countries like Australia.



I bloody hope so Knobby, I have money in the markets on renewables I am holding a straw up to be able to keep breathing at the moment! Holding staunch though. 



rederob said:


> On the contrary. China is the global leader in most forms of renewables in terms of investment dollars and capacity build. India is making massive investments in renewables, considering their lack of wealth.



In their own country or as an investor in other countries? If it is not 100% in their own countries, then they are paying lip service to the whole deal and looking to make money. 



rederob said:


> China still has still has tens of millions while India has hundreds of millions of rural folk living in third world conditions. I think it reasonable that these nation aspire to give them a semblance of western world lifestyle benefits.




I agree totally. Although having said that I wonder if it will truly enhance their lives to be boxed up in cities with all the stress related to that or a slow rural lifestyle. I think a lot of us crave a third world existence of a slow rural life. A few chickens, your own home grown veg, fresh air and peace. Damn it is a hard choice!


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

HelloU said:


> so, to help this layman, is the problem the 'rate of change' rather than the actual fact it is changing?  (previous blokes response was unhelpful to my understanding)
> 
> If it is indeed the rate of change that is of concern (awaiting confirmation there)  then are we heading to same climate change "end point" just faster ? or to another end point entirely?




To all the world's really hard questions you only need to follow one thing, the money trail.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 April 2019)

True, look up Koch brothers.
Also look up arctic charts, satellite measurements of arctic melt.


----------



## HelloU (6 April 2019)

the money trail is digging up copper, lithium, and nickel and vanadium to make the world a 'better place'.  Some want to 'leave the world a better place' by digging huge holes.

science says:
"Scientists analysed the dozens of mammoth fossils and now think rising temperatures melting the mammoths' habitat drove them to extinction".

this is global warming in practice .......
global warming has an impact ........
whether that impact leaves the world a better place, a worse place or just a different place is open to interpretation. The world no longer has Mammoths, but is the world a worse place now? The world does have Bordetella Pertussis but would it be a better place without it? It is subjective.

I do not understand if global warming is taking us to the same future (just faster) or if it is taking us to a whole new place that is as yet unknown ........


----------



## kahuna1 (6 April 2019)

Hi Hello u.

nail upon the head. It is the RATE which is one concern. Its likely what took 200,000 years, an asteroid hitting the planet will take around 300 years to reach 2000 PPM CO2. Maybe 350 years so 2200 and this is IPCC ... the UN climate change numbers along with both Oxford and Cambridge and 5 other very good universities with the top climate change departments. NOT plucked out of some mad magazine.

Even here, at 400 PPM, temperatures will rise 5-6 degrees C but will take if the past is anything to go by around 600 years. Sadly, and without any doubt, not among 97% of the climate change community and that's 10,000 or so scientists, they agree on this issue. Consensus on one or more of the feedback loops occurring which will rapidly take us up from today's 411 PPM CO2 to 1,200 by about 2125 is actually 100%.

100%. And that's just One feedback, the melting of the Arctic and permafrost releasing 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 in frozen dead plants and animal matter. There sadly are likely 3 if not four post 2100. We can possibly avoid some of them. Others, impossible to stop even if we tried.

What ended each of these mass extinction events was capture of CO2 over a very long time, 800,000 to 3 million years and either continents hitting each other and burying forests, which turned into coal and seas of plankton which became oil, and we, now in our wisdom BURN it and expect what occurred already 5 times not to occur.

The previous Utube is a good one on the denial side of it and as one person shared, its akin to denial smoking caused cancer. In this case, where did coal come from ? Or Oil ? if we use it, burn it, release the energy and CO2 back out, a simple few chemical and exothermic reactions, what occurs ?

That is about as simply as I can put it. The process.

Their is HOPE .... and we humans are ingenious, but also at times cruel, greedy and stupid in the extreme.

Whilst quoting some idiot politician who cant even spell Potato, AL gore, whilst well meaning, the money behind the denial of  this issue is large. One point I make as an Australian, one national treasure is GONE ... and GONE no matter what. The Great Barrier reef around for the last 2 million years is now 25% of the size it was in 1985. It is unlikely to be 10% of the size in 2050. It is very unlikely its there at all by 2100. The current state of the reef is NOT a debate, its sadly factual. Coral is being hit by extreme temperatures which cooks it and kills it, bleaching and takes 15 years to even have any hope of surviving.

One does not have to look very far to see evidence. Denial, delusional denial when extreme heat is being seen 10 times more than extreme cold, which again is a climate change effect when polar arctic airflow's normally trapped very far North or SOUTH ... due to hotter than normal conditions break away and the cold air goes further South as it did in the USA in 2018.

Again, and despite satellites for 40 years measuring both the SUN and its output, and the temperature in 500,000 locations clinically and with extreme accuracy, some idiots seem to think its all some non event. It was amusing, Trump, funded by coal and oil barons, his choice to debunk climate issues, a very vocal Nobel prize winner with  NO qualifications in ANY climate science, who worked for and with oil and gas, was caught on tape this week accepting bribes to write papers that said CO2 is good for you on behalf of the Coal industry.

Sadly, again a chemical reaction, and not until say 2125 depending on what people do, with 1200 PPM clouds, that reflect back a lot of the Suns heat stop forming. STOP .... and this lovely feedback loop is worth about 5 degrees C all by itself. By then sadly, the ocean itself which absorbs 75% of the heat a lot of the CO2 and produces 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere will be having a cow itself due to one if not two other feedback loops. the first is assured and acidity went up 50% in the ocean in the past 50 years via CO2 being absorbed, by 2150 well, calcium formed by shellfish will be hard to do, and the things that produce most of the oxygen now, algae and sea grass will be undergoing a sea change on steroids which in the past took 200,000 plus years to occur so giving it a chance to migrate to new areas, this time ? Even I cannot bear to think on this.

Other ocean feedbacks, well the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is trapped in inversion layers, layers of much cooler water and I do wonder how it will cope. Again, impossible to be constructive on this. Last but not least, fresh water added to salt water as the Arctic melts first but the Antarctic and its massive sheets of ice post 2100 being added to ocean currents which like a toilet circulate and warm water is taken North and to around the UK, if this stopped ?

Again, unlikely to be stopped. Unless we, act.

Again, *there is hope*.

Some hope and *not for much cost*, if we act soon. But denial and trolls and money rule the debate.

If you listen to the previous Utube, its sadly a mere spec of the denial and money behind things out of the USA and other oil nations and interests.

The future ... is the past... the outcome will be as it has been already 5 times and 76% to 99% of all life ends. In two of the cases, the air was NOT breathable. Oceans were acid baths and at the equator 40 degrees C. So longer than an hour and your cooked. COOKED  ... 

What a rapid event does is open to speculation. Not the end result of past events.


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> True, look up Koch brothers.



_The vast majority of *their* fortune is invested in a family-owned business called *Koch Industries*. The company was started as an oil refinery more than 75 years ago by Fred *Koch*, and today is a diversified conglomerate that is worth approximately $100 billion. ref.
_
So these guys are oilers. They might make more money by supporting the CC lobby in order to get rid of the small oilers. But I am thinking these guys are actually part of the small oilers. They are going to struggle to get support from the major funds as the green team have done a job on the funds to not support small oilers with funding or support from their funds.

The next big industry which has struggled for a number of years are the Uranium interests, mining and power plants. 
These are in line to make huge money if they can convince us that they are the only 'true green' energy alternative.
Now you need to ask, who is likely to be making more money from a successful lobby?


----------



## explod (6 April 2019)

Meanwhile back to real alternatives that are working:-

*Yes2Renewables*
ICYMI: After many months of delay by the federal energy minister, the exploration license for Star of the South has finally been approved.

This could be the start of a whole new offshore wind sector here in Australia, and provide another pathway for transitioning workers out of fossil fuels and into clean renewable energy.

We're very glad we pushed hard on this one.






About this website

ABC.NET.AU

Ocean off Victoria's Gippsland could be home to first offshore wind project


----------



## HelloU (6 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Hi Hello u.
> 
> nail upon the head. It is the RATE which is one concern. Its likely what took 200,000 years, an asteroid hitting the planet will take around 300 years to reach 2000 PPM CO2. Maybe 350 years so 2200 and this is IPCC ... the UN climate change numbers along with both Oxford and Cambridge and 5 other very good universities with the top climate change departments. NOT plucked out of some mad magazine.
> 
> ...



firstly thanks (i read less b4 i take a pilot position but have made the effort here)
coal and oil has given us lifestyle access to so much energy that i cannot see those consumption levels easily reducing ..... i reckon peeps do not really understand how much energy is now consumed compared to decades ago.
Had a quick look at point in time electricity earlier ...






would love to think that is an easy fix to change it all but Carnegie and Port Augusta show it is not.

question: how does gas compare in all this?


----------



## HelloU (6 April 2019)

and see that for similar energy outputs burning gas produces a little over half the co2 of burning coal ............


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

Ann said:


> To all the world's really hard questions you only need to follow one thing, the money trail.



Bullshiit!
This is about the science - something you refuse to understand.
The money happens to be on the "other" side, so you got it completely assabout.


----------



## ghotib (7 April 2019)

Ann said:


> _The vast majority of *their* fortune is invested in a family-owned business called *Koch Industries*. The company was started as an oil refinery more than 75 years ago by Fred *Koch*, and today is a diversified conglomerate that is worth approximately $100 billion. ref.
> _
> So these guys are oilers. They might make more money by supporting the CC lobby in order to get rid of the small oilers. But I am thinking these guys are actually part of the small oilers. They are going to struggle to get support from the major funds as the green team have done a job on the funds to not support small oilers with funding or support from their funds.



Ann, 

What or who are you talking about? What's a "small oiler"? What support are the Koch Bros going to "struggle to get", and what "major funds" are they going to struggle with? 

Did you read the whole of the Investopedia article you linked?  The Koch bros own 84% of Koch Industries and are worth about USD60Billion each. They have given billions of dollars to support (euphemistically speaking) selected right wing politicians and policies. They are widely known, though apparently not to you, as ruthless and effective opponents of action against global warming.

If you really want to follow the money trail on climate you might try the book "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. The trail you're on at the moment is leading you backwards over a cliff.


----------



## kahuna1 (7 April 2019)

Sorry ... this is on topic ... and NOT being  mean ...

Trolling or illness I think this is relevant and why Darc Knight and so many others on so many other threads throw their hands up in despair. Ignore button DOES work and no amount of reasoning is the issue will work.

Gas-lighting ? Dementia ? 26 years with Chronic fatigue or just lazy ? An excuse ... pathetic but sadly true.

*The Science of Internet Trolls*
**

*they WANT you to feed of their sadistic desires. It gives them pleasure and the attention they need and crave. Say something stupid and reel them in. Pretend to be stupid, whilst laughing at the ants as they run from the magnifying glass using the sun, as they burn. *


----------



## HelloU (7 April 2019)

HelloU said:


> and see that for similar energy outputs burning gas produces a little over half the co2 of burning coal ............



looking for quick info from someone knowledgable about QLD electricity - looking for *technical*/finance understanding here (not political answers, not interested in getting into that)
QLD pollies are spruiking a new coal generator ...... is there a quick and easy answer to why they are not spruiking a pumped hydro/solar or gas generator instead (at half co2) ....... or does gas not reduce co2 by half in the real world compared to "clean coal"? Or why pumped hydro etc was not an option ........... is there a *technical* answer (or is it central qld political reasons only)


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

HelloU said:


> looking for quick info from someone knowledgable about QLD electricity - looking for *technical*/finance understanding here (not political answers, not interested in getting into that)
> QLD pollies are spruiking a new coal generator ...... is there a quick and easy answer to why they are not spruiking a pumped hydro/solar or gas generator instead (at half co2) ....... or does gas not reduce co2 by half in the real world compared to "clean coal"? Or why pumped hydro etc was not an option ........... is there a *technical* answer (or is it central qld political reasons only)



I live in Queensland and that's not true.
I am not aware there is any need for the additional energy it would offer, and commercially I have never heard that any operator has it under consideration.
There is no way a coal plant in Queensland, despite lots of coal being available, would be cheaper that CCGT, while renewables are cheaper still.
Pumped hydro only makes sense if you have a lot of unused spinning to pump water back to "top up" the battery, as it were,


----------



## kahuna1 (7 April 2019)

Hydro not in QLD ... coal is.

I do wonder why CSG power station is NOT an option ... even at a poor CO2 outcome. 
Coal is there, it is being dug up, it is easy dirty option.

GAS as in Natural gas ... not really and option and LNG ... is .. or was but the CSG which is NOT same as natural gas but Methane coming from coal and is turned into LNG via the plants ... I am not sure but think its all being sold overseas via long term contracts.

Renewable are good, but one needs reliability and mixtures in electricity generation and of course reliable backup power.  COAL DOES NOT ... provide it ... instant or close to it .... Natural gas does ... battery backup to  solar or wind, as does hydro. So too pumped hydro. Hydro is not really an option in Qld and our schemes are in Tassie and NSW VIC near the ACT.

Cost wise, and reliability wise without the MIX of reliability renewable are NOT really the option when some from of near instant power is not able to fill gaps in the grid or when the sun doesn't shine. Hydro is able to be turned on and off at will, and DOES NOT get upset being run at night when say solar is NOT providing 15% to the grid. Same issue for wind, WITHOUT batter backup ... then again solar thermal plants are getting cheap even to coal but again, beyond say 24 hour backup and continuous power EVEN when its dark ... the overall reliability of any grid which does not have natural gas or LNG plants ...  or nuclear OR hydro ... one either bites the bullet with a very large battery bank and eats the cost for now  or one goes either LNG or CSG which both are preferred to coal but that leaves coal.

Is it possible to fill it with some hydro ? in QLD ... I suspect not quickly or easily. 

Is it possible to fill it with renewable with battery backup at a COMPARABLE price ... per kw hour WITHOUT subsidies to coal ? I believe the answer is YES ....or very close to YES .... the cost of the commercial batter systems are dropping like stones. Added to this, as always the invention of new products is likely that within 10 years that capacity doubles via Nano spheres and strands and some latest stuff has some batteries likely to last not 20 years, but 300 or 400 years with double the capacity via the latest stuff I follow.

So committing to something which, well ... it is marrying to coal .... because it easy ... and its there ... cost wise I suspect being fair is equal to current solar wind technology with battery backup ... it has come that far. It is likely to go even the other WAY ... into cheaper and significantly so fairly soon. Idiots and trolls claim as does Trump when the wind stops so does the TV. What an imbecile .... the whole generation grid is made up of a mix of alternative ways to generate electricity. If the sun is shining the wind is blowing .... of COURSE the HYDRO tap if you have that is turned off. the COAL station which takes a bit longer to get hot than the LNG gas plant ... neither are burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon,

What however is needed is that baseline reliable power ... and other options make more sense than marrying to something because its easy ... or its there ... if one can for the same or similar cost generate electricity without CO2 its political or stupidity ruling the decision. 

Liberal and National party lines are similar if not identical to John Howard's line about it costing more and Donald Trumps rubbish. It is NOT true for even China to generate via renewable and despite being emerging their able to do so even at a fraction of the cost we do here. 

Pretending to be green does not count. If 20 EU nations generate 23% of their power this way at a cost cheaper than coal, it IS an option and is so with battery backup as well !! Using a coal fired power station for 3 hours a day is better than 24 hours. A fact that escapes idiot trolls and Trump like imbeciles.  Or people called Barnaby. Is there another viable green option at same or similar cost ? YES .. is it likely when its needed which is 5 or so years hence that the cost and efficiency given its risen by 25% in the past 5 years, the battery solar or wind option, is it likely to be even cheaper ? YES ...  given the advances seen and not yet commercial but very likely in 10 years in battery storage and LIFE and cost and capacity ... that it would make it STUPID to build a coal fired power station commercially right now .. 

Yes.

Oh and as to background ... I have qualifications in these areas and wrote a series of papers on similar things in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006 and so on and on. Nuclear for example and I shared that one for free, the economics of a new nuclear plant ignoring public concerns when I examined the NEW cost in 2007, of a new plant ... outside ultra low cost India or China Labor wise the costs were prohibitive. NUCLEAR is needed to some extent to provide nuclear medicines and cancer treatments but a small test type plant such as we have at Lucas Heights in NSW can do this. Anyone who even mentions nuclear a being an option has NO idea of the commercial side of power generation in 2019, let alone 2007. 

I note some have tried to mention nuclear and it being some option, it is however and will remain unlikely not just for public safety issues which are not so valid with modern reactors .... but on a cast basis its DOUBLE the cost per KW hour for any western nation and a nightmare of public outcry.

So that leaves coal, gas ... whether CSG or LNG, hydro ... solar pv or thermal ... the latter is better but higher cost, but not really an option that will solves the issue ... wind ... and possibly some other forms may jump the barrier of being commercial such as wave and pumped wave stuff ... but unlikely in the next 10-15 years.


----------



## HelloU (7 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Hydro not in QLD ... coal is.
> 
> I do wonder why CSG power station is NOT an option ... even at a poor CO2 outcome.
> Coal is there, it is being dug up, it is easy dirty option.
> ...



cheers - so thinking prolly the new coal power station thing thing was something of a political thought only. 

It just made me think that qld has gas, it has sun, and it has water (they do not call it a rainforest because it is dry) which all, to this layman, seem "better environmentally" than coal - but they did not get the headlines. The coal power station got the headlines. 


(to redorob, a proposal to build a new coal station in qld was thrown around by the pollies this year - it was a real thing - it may not have legs, but it made the headlines)


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

HelloU said:


> (to redorob, a proposal to build a new coal station in qld was thrown around by the pollies this year - it was a real thing - it may not have legs, but it made the headlines)



There were some politicians who wanted one built, but there was never a serious proposal to build one.
Apart from some idiot politicians, this idea had as much chance of getting traction as will Anning at the next election.


----------



## kahuna1 (7 April 2019)

Hi,

I do hear you on the Hydro thing, but as you know distances are VAST in Qld. So it may rain in the very far North and there MAY be some option to go Hydro, when the power grid has to transport selectivity over vast distances, the cost is vast along with some lost via transmission issues so a power station say in far North Qld will Not work as well as Snowy Hydro which is 500 km away v say Cairns to  Brisbane which is 1400 KM.

It becomes a factor, the distance and the Snowy system and its vast capacity in KWH itself brings down the transmission costs as well. Lots and lots of things go into the mix.

Not being political, just economics based, coal fired verses say a PV solar or thermal solar with battery backup projected say 5 -10 years from now, COAL fired makes no economic sense even NOW. One generates more jobs ,,,, the green stuff .... *so again it makes no sense*. It is however cheap nasty and stupid to burn coal, and appears a good thing since the coal is there, But why would you do it if it didn't even make economic sense NOW let alone what is likely a cost reduction of 15% in 5 years and likely 25% in 10-15 years per KW h ? 

I do not understand the Liberal party views sprouted by Griener and John Howard other than their being owned by the oil and coal interests or being senile. Griener of course the NSW premier convicted of corruption by ICAC is much like Trump in being teflon coated. Barnaby is just a dummy. Not being political but economic in these views. HARD NOSED based upon economics. And before some troll  comes out I point to Whyalla and the only steel plant in the world likely 100% run on renewables is a bloody good example of the economics INSIDE AUSTRALIA of renewables. Let alone half of Europe and one nation if not two now 100% renewable. Iceland is Geothermal and one of the other totally WIND .... yep it relies upon backup via Hydro and nuclear from outside when it doesn't blow, but the NET number is 100% wind and 125% power when the wind blows.


----------



## MARKETWINNER (7 April 2019)




----------



## Smurf1976 (7 April 2019)

HelloU said:


> looking for quick info from someone knowledgable about QLD electricity - looking for *technical*/finance understanding here (not political answers, not interested in getting into that)



Politics is a factor definitely but there are some technical issues of relevance.

Simple answer is that in any power system there are two fundamental constraints and approaching those limits is the normal reason for building a new power station unless it's simply to replace something that's worn out.

1. Peak generating capacity. You need enough generation to always meet actual demand, which varies considerably, in real time and with some to spare (because breakdowns do happen).

2. An adequate source of energy (fuel) with which to run the generating capacity.

Wind and solar PV address point 2 very effectively but they're not of themselves effective at addressing point 1 beyond a very limited extent.

Pumped hydro and batteries both address point 1 effectively but are a net negative so far as point 2 is concerned. To run the generating capacity you first need to have drawn energy from the grid and there will be losses in that.

In the Queensland context there are two modest size conventional hydro schemes of any significance (so excluding really small ones) in operation and one medium sized pump storage scheme which is separate.

Numerous sites exist to build pumped storage so no constraints there.

There are sites where conventional hydro could be developed but it's a limited resource when compared to Tasmania or southern NSW but it's not zero. So it's not a major option within Qld but there are some possibilities, use of which would reduce the need for other methods but couldn't eliminate them.

There's huge hydro resources in PNG however and no technical reason why it couldn't be supplied to Qld. Origin Energy was interested in this idea some years ago, they were proposing 1200 MW as the initial stage. The complexity of course is that it's in a foreign country.

Biomass is also a limited resource and already quite a bit of that is used to the extent that it's available, primarily as a by-product of agriculture. Could do a bit more maybe but not a lot.

For the rest:

Coal - plenty of that and it addresses both points 1 and 2.

Nuclear - having the fuel nearby is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage due to its incredibly high energy density and it addresses both points 1 and 2. Damn expensive though and virtually impossible politically.

Gas - plenty of it as such but there's a lot of issues surrounding it.

I don't have a link to it but there's at least one decent study forecasting Qld gas production to peak in the mid-2020's and after that it's all downhill. I'm no geologist so no comment on how valid that is but ultimately gas is a finite resource and a fairly limited one when compared to coal.

Add to that declining production in SA (a well established trend) and expected steep declines in Victoria during the 2020's (which are starting now and acknowledged by the relevant companies) and there's the great gas squeeze. (There's no gas production in Tas and nothing of significance in NSW / ACT).

To cut a long story short - if you want gas then either cut a deal with the LNG exporters in Qld or you could ship the stiff in from overseas as AGL, Australian Industrial Energy, BHP / Esso and Venice Energy all plan on doing via separate LNG import terminals to be built in SA, Vic (two) and NSW.

FWIW there's already significant gas-fired generation which is operated infrequently due to the above and some of that is in Qld.

Oil - Dead easy to ship the stuff in from overseas but the ongoing cost of doing so will send whoever does it broke almost certainly. Technically sound but it's an expensive way to generate electricity these days.

Put all that together and realistically the options in Qld are:

Coal. Works but it's contentious.

Wind + Solar + Pumped Hydro. Works as long as everything's properly sized but is unforgiving of shortcuts.

Gas only if someone can source the stuff at a sensible price.

Hydro from PNG.

On a small scale there's some hydro and a bit of biomass.

I've left nuclear out for the pragmatic reason that the chance of it actually happening seems incredibly low.

My opinion is that given all the wind and solar already either built or committed in Queensland, plus having a relatively young fleet in terms of existing coal-fired generation, then if they need more peak capacity well then pumped hydro is an obvious answer there. Up to a point batteries also have a role.


----------



## kahuna1 (7 April 2019)

100 ideas ... Utube and PLAN Over a 30 year period ....

Uh huh .... biggest is 90 GT or 3 billion tons per year and whilst I applaud some of the ideas, the damming  farce is that by 2070 the average under UN plan will be 50GT per year CO2 released  ... or 1,500 per 30 year period and his numbers DO NOT take into account population and increased needs of say India as it develops and emits closer to the USA level CO2 per capita, let alone China and there is ... well with DENIAL the topic that is utmost on the USA agenda, the idea that any of these ... plans CAN work yes ...

But and there always is a BUT ... the Artic will melt. WILL release 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 ALONE ... every item on his list, MAY if fully implemented, which is unlikely if not absurd, sadly, will be needed just to negate this ... and we still would be 600 PPM CO2 even if this were implemented. Such is the scope of the issue. Good ideas, but a lot of things are missing. Solutions missing which without a price on CO2, penalties for it, not many of the numbers he has even has a hope of working. Protecting Natural forests, ignored totally climate and temperature change. Forests, work .... but stop working when the cycle reaches maturity. Trees grow, absorb co2 for 40 years then die, and the cycle begins again. Soil and other issues, well ... win win win is not an issue when climate, rainfall and actual temperature move, its well an idea, but one that by say 2100 most arable lands will be hit via both temperature change and climate events from droughts to massive floods. Talking about saving things via better management, ignores all this and this is 40% of the list.

Interesting, but he, is an Eugenicist and reproduction reduction ... by 2050 is NOT possible outside some plague, or virus. Then again India banned the Gates foundation after 70,000 vaccinated became paralyzed. Its basically the German master plan, wrapped up in a lolly paper.  Yep didn't have to dig hard at all ... funded by none other than Eugenics founders. *He speaks of freedom of choice, as long as your white ... you can reproduce*. Each has a plan and some good ideas, but, well so unlikely its more likely Trump is re=elected in 2020 and his daughter or son in law in 2024 and again in 2028 and well ... all of it is an abstract either way.

Each of these have their agenda. I suppose I have my own, apathy and a weird morbid fascination as the species ignores its own environment till its, well, over the edge. None of this mans efforts will long term remove much if anything without such massive social change that it will tear society apart. Something that current powers in the USA who deny via price, even basic medical care to the poor, will rule for some time, till they don't. Again, likely conflict and mayhem ensue. Sure saving food and more wind power, good, nuclear, the economics DON'T work ... let alone the public well founded fear on this and its number 20 on his list ? I can think of 20 different green and safe power alternatives he missed prior to going to the nuclear one. Thats without breaking a sweat.

Without humanity as a group accepting MAYBE their is some problem, the list, is, whilst well meaning, a waste of 17 minutes and time. I doubt of his top 20 that 3 make it to a top 20 when and if we ever do take change. Seeding clouds to reflect the sun, missed ... or not known about ? Better absorbing things than bloody trees ... are you kidding me ? 4 tons per hectare per year and it stops after 40 years. Try some ALGAE at 150 tons per hectare or a closed system at 500 tons and THEN you may be talking. One is 125 times the other and likely to go to 1,000 tons per hectare .... even open ponds do 125 tons verses 4 tons ...  so whilst he sounds intelligent and reasonable, its NOT even close to being much help or even USE.

Somehow first is acceptance. Then a price on CO2 .... then ... a PRICE to bury some of it back in the ground and sequester it. Talking about radically altering the expected 10 billion souls by 2050, is absurd !! Yet he did it !! Sure it will over time self correct as we see  now in China and other nations when life expectancy goes up .... so too the birth rate goes down. NATURALLY ...

Until Humanity as a species even accepts their is a threat to their existence, plan all you like. I will watch in my remaining life the Great Barrier Reef die, whilst people debate it. Climate change and NASA on the moon. We sadly are in the hands of the Koch Brothers and other creepier ones. Possibly a very good thing such a  greedy, cruel species is not allowed to expand into the Universe being honest.


----------



## Ann (7 April 2019)

ghotib said:


> What or who are you talking about? What's a "small oiler"? What support are the Koch Bros going to "struggle to get", and what "major funds" are they going to struggle with?




_*Big Oil* is a name used to describe the world's six or seven largest publicly traded oil and gas companies, also known as *supermajors*. The supermajors are considered to be BP, Chevron Corporation, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Total and Eni, with ConocoPhillips also sometimes described in the past as forming part of the group. (ref)_




ghotib said:


> Did you read the whole of the Investopedia article you linked? The Koch bros own 84% of Koch Industries and are worth about USD60Billion each. They have given billions of dollars to support (euphemistically speaking) selected right wing politicians and policies. They are widely known, though apparently not to you, as ruthless and effective opponents of action against global warming.




I am not trying to find the opponents of GW, I am looking to see who supports it with billions of dollars worth of funding. They will want a return on their investment.

I am looking to see who will benefit most from supporting the Global Warming agenda.

So far I could see Big Oil benefit by shutting off the funding for the small oilers and reducing their competition. Once Big Oil takes control of the entire market, they will be able to charge what they want. This will make the investment into the GW agenda worth their while. 

Then there is the other group of energy producers who may want to rid the world of all viable energy options that would be the Nuclear Power proponents. They have the money to support the GW agenda and it would be to their enormous benefit to become the world's preferred energy source. They struggled to convince the world to adopt NP after Chernobyl people just didn't want to know. With the 'crisis' of GW and carbon emissions  they can now say forget Chernobyl and Fukushima it wasn't so bad and you need to adopt NP to save the world from Carbon.


*World Electricity Production by Source 2016*








_*Need for new generating capacity*

There is a clear need for new generating capacity around the world, both to replace old fossil fuel units, especially coal-fired ones, which emit a lot of carbon dioxide, and to meet increased demand for electricity in many countries. In 2016, 65.0% of electricity was generated from the burning of fossil fuels. Despite the strong support for, and growth in, intermittent renewable electricity sources in recent years, the fossil fuel contribution to power generation has remained virtually unchanged in the last 10 years or so (66.5% in 2005).


2 there is an ambitious ‘Sustainable Development Scenario’ which is consistent with the provision of clean and reliable energy and a reduction of air pollution, among other aims. In this decarbonisation scenario, electricity generation from nuclear increases by almost 90% by 2040 to 4960 TWh, and capacity grows to 678 GWe. The World Nuclear Association has put forward a more ambitious scenario than this – the Harmony programme proposes the addition of 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050, to provide 25% of electricity then (about 10,000 TWh) from 1250 GWe of capacity (after allowing for 150 GWe retirements). This would require adding 25 GWe per year from 2021, escalating to 33 GWe per year, which is not much different from the 31 GWe added in 1984, or the overall record of 201 GWe in the 1980s. Providing one-quarter of the world's electricity through nuclear would substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions and have a very positive effect on air quality.(Ref)_


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I am not trying to find the opponents of GW, I am looking to see who supports it with billions of dollars worth of funding. They will want a return on their investment.



You refuse to realise that *science *supports the theory.


Ann said:


> I am looking to see who will benefit most from supporting the Global Warming agenda.



There is no such agenda.
You stupidly suggest a *scientific theory* is an "agenda" because you will not accept what has been proven.


Ann said:


> So far I could see Big Oil benefit by shutting off the funding for the small oilers and reducing their competition. Once Big Oil takes control of the entire market, they will be able to charge what they want.



Oil markets are dominated by supply and demand at global levels and, frankly, outside of Saudi's state-owned company, those you name are not even in the equation.


Ann said:


> This will make the investment into the GW agenda worth their while.



Only science invests in the theory.  What on earth are you suggesting oil companies will do?
I read a consistent stream of dribble from you Ann.  You are exceptionally poorly informed on just about every aspect of climate and would do well to write about what you actually know.


----------



## kahuna1 (7 April 2019)

_World Nuclear Association ... tee hee ... lobby group for nuclear industry which I pointed out in 2007 TO YOU ANNE .... was unreliable then when you were buying PDN ... Palladin and it's ilk at $10- today they are at 15 cents and your still using it as a source ? 
_
their views make Donald Trump look smart and truthful.
_
Golly...

Calling Koch anything other than small ... is idiotic and its revenues MATCH most of the big oilers.

Whoops trolled again by same person who just woke up after 18 hour nap ...



*The Science of Internet Trolls*

_


----------



## Ann (7 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You refuse to realise that *science *supports the theory.



Science supports the required agenda of those who do the funding. 



rederob said:


> There is no such agenda.
> You stupidly suggest a *scientific theory* is an "agenda" because you will not accept what has been proven.



No I don't. Lies, damn lies and statistics.



rederob said:


> Oil markets are dominated by supply and demand at global levels and, frankly, outside of Saudi's state-owned company, those you name are not even in the equation.



It probably isn't the oilers it is far more likely to be NP funding GW's science. 



rederob said:


> I read a consistent stream of dribble from you Ann. You are exceptionally poorly informed on just about every aspect of climate and would do well to write about what you actually know.



If I may Rob, I think you are meaning to say _drivel _not _dribble._
What I know about is business and how they make money. Find/create a problem and then solve it.


----------



## kahuna1 (7 April 2019)

Dribble is what ... occurs at one end ... drivel comes out the other.

Dribble ... means ... to let or cause to fall in drops little by little 

or to fall or flow in drops or in a thin intermittent stream ,,, say after a curry .,,,   

or ... to let saliva trickle from the corner of the mouth   such as a slack mouthed imbecile. 

SO I don't see any issue with the word. 

Or so I thought, it dribbles out. When someone presents to opposing view, to create responses, and quoting the Nuclear Association as anything better than say the Right WING CATO institute or PragerU or a long list of lobby groups which are funded by oil, gas or other interests, is sadly insane.

Or just silly ? Or trolling ? Dribble in my sense of the word. Quoting the history according to MAD MAGAZINE as a valid source is what it it .... a bad curry.


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

Ann said:


> My comments are in black.



Science supports the required agenda of those who do the funding.
That is not how science works - you are totally clueless here.
No I don't. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
You are the one peddling lies.
You are incapable of providing anything in support of your claims.
It probably isn't the oilers it is far more likely to be NP funding GW's science.
How science is funded is not relevant here.  Trump denies the science yet his scientists are active contributors to the IPCC and show no dissent on the theory.
If I may Rob, I think you are meaning to say _drivel _not _dribble._
I definitely meant the stuff that seeps from your lips onto the keyboard.  But I admit I was spoilt for choice.
What I know about is business and how they make money. Find/create a problem and then solve it.
Then stick to that.
Your contributions here are unremarkable.


----------



## Ann (7 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Your contributions here are unremarkable.




I am sure if I was pushing the pro GW agenda by posting garbage Huge Headlines from the Guardian I would be lionized.

Let's have a try.....

*The Frontline:
Australia and the** climate** emergency*

*The north has flooded, the south is parched by drought. Rivers are dying and forests are burning. We are living the reality of climate change. This reader-funded series investigates its true impact and interrogates policy solutions and adaptations. Thanks to all Guardian supporters who funded The Frontline campaign.*


Notice their articles about GW are 'reader-funded'. That means bought and paid for folks, just doing business.


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I am sure if I was pushing the pro GW agenda by posting garbage Huge Headlines from the Guardian I would be lionized.



I read the science and don't care what headlines are written so long as they  are reasonably accurate.
Only fools think there is an *agenda* on climate.
Climate science follows the evidence.
You got lost a long time ago, it seems, and keep posting a stream of meaningless dribble.


----------



## Ann (7 April 2019)

*Key Journalists and the IPCC AR5: Toward Reflexive Professionalism?*

*Abstract*

This chapter uses the framework of journalistic professionalism to explore how the specific challenges of climate journalism are affecting the profession. In particular, we consider how some key journalists from around the world reflected on the task of reporting climate change in general and on the IPCC AR5 in particular. 16 prominent professional journalists were interviewed to gather the data analysed in this chapter. The main findings were that while covering the field of climate, journalists adhere to professional journalistic norms, but as science journalists on one hand and environmental journalists on the other, *also allow themselves to adopt more of an activist frame.
*
(*(BOLD)*biased reporting)


----------



## kahuna1 (7 April 2019)

Troll ... bait ... hook ... response .

On and on it goes. AN idiotic article about journalist integrity ? Hilarious Fox News follows it to a tee ...



If your over 80 ... white and American its for YOU ...

7 years ago ...

same thing ...





Delusional comments make me laugh at how stupid I am !! ME ... I am stupid after listening to FOX ... and it only took two clips and 5 minutes to make me dribble out one end and drivel out the other ...


one even better ...



Obama actually said he was worried about climate change and FOX ... being impartial .. as they are did what they did.* Pity the USA did not elect a new president in 2016 and left the office vacant ... *


----------



## Ann (7 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I read the science and don't care what headlines are written so long as they  are reasonably accurate.
> Only fools think there is an *agenda* on climate.
> Climate science follows the evidence.
> You got lost a long time ago, it seems, and keep posting a stream of meaningless dribble.




*Alarmist by bad design: Strongly popularized unsubstantiated claims undermine credibility of conservation science*

_“Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades”. This is a verbatim conclusion of the recent paper by Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019): Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. There is also another slightly less sweeping but still bold conclusion: “Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world’s insect species over the next few decades”. In an interview by Damian Carrington of The Guardian, the authors explained that they are not alarmist, but that they really wanted to wake people up. If measured by the global media attention, they succeeded. A version of their conclusions hit the headlines across the planet in mainstream media such as BBC News, Al-Jazeera, ABC News and USA Today. Unfortunately, even if not intentional, the conclusions of Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) became alarmist by bad design: due to methodological flaws, their conclusions are unsubstantiated.


 Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) set out to review and systematically assess “the changes in species richness (biodiversity) and population abundance though time” and “the likely drivers of the losses” of insects across the globe. The authors searched the online Web of Science database using the keywords [insect*] AND [declin*] AND [survey]. By including the word [declin*], there is a bias towards literature that reports declines, and the bias is not resolved by the procedure in which “additional papers were obtained from the literature references”. If you search for declines, you find declines. Searching for declines would have been appropriate, had the authors only aimed for evaluating the drivers of the declines. In the same vein, the statement “almost half of the species are rapidly declining” is unsubstantiated, as there are no data about the speed of the decline. Furthermore, the data are not extensive geographically (as the authors acknowledge) or taxonomically, so the conclusion that the current proportion of insect species in decline would be 41%, or that insects as a whole would be going extinct, are also unsubstantiated.


Our second criticism concerns the mismatch between the study objectives and the actual studies included. The authors state “Reports that focused on individual species...were excluded” and “We selected surveys that… were surveyed intensively over periods longer than 10 years”. Why, then, did they include a single-species study on Formica aquilonia which was conducted over four years only (see Sorvari and Hakkarainen 2007)? We did not scrutinize all the reviewed studies but just happened to be familiar with this one. Because Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) lumped together single species studies and continent-wide data sets, as well as primary field studies, various reports and expert opinions like the national IUCN Red Lists, analyses and interpretations were challenging. In fact, many of the “extinctions” in the reviewed papers apparently represent losses of species from individual sites or regions, and it is not straightforward to extrapolate to the extinction of species at larger spatial scales (see also Thomas et al. 2019). The extrapolation is also challenging because the study included only cases with detected declines.


Our third criticism concerns the misuse of the IUCN Red List categories (citation for IUCN 2009 is actually missing from the references) to assess extinction risk. At least in one case (McGuinness 2007), Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) lumped together species in the category ‘Data Deficient’ and ‘Vulnerable’. Because by definition there are no data for Data Deficient species to assess neither the decline nor the range size or population abundance, this means that the authors themselves designated a 30% decline (Vulnerable indicates > 30% decline) for Data Deficient species. This is not trivial, since 24% of the Vulnerable species were actually Data Deficient in McGuinness (2007). The use of the IUCN criteria is also poorly described. Did the authors solely use the number of threatened species as presented in the original articles, or did they also themselves designate declining species to different IUCN categories (not all countries follow the IUCN system)? And if the latter, did they consider the fact that the IUCN criteria assumes the decline has happened in ten years or three generations, whichever is the longer.


Putting the unsubstantiated claims about the extent of insect declines aside, there may also be a methodological complication regarding the drivers, because of the chosen indicator. The authors base their inference about the importance of the driver on the number or share of the papers where the driver is reported to have caused the declines. Number of reports is not a reliable indicator of the importance of the driver as it can simply reflect the interest of scientists or ease of studying certain drivers. More reliable conclusions about the importance of different drivers would have required reviewing also the drivers in studies without declines. Vote counting as conducted here, provides only limited, if any, information about the strength of the driver, which would be of interest for the conservation managers. Ideally, a formal meta-analysis with effect sizes of different drivers, and an unbiased sample of population trend studies including positive, negative and no effect would have provided a more complete picture of the declines and their relative strengths.


The final problematic issue with the paper is its strong language. Like noted by The Guardian, the conclusions of the paper were set out in unusually forceful terms for a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The text is rich in non-scientific intensifiers such as dramatic, compelling, extensive, shocking, drastic, dreadful, devastating, and others. This language is clearly reflected by the media with direct quotes, and with what media often does, by adding on to the already intensifier rich text. Exaggerated news made by the media itself are bad as they are, but similar exaggerations in the original scientific papers should not be acceptable. The current case has already seen corrections and withdrawals in the print media as well as in social media, and the first academic responses have been published (e.g. Thomas et al. 2019). As actively popularizing conservation scientists, we are concerned that such development is eroding the importance of the biodiversity crisis, making the work of conservationists harder, and undermining the credibility of conservation science.

_
Dodgy science folks, meant to be dramatic headline grabbing stuff. Science goes to the highest bidder. Scientists need to eat and not all of them are necessarily ethical.


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Dodgy science folks, meant to be dramatic headline grabbing stuff. Science goes to the highest bidder. Scientists need to eat and not all of them are necessarily ethical.



*Not climate science* - another classic *fail*, Ann.
Get it right or give it a rest.


----------



## kahuna1 (7 April 2019)

Hilarious ... win for workers ...


he will put Miners or is it MINORS ... back to work ? Coal Miners or MINORS ?


----------



## explod (7 April 2019)

rederob said:


> *Not climate science* - another classic *fail*, Ann.
> Get it right or give it a rest.



She won't, she is a troll for the oil and coal industry.

In my humble opinion.  DYOR


----------



## Ann (7 April 2019)

explod said:


> She won't, she is a troll for the oil and coal industry.
> 
> In my humble opinion.  DYOR




Jim, if I was a troll for the Oilers why would I have been bearish about oil since 2013 and I am still bearish.
I don't recall ever commenting on coal.


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

explod said:


> She won't, she is a troll for the oil and coal industry.



Plod, I won't pull apart Ann's link, but it was actually a pathetic attempt to discredit the author.
For example, it says this: " '*Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades”. This is a verbatim conclusion of the recent paper.*...' "
However, this is the actual statement, "*The conclusion is clear: unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades* (Dudley et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2008; Gomiero et al., 2011)."  In other words, the authors quoted referenced, peer reviewed conclusions from other biologists.
Ann's link also says "*Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) set out to review and systematically assess...*"
However, that is a *false *statement.
In fact the authors said "_*This review summarises our current state of knowledge about insect declines, i.e., the changes in species richness (biodiversity) and population abundance through time, and points to the likely drivers of the losses*.._.. "
In other words, just about everything they wrote was "borrowed" (with attribution) from the peer reviewed papers of other biologists.
I guess Ann never bothered to check the source, but I am so used to her incompetence here it comes as no surprise.


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Jim, if I was a troll for the Oilers why would I have been bearish about oil since 2013 and I am still bearish.
> I don't recall ever commenting on coal.



Being a *troll* and being "*bearish*" are different concepts, Ann.


----------



## basilio (7 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Plod, I won't pull apart Ann's link, but it was actually a pathetic attempt to discredit the author.
> For example, it says this: " '*Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades”. This is a verbatim conclusion of the recent paper.*...' "
> However, this is the actual statement, "*The conclusion is clear: unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades* (Dudley et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2008; Gomiero et al., 2011)."  In other words, the authors quoted referenced, peer reviewed conclusions from other biologists.
> Ann's link also says "*Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) set out to review and systematically assess...*"
> ...




Excellent effort at going to the source of the papers that were used in the "scholarly"work Ann referred to.
*I think Ann (and anyone else who used this  article)  was stooged.* Essentially the writers have created a seemingly well researched paper published in a "Journal" which  is crafted to make the original  works seems "Alarmist".  That instantly makes it attractive to a world of people who want to believe there isn't anything really bad happening in the environment. And Voila - there's the proof ! 

I would be very surprised if  Ann would have stumbled across this article by accident. It has to have been prominently promoted amongst the usual suspects of bad actors in this arena. No doubt it will be be trotted out  by the Andrew Bolts in our media to trash concern about the  state of affairs with our insect population.

The research review undertaken by the original scientists led them to the view that there is a catastrophe in the making with the steep decline in insect species.  Yes they did use very strong language to make this clear. But maybe that is what we need to understand about what is happening in our environment - and not have this situation rejected as "alarmist"


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Plod, I won't pull apart Ann's link, but it was actually a pathetic attempt to discredit the author.
> For example, it says this: " '*Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades”. This is a verbatim conclusion of the recent paper.*...' "
> However, this is the actual statement, "*The conclusion is clear: unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades* (Dudley et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2008; Gomiero et al., 2011)."  In other words, the authors quoted referenced, peer reviewed conclusions from other biologists.
> Ann's link also says "*Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) set out to review and systematically assess...*"
> ...




Mate,

Just a word of advice. 

You have obviously just been given a lecture on word processing for Christmas. 

However, you do not need to use all of the tools of this marvellous technology all at once. 

Thus colouring, strange fonts, italics and making bold all in the one post detract from your argument like an over done up whore on Rodeo Drive. 

Please try to be more subtle and put your points in English without the lippie and the stoned, askance look.  

Sorry to be so blunt, but amongst all that damask you do have some excellent points to make, you just ruin it with the presentation in my opinion.

gg


----------



## basilio (7 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I am sure if I was pushing the pro GW agenda by posting garbage Huge Headlines from the Guardian I would be lionized.
> 
> Let's have a try.....
> 
> ...





Do you know what "reader funded" means Ann? 
It means the people who read The Guardian support the work of The Guardian in researching this area.
It has absolutely nothing to do with any business paying to have it's products promoted.

The Guardian does not charge people to view it's website.
It's business model invites/asks/  people to be supporters at whatever price they wish.
Doing research on different topics takes time and effort and people have to get paid to live.
To pay these people The Guardian invites it's readers to support the cost of doing this research.


----------



## rederob (8 April 2019)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate,
> Just a word of advice.



You are welcome to give advice to your mates, but I am not one.
I change font colours so I can quickly sort the wheat from the chaff when I respond to posts - it helps me quickly identify each of the "inserted quotes" I am addressing.
I use other tools to highlight what was important.
Good forums make it easy to choose what and who you want to read.


----------



## kahuna1 (8 April 2019)

OH ....

SO SO FUNNY ... advice couched in *insults*.  I do *love* some I got recently when people were making my skin crawl, one of the tropes, about Islam and who mocked the Christchurch Massacre, told me to tone it down.  I told him or her, they made me want to vomit. This one is NOT about me but ... well an insult of this order deserves all it gets.

Another, trolled 30 times on one thread .... I did ask Joe for help, but was ... well left to deal with it. As long as I don't swear or abuse idiots too much, your on your own. Fair enough. Opinions are opinions.

Often, I get comments about my long writing  style, stop reading ... if you don't like someones contributions and TIME they have taken to share. Seriously !!  HIT IGNORE.

I did for Anne a long time ago, after a fruitless discussion and remembering an exact same one 10 years ago where NOW she claimed she had no interest in Nuclear, but was sprouting similar garbage and the exact same source as she does NOW.

This thread, I thought was about *" Is global warming unstoppable" * NOT about is global warming real ... or whether you believe in it or not. Yet, half the posts are exactly that, going to lengths to DENY the very existence of something that 97% of the scientific community believes in. This sort of agreement is unprecedented and of the remaining 3 % HALF at least work for oil and gas interests or are in fields that are scientifically outside climate change such as particle physics and have NO scientific experience in the field.

So how to annoy a group of people who are trying to share ideas about whether something is unstoppable ?  .... *CLAIM its a fantasy* .... the underlying issue.

Ann. and similar trolls ... she is not in the employ of oil and gas, just gets pleasure out of others pain as the group did post NZ massacre on tearing apart Islam and making me want to vomit, its all about attention. They get some weird sick pleasure out of causing pain ... getting responses and ... well if you ignore them ,,, and in this case I am fairly sure Ann is over 85, with dementia, well time will take care of it. Listening to someone who deliberate posts crap ... the opposite view ... to get a response ... is tiring.

Imagine a person who has being doing it for 10 years. Or MORE .... taking the opposite side to annoy the hell out of people. Life is a JOURNEY .... one of LEARNING ... LISTENING and beauty. Not a life where its rules and rules and I am right ... I am right .... I AM RIGHT .... or abuse or intolerance. I am sure abuse is what some may think when I say NO ... and put up a boundary against someone who, well, is trolling and sneakily being abusive, knowing the buttons to push ... and get people to react.

Most opinions, EVEN MY OWN ..especially my own .... are to be examined for merit, and then if needed, commented upon, or agreed with, or strongly opposed. Presenting an opposing view, or opinion ... when its a scientific subject leaves even a smaller window for opinions verses science. Science as in something conducted a million times which will occur the same way every time. It leaves LITTLE if any room for an opinion to be of relevance. 

Anything ... is open for a troll. Sadly and in living color one can see them crawl out and grow as she has over the years. Not one thing, and I did and do listen, even to idiots, up to a point, not one post here or on any other thread I have seen from  some has been of any value .... other than to argue ... annoy or piss off the others. That is when one must use their boundaries and call a fool a fool, or an imbecile, stupid, or even further. THEN put them on ignore .... DO not respond .... and they eventually loose interest in their cruel game. 

I will say this site has MORE of these types on one site than I have seen on any other in 25 years. Usually there are one, or two ... this site seems to have a few more than is normal for its size. 

It is a sick game ... your the bait .... and they, well either via mental issues of dementia or other things gain their only pleasures in life by being cruel and gaining attention.


----------



## kahuna1 (8 April 2019)

On a lighter note ....

a solution via Fox news to global warming and its ... well a new low even for them.
That is a massive big call, but its TOXIC men causing global warming !! They admit its an issue ... or maybe not ...  MEN must be suppressed !! They emit too much methane in Tuckers case.  

The debate right now, in serious scientific circles is about the first feedback loop via Arctic ice and it disappearing and when the permafrost containing 1.8 trillion tons of frozen CO2 begins to thaw. Lots of debate on this, the initial fart ... of 50 billion tons of CO2 has 13 papers with 100 scientists, basically ALL OF them peer reviewed it .... all 1,000 experts and its not IF ... but when. When this initial fart and beginning of the release occurs. I follow the top say 10 in the field and some other characters who are more doom and gloom and fruity but interesting. I note one of the better commentators is releasing something and will share .... when I have looked at it. 

In the meantime .... Tucker and his views ...


----------



## Ann (9 April 2019)

A Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) may prove to be interesting if Trump can get it up and running. A peer review of 'Climate Science'. 
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ition-backs-trump-s-climate-science-committee
*Massive Coalition Backs Trump's Climate Science Committee *
_
A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports. Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof.


The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders, argues that an independent review of federal global-warming reports is “long overdue.” “Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports,” the leaders and organizations explained. Indeed, in multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions._


*Trump Climate Panel Could Expose Huge Fraud, Hence the Hysteria *

_The collective freak out over President Donald Trump's proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) highlights the fact that the hysteria surrounding the man-made global-warming hypothesis is unscientific — and that it must be re-examined by competent, credible experts. According to scientists and experts, if the science on “climate change” were truly settled, Democrats, tax-funded climate alarmists, and the establishment media would all be celebrating another committee to confirm that “conclusion.” Instead, the unhinged shrieking over Trump's plan to investigate the matter strongly suggests something very fishy is going on, critics argued. Indeed, there is a good chance that even more fraud could be revealed.


The hysteria first broke out last month. In late February, documents emerged showing that the White House was planning to create a committee of federal scientists. Their job: re-examine widely disputed conclusions on climate change by previous government bodies. Especially problematic to the man-made global-warming theorists was the prestigious scientist selected to lead the commission, Princeton University physicist and national security advisor Dr. William Happer (shown). Of course, Happer is a widely respected scientist who happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man's emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate.


“CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. “If you look at geological history, CO2 levels are unusually low right now, it’s very seldom that they’ve been this low. Many plants are not growing as good as they could if they had more CO2, so CO2 by itself will be very good for the Earth, more will be a good thing.” He also said it was “pretty clear that we're not going to see dangerous climate change” as a result of human CO2 emissions.

*The Biggest Lie Ever Told – Man-made Global Warming*
Posted by    Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris  Mar 29, 2019


*Carbon Dioxide Only Causes Climate Change in UN IPCC Climate Models*

Today’s climate change is well within the range of natural climate variability through Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history. In fact, it is within the range of the climate change of the last 10,000 years, a period known as the Holocene, 95% of which was warmer than today. Indeed, it is now cooler than the Holocene Optimum, which spanned a period from about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. The Optimum was named at a time when warming was understood to be a good thing in contrast to the miserable cold times that periodically cripple mankind. A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe.

The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature. In the historical record, temperature increases before CO2, so the benign gas is not causing temperature rise. Indeed, it cannot cause global warming or climate change. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the main reason why the model predictions are always wrong. However, the objective of a big lie is to override the truth for as long as possible. Here are the original definition and objective of the big lie, quoting from Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels: 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”

The comments relate to a big lie in a nation-state, but it, like the big lie about climate, was intended to achieve global status. Goebbels applied the big lie of Nazism with its ultimate goal of a Third Reich to rule the world for a thousand years.

The UN created the big lie of global warming because it identified the enemy—industry and capitalism—while threatening the world with a potential global disaster. This supposed threat exceeded the ability of any individual nation-state to ‘solve,’ and that dictated the need for a world government. This is why the human-caused global warming lie was created by and perpetuated through the UN.

Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:


It is warmer now than ever before.
There is more severe weather now than ever before.
CO2 levels are the highest ever.
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are the lowest ever.
Extinction rates are the highest ever.
Polar bear populations are in serious decline.
Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.
The Obama administration ably perpetuated the lie through the bureaucracies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Former vice-president Al Gore continues to spread the lie and tout it through his ironically-named movies, An Inconvenient Truth and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. The real inconvenient truth is that in the week before he received the Nobel Peace Prize, a UK court ruled his first film was political propaganda with nine major scientific errors. He did not correct the errors and still spreads false information. Yet Gore is welcomed by mainstream media, who never question him about the errors or why his 2006 prediction that we had only ten years left to save the Earth from dangerous global warming was obviously wrong. This is not surprising because they never asked him about his lack of science and climate qualifications either. Goebbels understood this when he wrote,

“Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.”

The big difference between the global warming lie and Goebbels’ big lie concept is that an open mechanism of changing government prevents the perpetuation of the climate lie. The Trump administration has proposed to establish a Presidential Commission on Climate Security, headed by former Princeton physicist Will Happer, to expose the climate lie by disclosing how the IPCC only examined human causes of climate change. They will show how natural climate change completely overwhelms any human effect. For example, human production of CO2 is less than the uncertainty in the measurement of the transfer of CO2 from two natural sources: the oceans, and vegetation and land. In other words, if we removed all the people from the planet, a scientist left behind to measure the CO2 levels would not detect any difference.

The ultimate lie is that members of the IPCC community are telling us the truth about the dangers of man-made climate change. In 1998, Kyoto Protocol supporter professor Tom Wigley estimated that, even if we met all the Kyoto reduction targets, it would only lower temperatures by 0.05°C by 2050. After the Paris Agreement, Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg calculated that, if fully implemented, Paris would reduce the global temperature by 0.048°C by 2100. And neither of these people question the politically-correct but scientifically-flawed view that CO2 is driving climate change.

Goebbels noted that the state can only maintain the lie as long as it can shield people from the economic consequences. Clearly, that is no longer possible as the costs of achieving such inconsequential results becomes better known.

The first group to do this thoroughly and objectively was the U.S. Senate. They realized that they would soon be required to consider the Kyoto Protocol. Rather than vote on it directly, they created the Byrd/Hagel Resolution which stated that America shouldn’t be a signatory to any agreement based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that would seriously damage the U.S. economy and didn’t include emission reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S. Like the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was based on the UNFCCC and had the potential to seriously damage the U.S. economy, while not holding developing countries to emission reductions similar to those imposed on America. That’s why Senators from across the aisle unanimously endorsed Byrd/Hagel, and why former President Bill Clinton never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Even though the Senators were not questioning the big lie about CO2 and climate change in 1997, they saw clearly that action on any climate treaty or agreement by the U.S. did not justify the economic costs or job losses. And today’s Paris Agreement costs are also extraordinary. Based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Forum and the Asia Modelling Exercise, the costs are forecast to be $1 – 2 trillion every year. It’s time for today’s Democrats to be as practical as their Congressional forebears.
_


----------



## Junior (9 April 2019)

_“If you look at geological history, CO2 levels are unusually low right now, it’s very seldom that they’ve been this low. *Many plants are not growing as good as they could if they had more CO2*, so CO2 by itself will be very good for the Earth, more will be a good thing.”_

Oh dear.... this bloke talks good just like Trump.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

Meanwhile ...

real scientists ... debate the *Arctic Blue Ocean* event ... likely not for 10 years, this is informative, rather than total idiots speaking. The METHANE on the Arctic Ice shelf, frozen for now, is a bigger issue than I thought. CH4 or Methane takes now 28 years to break down and it is MANY times worse than CO2. 25 times worse.

The most conservative estimate WHEN, not if, when we have an ice free Arctic during summer and its released the impact instead of being 25 times worse than CO2 ... the atmosphere cannot even cope with levels now and its gone from 21 to 23 to 25 and now 28 times worse than CO2.  This event, the guy doing the Utube is very good, but his 1 million sq KM is NOT the standard they use but 10% of the ice so 1.5 million sq KM in the middle of summer.

We are of course a long way away from this. YES some more pessimistic have called it already, but the serious ones have it in the 10-80 year range. The 80 year and 60 year ones already are wrong and the NASA measuring of the size and multi year ice have their prediction, ultra conservative ones WRONG and clearly we are 20 years PAST their 2018 estimates.

Likely, the time-frame is around the 20 year mark. NOT  A THING we can do to stop this. I am hoping the estimate for ARCTIC SHELF .... Methane, trapped under the ICE on the shallow seabed the LOWER estimates are correct, NOT the higher ones. Even the lower ones *will take 100 times MORE impact, not a mere 25 times or 28 times .... 100 times worse  than CO2 alon*e and if the lower estimates at 10 Billion tons released over 15 years after it goes open ocean in summer occur .... it adds a mere 50 PPM CO2 to the air ignoring the frozen Permafrost. Taking us close to 600 PPM say by 2050 and likely 700 as the land portion melts as well. Upper end of the frozen methane estimate  is triple that 50 billion tons and the atmosphere cannot break what we are doing NOW, let alone an exponential increase !!

Anyhow interesting FACTUAL rational guy .... the following



Debating whether or not its real, is for the Trumps and* the delusional of the world*.
What occurs I suppose in 2040-60 may not be YOUR concern ...

But as the guys says every single person who measures sea ice .... has a dramatic fall in SIZE and even worse in thickness.

Then again, imbeciles listen  to Trump and such is life, he thinks all his scientists are wrong.

This is likely the first of many feedback loops which will occur ... this guy puts it into ways even imbeciles like Trump could understand if he didn't watch FOX all the time, between tweeting he is invading nations, Venezuela, now Iran, and playing golf every second day.


----------



## explod (9 April 2019)

Sorry kahuna1 I cannot tick a "like" for this.

So sad that my Grandchildren will see this absolute destruction and have a terrible end.


----------



## rederob (9 April 2019)

Ann said:


> A Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) may prove to be interesting if Trump can get it up and running. A peer review of 'Climate Science'.
> *Massive Coalition Backs Trump's Climate Science Committee *



Yet another case of Ann posting utter garbage, and remaining totally clueless about climate science.
Ann, science is a continuous process of "peer review".
The idea that a new *committee *can somehow determine that there is a new standard of peer review is beyond the pale.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

Ahhh ..

but there STILL is hope. Some, but ... we have trains moving in opposite directions. Delusional corrupt and greedy, ruling some things. Even this thread is an example of truly stupid things presented as factual. 

I am not sure what it will take, but it will occur. It always does. A point where imbeciles and stupidity is abandoned and action, acceptance and human ingenuity will hopefully prevail.

Sadly, one event will be the likely turning point for the species to change and accept. IF we have a will, we can make a difference. Not to events that are NOT POSSIBLE ... to stop such as ARCTIC BLUE OCEAN and the CO2 hitting 1200 PPM, nor the death of the barrier reef, or say 200 million displaced by 2050.

I have no hope of convincing even someone like John Howard who seems to think green energy costs MORE. Pointing out Whyalla and its steel producing plant is going to compete on green energy 100% seems to sink in. Senile ? Dementia ? *Wet Nappy* ? Dyslexia ? greed ? Arrogance ?

All an aside, even the USA leadership right now if one could term it as such. EU is bigger and its about to take over leadership.

There remains a window, even now, to stop the worst of it, despite a feedback loop or two or even three going off no matter what. In the meantime, will it take 100 million starving as their crops fail ? Or 200 million refugees likely by 2050 via climate events ? Or will it take longer and 500 million in poor nations hit via drought then floods and cyclones and so on ... dying..

Sick debate, but eventually even the Flat Earth people will be relegated eventually to the nut house or dementia ward where they belong. I cant get too upset about this.

I do HOWEVER with some reasonable research and background HOLD some hope. Some .... OF course that is as long as some of the very worst of the likely feedback loops don't hit 100 years early prior to some action by humans to save their own species from extinction.

We are sometimes cruel, beyond belief, stupid beyond belief, greedy, indifferent and whilst it would be no great pity of we were to be banished from the cosmos given the current state of global and fiscal affairs as well as the things we are doing to the environment  ....

*There is always HOPE*.

Not sadly in the near future and likely it will take 500 million deaths or so, till we change.


----------



## rederob (9 April 2019)

Ann said:


> To show how stupid some people are, I rebut in *blue *some claims in Ann's link.



_Ths is why the human-caused global warming lie was created by and perpetuated through the UN. _ *False, the science was known in the early 1800s and the theory was enunciated before the IPCC was formed.*
_Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:_

_It is warmer now than ever before - _*Climate scientists have made no such claim *
_There is more severe weather now than ever before - _*Climate scientists have made no such claim*
_CO2 levels are the highest ever - _*Climate scientists have made no such claim*
_Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are the lowest ever - _*Climate scientists have made no such claim*
_Extinction rates are the highest ever - _*The modern record shows this is not a lie.  Science suggests that only extinction events in the past were comparable*
_Polar bear populations are in serious decline - _*Scientists have proven that habitat change will pose new challenges for many plant and animal species*
_Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate - _*According to the modern record this is not a lie,  as the rate of change has been demonstrably increasing.*
*For another scientist to be unaware of these facts in this day and age is unforgivable.  For idiots to post it in a forum shows the depth of climate science denial that pervades dark corners of the western world.*


----------



## Ann (9 April 2019)

I thought I might start putting up some of the billionaires who are supporting the climate change agenda. First one is Tom Steyer.....

_Worth some $1.6 billion, Steyer earned most of his fortune running Farallon Capital, an investment firm he founded in 1986. As head of the firm, he was known for his willingness to take risks on distressed assets and volatile markets. The final decision on investments rested with Steyer, and one anonymous Farallon investor told Reuters in 2014 that his philosophy was to do “whatever it will take to make money.”


This often meant investing in fossil fuels. Steyer and Farallon poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the coal industry across Asia, helping boost mine production by 70 million tons. Another 2009 investment in an Australian mine set the project on a course to produce up to 13 million tons of coal per year for the next 30 years.


Steyer stepped down from Farallon in 2012 to focus on advocating for clean energy, divesting his own fossil fuel investments. But by that time, his carbon investments had already made him a billionaire.


Now, Steyer is using that money to reshape American politics. He founded NextGen Climate (now NextGen America) in 2013 to give the environmentalist movement both capitol and manpower.  One year later, he was America’s single largest individual campaign spender, donating some $74 million hoping to make climate change a key issue in the elections._


Tom Steyer was pro Clinton and not happy to see Trump win.
_*Trump impeachment campaign*
In October 2017, Steyer spent around $10 million for a television ad campaign advocating the impeachment of President Donald Trump and plans to spend millions more on a digital ad campaign to call for Trump's impeachment.[75][76]
_
_Steyer founded NextGen America (originally called NextGen Climate) in 2013, and serves as president. A former hedge-fund manager, Steyer pledged to donate the majority of his wealth to charitable causes in 2010. [3] He also became involved in the issue of climate change.[4] Later, Steyer made the decision to pull his money from environmentally unsound investments and focus on pushing climate change issues and policies. [2]_

He is a signatory to The Giving Pledge set up by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett both advocates of Nuclear Power with financial interests in it. 

_*The Giving Pledge* is a campaign to encourage wealthy people to contribute a majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. As of 2019, the pledge has 187 signatories, either individuals or couples, from 22 countries. Most of the signatories of the pledge are billionaires, and their pledges total over $365 billion. It does not actually dictate that the money will be spent in any certain way or towards any particular charity or cause, and there is no legal obligation to actually donate any money._


So in effect you have mostly like-minded billionaires who have donated billions or will donate billions to this organization where they don't actually know where their donations will be used. Surely it would make some of us think that the people running the fund would have the means to create any 'truth' they believed with the amount of money they have behind them to 'buy' universities, scientists, politicians, media and web sites. 



....and finally an old recommendation for Steyer by Al Gore









_April 23, 2014 

The most important solution to the climate crisis has long been obvious: put a price on global-warming pollution in markets. But the “hacking” of American democracy by the biggest polluters has convinced many that we will first have to put a price on global-warming denial in politics. And it is to this crucial challenge that Tom Steyer has brought his extraordinary intellect, focused enthusiasm and the considerable wealth he earned in a wildly successful business career. By rewarding candidates who favor action and opposing those who do not, he has already changed the political dynamic. [time-related-module]


Through his new organization, NextGen Climate, Tom is also helping to mobilize young voters and ensure that facts, not antiscience climate denial, have a better chance to prevail in races around the country.


There comes a time in every fight when the stakes are too high to back down and political hardball becomes necessary. Now is such a time, and it is heartening that Tom Steyer has joined the battle with passionate intensity, commitment and political skill.


Gore, a former U.S. Vice President, is chairman of the Climate Reality Project _



*Funding the political agenda not the science folks!*


----------



## rederob (9 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I thought I might start putting up some of the billionaires who are supporting the climate change agenda.



Ann, when it comes to defining what *stupid *means we look at the evidence.
Stupid happens when a person refuses to understand that *science* is a field of endeavour, so it cannot be an *agenda*.
Stupid happens when a person is regularly told that introducing non-science into a discussion based on science, continues to post dross.
Stupid happens when a person tries to link claims which have no relevance to the topic at hand.
Stupid is proven when the pattern of miscreant behaviour is unresolved by the person and persists.


----------



## Ann (9 April 2019)

*Climate Advice*

*'How do I talk about climate change at social gatherings?' *


Dear Sara,


I feel an urge to talk about climate change bubbling up within me at social gatherings if people talk about trivial things like food or sports for too long. But it is always such a downer and I know people need a certain amount of time to feel safe and ordinary and relaxed.


Any advice on how to handle this and break through the “tyranny of politeness” that makes talking about climate – and many other serious issues – so awkward?


– Matt in Toronto

......consider Toscano’s approach to chatting with others during his regular visits to the YMCA: “It’s me and about 35 incredibly conservative senior citizens paddling about the pool,” he said. “This is not a crowd that really probably wants to hear anything about climate change, particularly from a gay activist.”
 Most people, Toscano points out, think of climate change as an environmental, scientific, or political issue, which limits the ways they talk about it.

So rather than launching into a one-sided rant about climate change, Toscano listens carefully to his fellow aquatics enthusiasts, often asking them questions about beloved pets.

Once Toscano is familiar with people’s interests, he begins seeding his conversations with small comments designed to make them curious. He might mention in passing, for instance, that he’s concerned that climate change could harm pets.

Then – crucially – he waits.

If no one takes the bait, the conversation moves on. But often, someone will bite.

“I don’t tell them until they ask, because they need to want that information,” Toscano said. “Then we have a much deeper conversation, and then they own that information.”

To wit:

DEBBIE DOWNER: _Feline AIDS is the No. 1 killer of domestic cats._

YOU: _That’s not actually true. But I do worry about the impact of climate change on cats._

DEBBIE DOWNER: _Wait, what does climate change have to do with cats?_

YOU: _Most emergency shelters don’t accept pets. So as weather disasters become more frequent, more people might be forced to abandon their pets when they flee to safety._

DEBBIE DOWNER: _Are you … are you my soul mate?_

Most people, Toscano points out, think of climate change as an environmental, scientific, or political issue, which limits the ways they talk about it.

To break out of that pattern, Toscano encourages people to consider why they care about climate change, beyond typical concerns about the environment and future generations. Ask yourself, how does climate change affect something that you feel personally passionate about?

What you can learn from comedy about speaking up about difficult topics Click To Tweet
No matter your interests – sports, movies, or even true crime – it’s likely linked in some way to climate change.

Once you have a topic in mind, try mentioning it when acquaintances ask you about climate change. As Toscano put it, you might say, “It’s strange, you know, I’m concerned about climate change but not for all the traditional reasons. I’m also concerned about it because I’m a runner, or because I have a child with autism.” Talking about the topic in an unexpected, relatable way will help you hold more fruitful conversations.

The bottom line? Listen more than you talk, don’t be afraid to mention climate change from time to time, and be ready to say something true and interesting when people ask you questions. Happy chatting.

– Sara

_Wondering how climate change could affect you or your loved ones? Send your questions to sara@yaleclimateconnections.org. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.

_


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

Its about flat earth ... and climate science. 

quite apt.


----------



## Sdajii (9 April 2019)

Holy crap, if someone tried to relate cats to climate change in that way I'd be glad to see the last of their virtue signaling face.

Both sides of this debate are stupid. The alarmists make up ridiculous nonsense rather than sticking to facts, which make it easy for the deniers to call it bull****, because for the most part it is. It's not even possible to have a rational discussion about climate change without being seen as a 'climate denier' (sic), because what almost all the alarmists believe is so far from reality that the deniers are actually closer to it.

The people complaining the most, remarkably, are the worst offenders. Sitting there turning what could be a pleasant evening into a ridiculous and pointless conversation about how climate change is going to harm your pet cat (seriously???) isn't doing anything to help. You're still eating food from several different continents at most meals, you're still literally wearing clothing made of oil, you're still literally eating food literally made of crude oil (yes, even if you're just eating fresh, unprocessed vegetables, and no I'm not talking about pollution or contaminants - look up the Green Revolution if this seems strange to you). You still get around in fossil-fueled transportation even if you drive a Tesla. You still live in a house, went to school, use hospitals and shops and roads and gyms etc which were all build on what used to be wilderness. Not using a plastic straw or recycling a bean can doesn't mean you're saving the planet, it means you're reducing your impact by some infintesimal amount and you're still up in the top percentage of people causing the environmental problems, and CO2 isn't the biggest environmental problem and neither is climate change (though the planet's environmental problems are extreme, don't get me wrong).

People think that by being annoying in social situations they are part of the solution. But no, you're not. You're just annoying and missing the point.

The sad reality is that we're screwing the planet (and again, climate change isn't the big problem) and it's going to collapse whether or not you whinge about poor cats. Unless you convince most people to kill themselves or you actively kill most of the currently living people, this is inevitable. I suppose patting yourself on the back about having stupid conversations about poor cats is more comfortable for most people. Acceptance of reality would perhaps help, but sadly, getting people to do that seems impossible.

So, enjoy life before the inevitable collapse  Don't worry about climate change, because that's not the thing which is going to hit you when the ship hits the sand, and you can't do anything about any of the problems anyway


----------



## rederob (9 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> The alarmists make up ridiculous nonsense rather than sticking to facts, which make it easy for the deniers to call it bull****, because for the most part it is. It's not even possible to have a rational discussion about climate change without being seen as a 'climate denier' (sic), because what almost all the alarmists believe is so far from reality that the deniers are actually closer to it.



I do not know what an *alarmist *is, but I see repeated claims from science deniers that have no rational basis.
If you have a plausible explanation for the present warming, why not offer it to us?
Perhaps because you exhibit every tendency of the science denier; make false claims, obfuscate, and stay away from the facts.


Sdajii said:


> The sad reality is that we're screwing the planet (and again, climate change isn't the big problem) and it's going to collapse whether or not you whinge about poor cats. Unless you convince most people to kill themselves or you actively kill most of the currently living people, this is inevitable.



Yes, we are screwing the planet, but to suggest the that undeniable impacts of continued warming is not a *big *problem means you have no idea what is happening now, and how it will represent the greatest economic, political and environmental challenges into the future.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

I have one question and one only.

Why is the Great Barrier Reef, our national treasure, or one of them, why is it 25% of the size it was in1985 and what is the cause ? 

Simple even for anyone to answer. *I look forward to illuminating replies as to WHY is it so ?*


----------



## Sdajii (9 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I do not know what an *alarmist *is, but I see repeated claims from science deniers that have no rational basis.
> If you have a plausible explanation for the present warming, why not offer it to us?




The current rate of warming is actually not unusual. This is actually something which all climate scientists agree with! It is a media/social media myth that climate scientists believe the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate or is warmer than ever before.

What affects climate change is very complicated. The climate has always changed to a large extent and to rates as fast and faster than the current rate. Humans are now having an influence on the climate, no doubt, but the amount is impossible to calculate. It is true that most climate scientists now say that humans are causing the majority of the current climate change (no surprise, since literally almost all of them will lose their careers if they say otherwise!), but in reality we just don't know, and so far we haven't pushed the climate outside the normal, natural rate or limits. As I said, both sides spout silly rhetoric, but the alarmists (seriously, you don't know what a climate alarmist is? Keep up!) are further from facts and reality than the deniers, which is pretty concerning!



> Perhaps because you exhibit every tendency of the science denier; make false claims, obfuscate, and stay away from the facts.




No, I don't at all, I totally acknowledge that humans are having an influence on the climate. I totally acknowledge that the climate is changing (it always has, it has literally never sat still in the literally billions of years that climate on this planet has existed). Yet amusingly, people like you still say I exhibit every tendency of the climate denier! If we need any more demonstration that you are not being genuine or rational it's hard to imagine what could suffice!



> Yes, we are screwing the planet, but to suggest the that undeniable impacts of continued warming is not a *big *problem means you have no idea what is happening now, and how it will represent the greatest economic, political and environmental challenges into the future.




Mate, I guarantee that I know a heck of a lot more about it than you ever will. I've worked professionally with climate scientists, I'm a qualified scientist myself, I've worked on projects directly related to climate science and environmental science.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

Yup ...

U are a scientist ? Really ? . Me, I am merely a robot on the internet. 



*Every claim you just made is actually not agreed to by 97% of the science community.*
Of the remaining 3%, HALF are in the employ of fossil fuel companies and well ... that leaves the flat earth types.

Sorry but you line ... "The current rate of warming is actually not unusual." maybe ...  and a very big maybe on that, the rate of CO2 change is UNPRECEDENTED and in the past, what took 200,000 years, we are going to achieve in 300 years. We already have CO2 levels at ones not seen in 3 million years and if your a scientist, which I doubt, you will know from very detailed records their is a LAG between CO2 and temperature change, Normally that is. Its never been raised this quickly even when a meteor hit the planet 65 million years ago, CO2 took a very long time to rise to its PEAK ... thousands of years.

Not much use ... your the scientist.  Here is another one ... he is a scientist..



Some may call him a mad scientist, but he claims to know better than even his own scientists in the USA.


----------



## Ann (9 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I have one question and one only.
> 
> Why is the Great Barrier Reef, our national treasure, or one of them, why is it 25% of the size it was in1985 and what is the cause ?




_There are many major water quality variables affecting coral reef health including water temperature, salinity, nutrients, suspended sediment concentrations,[24] and pesticides.[15] The species in the Great Barrier Reef area are adapted to tolerable variations in water quality however when critical thresholds are exceeded they may be adversely impacted. River discharges are the single biggest source of nutrients,[25] providing significant pollution of the Reef during tropical flood events with over 90% of this pollution being sourced from farms.[24] When the 2019 Townsville flood waters reached the Great Barrier Reef, the flood plumes covered a large area of corals, even reaching 60 km out to sea.[26]

As of 1995, water visibility had decreased to 10 metres.[27]

Due to the range of human uses made of the water catchment area adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, some 700 of the 3000 reefs[16] are within a risk zone where water quality has declined due to the naturally acidic sediment and chemical runoff from farming. Coastal development and the loss of coastal wetlands—the latter acts as natural filter—are also major factors[28] From mid 2012 to mid 2016, 596,000 hectares of forest in the catchment zone was cleared.[29]







Trichodesmium bloom off the Great Barrier Reef

Industries in the water catchment area are cotton growing, comprising approximately 262 km²; 340 dairy farms with an average area of 2 km² each, 158 km² cattle grazing, 288 km² horticulture including banana growing, sugarcane farming, and cropping of approximately 8,000 km² wheat, 1,200 km² barley, and 6,000 to 7000 km² sorghum and maize.[30] Fertiliser use in the cotton, dairy, beef, horticulture and sugar industries is essential to ensure productivity and profitability. However, fertiliser and byproducts from sugar cane harvesting methods form a component of surface runoff into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon.[30][31] Link.._


----------



## explod (9 April 2019)

Sorry Ann but just a quick google says you are wrong again:-

Coral reef destruction is defined as the degradation (and potential mass death) of the ocean’s corals. It is normally caused by illegal fishing techniques, pollution, careless tourism, other natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes, and of course, climate change—the culprit responsible for our warmer oceans and the main reason (according to experts) behind the death of nearly half of the Great Barrier Reef’s corals.

https://www.leisurepro.com/blog/ocean-news/5-main-coral-reef-destruction/


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

_Yes .... 
thanks ... 

Due to the range of human uses made of the water catchment area adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, some 700 of the 3000 reefs[16] are within a risk zone
_
the rest ... is irrelevant ... when *75% of all corals EVERYWHERE are GONE*.
Every single reef .... on the great barrier reef ... is showing mild to extreme bleaching. NOT 700 but 3000 out of 3000.

*That is not an answer you have supplied*. Its in fact despite your efforts proof that something is doing it called TEMPERATURE. AKA Climate change.
_
_
Actually the other part, of the wider problem of humanity and its activities by 2100 will have made 50% of all species extinct since 1850.

Thanks for playing ....

Did you know Giraffes just made the endangered species list ?


NEXT PLAYER ....






*This was 2016 .. .a mere 93% then now in 2019 ... sadly ... we hit the JACKPOT  at 100% with last summer water temps !!*


----------



## rederob (9 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> The current rate of warming is actually not unusual.



False. It's unprecedented, and occurring when the planet should be cooling.


Sdajii said:


> This is actually something which all climate scientists agree with!



False. I know of none, but please enlighten us with those you know.


Sdajii said:


> It is a media/social media myth...



True.  The media seldom quote the actual science.


Sdajii said:


> What affects climate change is very complicated.



False.  Climate is a response to a very simple energy balance equation.  How climate propagates at the surface of the planet has many variables.


Sdajii said:


> The climate has always changed to a large extent and to rates as fast and faster than the current rate.



False.  There is no evidence of climate changing contrary to irradiance and CO2 attributions, and no credible evidence that warming rates have been more rapid.


Sdajii said:


> It is true that most climate scientists now say that humans are causing the majority of the current climate change ..., but in reality we just don't know, and so far we haven't pushed the climate outside the normal, natural rate or limits.



False.  The scientific probability of AGW being true is now calculated at 99%.  The IPCC calculated it at 95% 5 years ago.


Sdajii said:


> ...alarmists (seriously, you don't know what a climate alarmist is? Keep up!) are further from facts and reality than the deniers....



I know of many false attributions from science deniers, so please enlighten me on all these alarmists who can be considered credible in science circles.


Sdajii said:


> Yet amusingly, people like you still say I exhibit every tendency of the climate denier!



So far there is little you have stated that is credible - your understanding of climate science is not even at primary school level.


Sdajii said:


> ...I guarantee that I know a heck of a lot more about it than you ever will. I've worked professionally with climate scientists, I'm a qualified scientist myself, I've worked on projects directly related to climate science and environmental science.



Given your claims to date, you are delusional.
How about proving some of your claims, using actual science.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

I found this amusing ....

true story ... NATURAL tan he has this person.
*Trump Saves America From Fake News Climate Change Paris Agreement Hoax*



He has not seen the latest ...  from his other science advisor, NOT fox .... FROSTY ...

*Frosty The Snowman Doubts Climate Change*



Frosty is sadly now a yellow puddle ...


----------



## cynic (9 April 2019)

An insightful presentation on the mythical consensus also featuring some interesting comments on manipulation of statistics and exploitation of human psychological traits in agenda pursuit:


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

An insightful presentation on the mythical consensus also featuring some interesting comments on manipulation of statistics and exploitation of human psychological traits in agenda pursuit:





This message was provided by dear leader, climate change denier number one. Our PRESIDENT ... our first and last. It provides insight into this debate. One led by Oil and Gas funded Trump who now has a UN head who has never worked ... but is the wife of a coal billionaire. Its more interesting than climate science.



3 marriages, NO job till a reward Canada ambassador ... *NO WORK EXPERIENCE *... head of UN climate change for the USA and IPCC .... yipeee ... we are stuffed.

Frosty has convinced me  its all fake !! Why does that yellow puddle smell ? *Why is that man ORANGE ?*


----------



## rederob (9 April 2019)

cynic said:


> An insightful presentation on the mythical consensus also featuring some interesting comments on manipulation of statistics and exploitation of human psychological traits in agenda pursuit



Mere opinion from a non scientist on a topic which is about survey methodologies and the probability their findings have merit.  Nothing guarantees the underlying science as falsifiability is its bedrock.
Again, climate science deniers dig deep into irrelevances for their ill informed ideas.


----------



## cynic (9 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Mere opinion from a non scientist on a topic which is about survey methodologies and the probability their findings have merit.  Nothing guarantees the underlying science as falsifiability is its bedrock.
> Again, climate science deniers dig deep into irrelevances for their ill informed ideas.



The problem is that data is relevant to science! And even more problematic is that some have arrived at conclusions that are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data.
One doesn't need to be a scientist to recognise departures from logic, impartiality and the correct application of mathematics.

Those promoting studies guilty of aforementioned failings, do themselves and their credibility enormous disservice.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 April 2019)

_The problem is that data is relevant to science! And even more problematic is that some have arrived at conclusions that are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data._

So 97% of all scientists are wrong ? And the IPCC since 1993 has been spot on with its science based predictions. They are wrong as well ... all 24,000 of them. Of the 50,000 who agreed with the 2017 report, all of them .... *are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data* ... and have ... *departures from logic.*_   In your opinion. _

Golly. An interesting theory.



Sorry but at this point, I would bother with a reply, but the melting snowman convinced me its pointless.

Frosty has convinced me its all fake !! Why does that yellow puddle smell ? *Why is that man ORANGE ?*


----------



## cynic (9 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> _The problem is that data is relevant to science! And even more problematic is that some have arrived at conclusions that are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data._
> 
> So 97% of all scientists are wrong ? And the IPCC since 1993 has been spot on with its science based predictions. They are wrong as well ... all 24,000 of them. Of the 50,000 who agreed with the 2017 report, all of them .... *are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data* ... and have ... *departures from logic.*_   In your opinion. _
> 
> ...



No! I never said 97% of scientists are wrong! Nor did I say that 97% of scientists are right!

With the possible exception of the theories implicit to the actual practice of science, I do not claim to know what the opinion of 97% of scientists is on any matter.

I have examined the "paper" authored by Cook et al. which sought to assess, via examination of abstracts,  the opinions of approximately 12,000 scientists on anthropogenic climate change.

Rather than repeating myself, here are a few of my earlier postings on this subject:



cynic said:


> It's not only the fact that a lot of scientists have voiced disagreement, it is the logical flaws in Cook's approach to, and interpretation of, the collation of data.
> 
> Would you care to explain how 34% agreement, based upon interpretaion of abstracts from approx. 12,000 papers, were somehow transmuted into a near absolute consensus?
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> I just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.
> 
> 34.8% of authors endorse CAGW.
> 
> Who exactly do you claim is lying now!?






cynic said:


> Edit: 34.8% of authors endorse AGW
> 
> Not CAGW as previously posted.






cynic said:


> That figure was based upon the assessment of the paper abstracts using specific criteria to determine whether there existed, implicit or explicit, endorsement or rejection, or no position taken.
> 
> Based upon your postings, one could be forgiven for thinking that you have probably only read the abstract for Cook's paper. Please do me the courtesy of reading the entire paper before replying to this post!!
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> Huh!??
> About what exactly?!!
> 
> Was I wrong about that, 34.8% of authors AGW endorsement, figure in table 3 of Cook's paper?






cynic said:


> I made no implications about the >60% no position, other than it was incorrect to discount them in the final calculation.
> 
> It might not even be possible to know whether an absence, or presence, of endorsement by those authors exists, without further clarification from the authors themselves.
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> Still totally overlooking the key point!
> 
> The same creative argument could be put forward about whether or not water is wet!!
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> Still missing the point!
> 
> What you are highlighting is the fundamental and logical flaw in Cook's approach to discovery/confirmation of consensus (or lack thereof).
> 
> He assumed that a consensus existed and then used that assumption to justify his exclusion of 60+% of the collated data from consideration, thereby biasing the results in favour of his opinions, and defeating the entire point of the exercise!!






cynic said:


> This is getting lamer and lamer.
> 
> His paper is unable to demonstrate the widespread claims to the existence of near absolute scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW for several reasons.
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> There you go again totally misconstruing what I was saying in a vain attempt to defend your precious 97% illusion!
> 
> 34.8% does not a consensus maketh!!






cynic said:


> No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!
> 
> Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> You cannot count 97 to 98% of no positions as yes, but Cook has effectively done that!
> 
> 34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.
> 
> Those are facts that I understand perfectly well!






cynic said:


> Then his conclusions cannot support the claim that 97% of scientists are in agreement with his purported AGW consensus, because he only counted 35.4% of them!!!
> 
> That is in black and white!!!
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> Religious zealots often hold that perception of heretics.
> 
> 34.8% AGW endorsement by author, is all that could honestly be claimed to have been found in that study. And even that result is somewhat dubious to those whom cared enough to read past the paper's abstract.
> 
> But it seems that those sharing in Cook's religious zeal, do like to perceive it very differently.


----------



## rederob (9 April 2019)

cynic said:


> The problem is that data is relevant to science! And even more problematic is that some have arrived at conclusions that are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data.



So you have some idea that, for example, it makes no difference that temperature data have been recorded at different times of day.  Please explain what makes it logical to use data which is inhomogeneous.
Or, perhaps you think you can use the raw satellite data on temperature.  Please explain how you would do that.


cynic said:


> One doesn't need to be a scientist to recognise departures from logic, impartiality and the correct application of mathematics.



True.  Unfortunately you do not appreciate how climate science data is validated. You should read some of Thomas Karl's papers to get an idea of the reasons for data homogenisation, and the methodologies that have improved data reliability over time


cynic said:


> Those promoting studies guilty of aforementioned failings, do themselves and their credibility enormous disservice.



I guess you will find yourself guilty.


----------



## rederob (9 April 2019)

cynic said:


> I have examined the "paper" authored by Cook et al. which sought to assess, via examination of abstracts, the opinions of approximately 12,000 scientists on anthropogenic climate change.



No opinions were sought.
I read all your previous comments.
I can see clearly see what you think you know.
You should study logic and  probability (and science elsewhere) before making statements which needed to be based on sound reasoning.


----------



## cynic (9 April 2019)

rederob said:


> No opinions were sought.
> I read all your previous comments.
> I can see clearly see what you think you know.
> You should study logic and  probability (and science elsewhere) before making statements which needed to be based on sound reasoning.



The posts, to which you are replying, relate to the argument surrounding the purported scientific consensus, and not to temperature measurements.

I can assure you that I am quite well versed in the application of logic and probability theory. Sadly those same qualities appear to be absent from those desperately clinging to the 97% notion.


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

cynic said:


> The posts, to which you are replying, relate to the argument surrounding the purported scientific consensus, and not to temperature measurements.



I posted separately in reply to your separate posts on different topics, yet you have confused these into one.


cynic said:


> I can assure you that I am quite well versed in the application of logic and probability theory.



If that were true, then your ability to use this knowledge is deficient.  You consistently misrepresented Cook's data.


----------



## cynic (10 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I posted separately in reply to your separate posts on different topics, yet you have confused these into one.
> If that were true, then your ability to use this knowledge is deficient.  You consistently misrepresented Cook's data.



If that were true, then it wouldn't be too difficult for someone to identify errors in my representations on the matter.

And yet, to date, no body on this forum appears to have done so.

Perhaps you might like to oblige?


----------



## kahuna1 (10 April 2019)

_Ok ... 50,000 scientists are wrong ...
_
Opinions or views and beliefs are one thing, how we arrive at them is another. Of course if someone is of the opinion via their logic and beliefs that the world was built in 7 days as some do, its impossible and in fact futile to go and try to convince them otherwise, I attempt to present a case, and leave it at that.

Often, its upsetting them, the presentation of a science based or logic based belief, and its against their core values and as such, again nothing to do with intelligence, of which I have little, to be of a differing opinion. Speaking as I tend to do of the future, and this I think is key for me, prediction of something its not possible to say with any certainty that you are correct.

With any prediction, stocks, markets, commodities or even more topical things like politics, the debate is about something, that may or may not occur in the future. People will either take it or leave it. Discussion and input are welcomed, well, most of the time. If as I have over many years taken the time to enter red hot debates over various things, with a view, often totally opposite of the current wisdom being touted. 

I do these things, NOT to get a raise, but having examined others views, on what at times appears to be a fanatical fan thread, and finding an examination of say accounts, assets and possibility of success to be zero, and likely the stock is a scam of fools gold, present the logic. Some classic stories over the years of even ASIC doing its job with say a few stocks I bothered to take it higher. One turned out was insider selling and the other, one person, on Hot copper with 6 nics spreading rubbish. Bother were shams and lost 95% of value. Others similar and for my rewards, death threats, abuse, phone calls, threats of litigation and so on. Such at times is life.

Admitting your wrong, taking a decision to STOP the pain despite your beliefs or values, is a personal journey. As a trader, investor all my life, the best decisions I often take are BEING wrong. Not dwelling on the loss, taking some wisdom from it, if needed and learning.

Speaking about a MACRO based, valuation based approach to most topics, one based upon what occurred in the past, what drives markets and stocks, and NOT following the crowd just for the sake of it, often seems idiotic. I ran and have run on and off a thread on other sites and here about cycles and its forever speaking about an OPINION, one based upon science and logic and valuation and past history. People either take it, or leave it. Sometimes its seemingly calling for impossible things. Amusing and often heated at the time when your late 2000 trying to hose down a red hot NASDQ or late 2007 into 2008 trying to explain why a markets going to fall 40%. It turned out at 56% fall ... 

History often teaches lessons in finance, and also life, which we forget, or are made to forget so someone can sell a stock that longer term is worthless and worth 10 cents and we buy it at $3-. Whilst not hoping to get a hard based valuation based approach as a filter to any stock .... so wrong ... it happens. Taking the loss ... at some set level is admitting your WRONG and moving on. You missed something, the directors lie to you, and in modern times, technology can make things like horse and buggy worthless seemingly over a few years with the invention of cars. In modern times its almost overnight or 12 months the value of something which was around for 50 years, overnight is worth half.

It is an interesting if not fascinating life I have enjoyed. Being right, or stubborn, or pigheaded, gets one no where. I listen and have been gifted by doing so, even to the most illogical of arguments. Non scientific fan based ones or religious ones, or people who just like arguing or the pure trolls who do so for pleasure.  In the end, you have taken all you can via intelligent discussion with others, and leave the flat earth trolls alone. Its not arrogance or needing to be right in saying this. If something has occurred 100 times previously, or a million times, and a person is arguing as often occurs, THIS time ... its going to be different. It sadly as Einstein said, insanity to do an experiment 100 times and expect a different result. 

If someone chooses to say argue against a mere chemical reaction governed by LAWS of science such as endothermic and exothermic reactions, as does occur ... I listen as to why of course. I point out that its been done 1000 times if not a billion times prior to this with the same result ... and your actually arguing it is wrong because this time it will be different, well, I try to be polite but when bombarded with this logic, it becomes tedious.

Climate science is about chemical and exothermic along with endothermic reactions. No more, no less. 

Laws govern them. Not HUMAN ones but scientific ones, unwavering and ones that do not and cannot be changed. A reaction cannot produce more energy going in than is coming out. 

This is why 97% of scientists agree. The other 3% are, well ... outside the employ of the oil and gas industry ... a less than 1% take opposing views and yep I have read them. All are not logic or science based and trying to predict a reaction that has occurred the same way billions of times IS NOT going to occur is what it is.

Take care its been amusing ... watch out for Orange things and yellow puddles.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 April 2019)

Let's not argue. People will believe what they want to believe.

Meanwhile Behring sea isn't frozen this winter:

Humans are living through a dramatic transformation of the planet's surface due to climate change, with the most obvious sign being the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. And now, imaging has revealed perhaps a new chapter in that decline: The Bering Sea, which under normal circumstances should remain frozen-over until May, is almost entirely free of sea ice in early April.

Part of what makes this event so stunning, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) pointed out in a statement, is that the Arctic sea ice should be reaching its annual maximum right now. The summer reduction in sea ice normally only begins around now. And that process has, throughout recorded history, left the region between Russia and Alaska frozen at this time of year. But 2019 already has the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record (beating 2018, which was also a record-breaker). And that's manifesting in an unseasonably liquid sea off Alaska's northwest coast.

https://www.livescience.com/65166-bering-sea-ice-melt.html


----------



## Ann (10 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Let's not argue. People will believe what they want to believe.
> 
> Meanwhile Behring sea isn't frozen this winter:
> 
> ...




So the next question is where is the problem? If most of the sea ice has melted in the Arctic and no island, state, city or country has been submerged as was suggested in the early days of GW then it is a moot point. If it continues to get warmer and all the ice disappears off the Arctic that will open up more land for food production, mining, habitation. The warmer temperatures will create more seawater evaporation which will create more H2O in the atmosphere, which will dilute the amount of CO2 and other concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. Then there is likely to be more clouds in the sky with the extra H2O in the atmosphere which is likely to give us more cloud cover and shield us to an extent from the suns heating UV rays. Nature has her plans. 

We are so lucky to be living in this age, it has to be the very best time on this planet. Plants growing, humans creating wondrous new things, basically no famine other than politically induced famine. Our planet is thriving and doing what it always does, culling some things and creating other things we should be enjoying it not fearing the pleasure of warm weather.


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

cynic said:


> I have examined the "paper" authored by Cook et al. which sought to assess, via examination of abstracts,  the opinions of approximately 12,000 scientists on anthropogenic climate change.



Yet Cook's work included about 30,000 authors, so you have confused peer reviewed papers with people.
That's the start of a very long list of very basic errors you made.
Here's how you compound your misunderstandings: you said "*34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.*" Whereas the assessed abstracts of most authors had *no position* (18,930) on AGW.  This meant that only those papers (and their authors) who had an assessable position on AGW are counted at Table 3.  It is not reasonable to conclude that the authors of papers where *no position* could be determined would not have opinions on AGW theory.  However, that is a very different issue and not part of what Cook's team was looking for.
Your claim that authors in the *no position* category were "*ignored*" by Cook is nonsensical because they were clearly identified.
What you have done is confuse what is being assessed with what authors may actually believe in respect of AGW.  Put another way, had the 30,000 authors been independently asked if they endorsed AGW theory it is possible to statistically arrive at greater than 98% agreement.

The above aside, I note you sidestepped my earlier point about data inhomogeneities.


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Climate science is about chemical and exothermic along with endothermic reactions. No more, no less.



That's not wholly true.
The energy driving chemical reactions beyond earth formation is via *electromagnetic radiation* (or EMR).
Energy balance equations don't really care about the chemistry, except that compositional changes affect EMR, principally at the infrared spectrum.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 April 2019)

It's just the vibe Ann 
Bugger all sea level rise from the north pole melting. Ice is already 7/8ths underwater and when it melts it has less volume, amazing stuff water.

It's the other stuff like Greenland melting that would cause a bit of a rise.
But like you say there are winners and losers.
Our fellow dumb creatures are pretty big losers but they are losers in any case because of land clearing etc. Florida will be a big loser, people who have houses next to Sydney Harbour will be big losers (why do you think Turnbull is so concerned (tongue in cheek))


----------



## cynic (10 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Yet Cook's work included about 30,000 authors, so you have confused peer reviewed papers with people.
> That's the start of a very long list of very basic errors you made.



I stand corrected!
It does indeed appear that I did confuse the number of authors with the number of papers. Thankyou for alerting me to this.

Now, does that error materially detract from, the key issues I raised, regarding methodological flaws, and exclusion of over 60% of authors?

If so, how so?

If not, then of the purportedly "very long list of very basic errors" why have you chosen to only proffer this single error?

Could it be that your "very long list" of my "very basic errors" contains only one solitary element?


> Here's how you compound your misunderstandings: you said "*34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.*" Whereas the assessed abstracts of most authors had *no position* (18,930) on AGW.  This meant that only those papers (and their authors) who had an assessable position on AGW are counted at Table 3.  It is not reasonable to conclude that the authors of papers where *no position* could be determined would not have opinions on AGW theory.  However, that is a very different issue and not part of what Cook's team was looking for.
> Your claim that authors in the *no position* category were "*ignored*" by Cook is nonsensical because they were clearly identified.
> What you have done is confuse what is being assessed with what authors may actually believe in respect of AGW.  Put another way, had the 30,000 authors been independently asked if they endorsed AGW theory it is possible to statistically arrive at greater than 98% agreement.



No!

I most certainly did not compound my misunderstanding.

Table 5 of Cooks "paper", highlights that, of the 1200 responses received(noting that 11 of those had to be excluded due to the absence of extracts on the papers authored), to 8547 requests for self rating, 35.5% of authors took no position!


> The above aside, I note you sidestepped my earlier point about data inhomogeneities.



Does this mean that your sentiments, regarding straw men, have somehow changed?


----------



## Sdajii (10 April 2019)

Your post is pretty typical of the alarmists. You claim anyone who doesn't follow the most absurd exaggerations is 'denying facts' while you deny actual facts.



kahuna1 said:


> Yup ...
> 
> U are a scientist ? Really ? . Me, I am merely a robot on the internet.




I actually am a scientist. Some of the work I have done directly relevant to climate science was while working for the Centre for Environmental Stress and Adaptation Research. I was investigating the effects of environmental influences, primarily temperature, on living things, and how this affects their distributions/ability to live in certain places, which is relevant to climate change because if the climate changes, the distributions which species can live in changes (it is also relevant to other things, of course). I won't run off a complete CV, but I've done a lot of relevant work (and also a fair bit unrelated to climate).

You can make stupid jokes about being a robot to try to distract from what discredits you and facts you don't like, but facts still exist.

*



			Every claim you just made is actually not agreed to by 97% of the science community.
		
Click to expand...


*


> Of the remaining 3%, HALF are in the employ of fossil fuel companies and well ... that leaves the flat earth types.




Again, this is simply not true. Climate scientists themselves, even biased as they are, agree with it. It's the media (social and mainstream) myths which contradict it.

Just as one clear example, literally no climate scientist at all says that the planet is now warmer than it ever was before. This is such a basic, clear fact, literally no climate scientist in the world agrees with you, and they all agree with me. If you want we can go through more examples. 



> Sorry but you line ... "The current rate of warming is actually not unusual." maybe ...  and a very big maybe on that, the rate of CO2 change is UNPRECEDENTED and in the past, what took 200,000 years, we are going to achieve in 300 years. We already have CO2 levels at ones not seen in 3 million years and if your a scientist, which I doubt, you will know from very detailed records their is a LAG between CO2 and temperature change, Normally that is. Its never been raised this quickly even when a meteor hit the planet 65 million years ago, CO2 took a very long time to rise to its PEAK ... thousands of years.




I didn't mention CO2, and you're creating a strawman here. I agree, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently unusually high. The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).

As for the rate of change, the vast majority of climate scientists agree the current rate is not unprecedented by natural rates, and only a few extreme biased, disingenuous ones make any other claim. Literally the vast majority of them agree with me on this point. It's a clear and tangible concept we have reliable evidence for.


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

cynic said:


> Now, does that error materially detract from, the key issues I raised, regarding methodological flaws, and exclusion of over 60% of authors?



Yes, you got your basics wrong, and still don't understand why including a category that is not relevant to the determination is required to be excluded.


cynic said:


> Table 5 of Cooks "paper", highlights that, of the 1200 responses received(noting that 11 of those had to be excluded due to the absence of extracts on the papers authored), to 8547 requests for self rating, 35.5% of authors took no position!



And this is relevant to what?


cynic said:


> Does this mean that your sentiments, regarding straw men, have somehow changed?



It means that when you earlier proposed the value of "raw data," it needs to be homogeneous.  You appear to be unaware of why.  You also seem oblivious to the relevance of the point I was making because it directly rendered your idea unscientific.  By way of analogy the federal government relies on seasonally adjusted data (for a wide range of statistical series) when identifying trends, *not* raw data.
I don't expect everyone to be good at science, but if you are going to post about it, please arm yourself with the fundamentals.


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).



First, AGW is a theory.  
You say you are a scientist, which means you know that to debunk it you have a better explanation than that which entails GHGs.
Please elaborate as you have indicated you are able.


----------



## kahuna1 (10 April 2019)

Hmmm ...

I found this interesting and sadly turned my mind back from following Frosty.



I do love it .... 100 billion trillion times and that's when one listens to FOX .... Facebook ... golly shared 11,000 times ... at 500 friends per person ... that's 5.5 million people served this as truth.

It all makes sense. News like this, is unstoppable. 

That humans take their news from Facebook amazes me.


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> As for the rate of change, the vast majority of climate scientists agree the current rate is not unprecedented by natural rates, and only a few extreme biased, disingenuous ones make any other claim. Literally the vast majority of them agree with me on this point. It's a clear and tangible concept we have reliable evidence for.



This is false and I previously provided links.
There is no period in recorded history where irradiance and temperature have consistently diverged over almost 5 decades.
Again, please offer your evidence.


----------



## Sdajii (10 April 2019)

rederob said:


> False. It's unprecedented, and occurring when the planet should be cooling.




No, it is not unprecedented. Climate scientists debate how long ago (a few hundred or a few thousand years ago) the most recent time it occurred was, not whether or not it has happened. With the possible exception of a very, very few, all agree it has happened many times.




> False






> . I know of none, but please enlighten us with those you know.




The medieval warm period, the little ice age, these were more dramatic, larger swings, and quite recent. In recorded human history but before the industrial revolution (ie, we didn't cause it). Looking only slightly further back, we see such extreme climate change that within very short periods of time, the climate changed so much that sea levels changed so much that you could literally walk from Australia to PNG on dry land, or from Britain to mainland Europe (and many other dramatic examples from all over the world, which happens in the same climatic cycles. Humans had nothing to do with these events. They were extreme and rapid. Just looking at the period humans have existed (the last 100,000 years or so - very very recent and a short period of time) these climate events have happened many times. Not just two or three times. The alarmist say the sea levels may change a few feet, and indeed, they may, but this is just normal behaviour of the climate. Yes, absolutely, we may be making it zig rather than zag, that's possible. If so, we're bloody lucky, because if you think global warming is a problem you know nothing of the disaster an ice age would cause, even one half as mild as the last one, which was in recorded history but pre industrial times.



> True.  The media seldom quote the actual science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sdajii (10 April 2019)

rederob said:


> There is no period in recorded history where irradiance and temperature have consistently diverged over almost 5 decades.
> Again, please offer your evidence.




I really wish you were kidding. I... I just literally can't find the words or inclination to properly respond to something this...  I mean... it's so wrong and ridiculous I can't even find descriptive words. If you're that far gone, clearly nothing I can say, no amount of evidence, can change your mind. You believe propaganda, you are a sheep, and that being the case there is no point in me conversing with you. Have a nice day.


----------



## explod (10 April 2019)

Spot on rederob.

My early research took in the well put together work of Richard Leakey, "The Sixth Extinction, biodiversity and its survival" 1995

In this it clearly documents from core and rock samples analysed by scientists that show that this current change is happening over less than one hundreds years took thousands (at minimum) of years for the others for the up to 95% wipeouts.


----------



## Sdajii (10 April 2019)

explod said:


> Spot on rederob.
> 
> My early research took in the well put together work of Richard Leakey, "The Sixth Extinction, biodiversity and its survival" 1995
> 
> In this it clearly documents from core and rock samples analysed by scientists that show that this current change is happening over less than one hundreds years took thousands (at minimum) of years for the others for the up to 95% wipeouts.




This literally makes no sense!


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> No, it is not unprecedented. Climate scientists debate how long ago (a few hundred or a few thousand years ago) the most recent time it occurred was, not whether or not it has happened. With the possible exception of a very, very few, all agree it has happened many times.



Something credible and more detailed please, not a debate.



Sdajii said:


> The medieval warm period, the little ice age, these were more dramatic, larger swings, and quite recent. In recorded human history but before the industrial revolution (ie, we didn't cause it).



Please provide global temperature data.  It is well known that specific events in parts of the northern hemisphere led to sharp seasonal weather changes.  There is no data suggesting these trends were globally consistent.





	

		
			
		

		
	
By the way, the above charts omit 15 of the warmest temperatures ever recorded, since 2000.


----------



## cynic (10 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes, you got your basics wrong, and still don't understand why including a category that is not relevant to the determination is required to be excluded.



You have alerted me to one solitary error from your purportedly "very long list of very basic errors", and failed to accede to my request to explain, how that particular error, was anything but, immaterial to my expressed concerns about Cook's unscientific conduct.

I understand perfectly well, why Cook chose to exclude that category. It was quite simply too inconvenient to the conclusion he dearly wanted, so he chose to creatively dismiss it!

I also note that you have neglected to offer me, anything more, than a single, solitary error, from your purportedly "very long list of very basic errors"


> And this is relevant to what?
> It means that when you earlier proposed the value of "raw data," it needs to be homogeneous.  You appear to be unaware of why.  You also seem oblivious to the relevance of the point I was making because it directly rendered your idea unscientific.  By way of analogy the federal government relies on seasonally adjusted data (for a wide range of statistical series) when identifying trends, *not* raw data.
> I don't expect everyone to be good at science, but if you are going to post about it, please arm yourself with the fundamentals.



What do temperature readings have to do with the analysis of peer reviewed paper abstracts?

Do you actually know what a straw man is?

Do you understand the concept of derailment, or are you unconscious of what it is that you are actually seeking to do here?


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I really wish you were kidding. I... I just literally can't find the words or inclination to properly respond to something this...  I mean... it's so wrong and ridiculous I can't even find descriptive words. If you're that far gone, clearly nothing I can say, no amount of evidence, can change your mind. You believe propaganda, you are a sheep, and that being the case there is no point in me conversing with you. Have a nice day.



You claim to be a scientist and your comeback is a science vacuum!
Please use actual science to rebut claims based on science.


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

cynic said:


> You have alerted me to one solitary error from your purportedly "very long list of very basic errors", and failed to acceed to my request to explain how that particular error was anything but immaterial to my expressed concerns about Cook's unscientific conduct.



I explained that you do not count material which is irrelevant to a claim.
I demonstrated how it was possible to ask a different question to get relevant information, but that this was not Cook's methodology.
I realise you do not understand this idea, so I won't repeat myself.
Your other points are nonsensical.  Go back to separate posts I made which tackled each of your posts which were about different things.
I am happy to discuss or debate or clarify, but as you again jumbled everything there is nothing coherent to work from.


----------



## cynic (10 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I explained that you do not count material which is irrelevant to a claim.
> I demonstrated how it was possible to ask a different question to get relevant information, but that this was not Cook's methodology.
> I realise you do not understand this idea, so I won't repeat myself.
> Your other points are nonsensical.  Go back to separate posts I made which tackled each of your posts which were about different things.
> I am happy to discuss or debate or clarify, but as you again jumbled everything there is nothing coherent to work from.



Rederob, this discussion was centred around Cook's bogus claim to having quantified a purportedly  >97% scientific consensus on CAGW.

If over 30 (or over 60) percent, of a population cannot be confirmed to be in agreement then the percentage of agreement simply cannot be rightly said to exceed 40 (or 70) percent!


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

cynic said:


> Rederob, this discussion was centred around Cook's bogus claim to having quantified a purportedly  >97% scientific consensus on CAGW.



False.
Cook's work has been closely scrutinised and remains intact.
Cook showed that where climate scientists offered a position on AGW that was determinable from their abstracts, then of those assessable a clear consensus existed.
This, however, in not a scientific claim.  It is the outcome of a metastudy.  Science might give a different outcome one day - who knows.
It is logically flawed to suggest that if abstracts did *not *contain an assessable stance on AGW then they should influence the proportion which did.  
It's analogous to reviewing the ability of cooks to scramble eggs by reviewing the past 1000 published cookbooks to see now many contain a recipe.  It would *not *be reasonable to conclude that because only a third of the cookbooks included a recipe that those which did not implied the cooks did not know how to scramble eggs.


----------



## wayneL (10 April 2019)

What is your qualification/expertise, Red?


----------



## cynic (10 April 2019)

rederob said:


> False.
> Cook's work has been closely scrutinised and remains intact.
> Cook showed that where climate scientists offered a position on AGW that was determinable from their abstracts, then of those assessable a clear consensus existed.
> This, however, in not a scientific claim.  It is the outcome of a metastudy.  Science might give a different outcome one day - who knows.
> ...



Using your same analogy, it would also *not* be reasonable to conclude that 97% of two thirds of cooks know how to scramble eggs!


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

cynic said:


> Using your same analogy, it would also *not* be reasonable to conclude that 97% of two thirds of cooks know how to scramble eggs!



Correct - we do *not *use information we do not have.
Cook had no basis for saying anything about those who offered nothing on AGW.  Thus, he identified this cohort and classified them according to the stated methodology.


----------



## cynic (10 April 2019)

And to take the scrambled eggs analogy one step further, were the examination to only ask for egg cooking recipes, without stipulating the need for them to be scrambled, then no certain claims, about knowledge of egg scrambling, could be reasonably made!

Note how closely your analogy relates to Cook's conduct, and his logically bereft methodology.


----------



## explod (10 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> This literally makes no sense!



Have you read the book?.   If not how do you know?.  

If uncertain ask a question


----------



## cynic (10 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Correct - we do *not *use information we do not have.
> Cook had no basis for saying anything about those who offered nothing on AGW.  Thus, he identified this cohort and classified them according to the stated methodology.



Incorrect!
Read the comment made under the heading "4. Discussion".


----------



## Ann (10 April 2019)

*Climate Advice*
* 'How do I break bad news about climate change?' *
*A six-step guide to honest and compassionate conversations.*


*Dear Sara,

Your column about the woman with the big beach house in Florida illustrates the difficulty of an honest conversation:

If we stopped burning fossil fuels today, the climate will continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for decades. And if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels soon, the consequences will be far worse and widespread. For example, Charleston, South Carolina, a city at sea level, is planning infrastructure for a 2.5-foot sea-level rise. If glacial ice starts to melt as quickly as some models suggest, the sea-level rise could be six to seven feet by the end of the century. Charleston would have to be relocated. Even with immediate action, a lot of the damage is already done.

How do we convey the long view to people who don’t want to hear it in a way that generates action rather than despair?

– Mark in Charleston

The challenge here is that because you have learned about climate change, you are now in the position to break the bad news to others.

It’s not easy to inform people that a beloved city may cease to exist in its present form. It’s also difficult to respond effectively to the feelings of grief, anger, and denial that such a message provokes.

Your question prompted me to think about another group of people who must sometimes deliver bad news: doctors. Over the years, doctors have developed step-by-step protocols for informing patients of life-threatening or terminal illnesses. One such protocol, known as SPIKES, is designed to help them build the trust of their patients, ensure that patients have an accurate understanding of their diagnoses, and work with them to choose a treatment plan.

A person with a life-threatening illness isn’t a perfect analogue for a city endangered by sea-level rise. But each of the protocol’s six steps offers useful guidance on how to deliver bad news with compassion and humanity. Let’s walk through them.

1. Mentally prepare to deliver the bad news
Imagine you’re a doctor with a patient complaining of back pain. She believes she’s strained a muscle. But after conducting tests, you now know that her back is hurting because she has breast cancer. How do you tell her that news?

According to SPIKES, the first step is to prepare for the conversation. Consider what you will say and how you will respond to an emotional reaction or difficult questions.

“You have to sort of think about the person who is going to be in front of you. If you know them already, you may have some idea of how they’re going to react,” Dr. Walter Baile told me recently. Baile, director of the Program for Interpersonal Communication and Relationship Enhancement at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, helped develop the SPIKES protocol.

The application to talking about climate change: Find out what you can about the people you’ll be speaking to. Prepare for the emotions they may feel when you show them frightening projections or suggest their community may not exist in the future.

One point to keep in mind: People who are hostile to the very concept of climate change get a lot of attention. But they actually represent only a small fraction of the U.S. public. About 80 percent of people are either worried about the problem, haven’t made up their minds, or don’t know much about it, according to my colleagues at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Those groups constitute your most likely audience.

2. Find out what the other person already knows
In the second step, doctors begin a meeting with the patient by asking open-ended questions. The goal is to determine the patient’s existing perception of her illness: “What is your understanding of the reason we took a tissue sample?” This step helps doctors identify the patient’s mistaken beliefs, if any, and craft a message based on what she already knows.

By phone, Baile added that it’s important for doctors at this stage to learn a little about the person they’re speaking with.

“What patients really value is being treated as people, not just as patients,” he said. “When they feel you are considerate of their personhood, so to speak, and their well-being, that helps instill trust.”

This step is also important for conversations about climate change. Rather than barraging people with scientific facts or arguments about why you are correct, first ask questions:

– How long have you lived in Charleston?
– What’s your favorite thing about the city?
– Have you noticed more flooding around the city?
– What have you heard about the causes of that flooding?

3. Seek an invitation to provide information
During the next step, doctors ask for consent from the patient to share the facts about their illness. Nearly all patients, according to surveys conducted in Europe and the U.S., want to be told the truth about their conditions — usually so that they can effectively plan for the future. But some people may find the information too difficult to hear, and those who reach an advanced state of illness may prefer not to be told all of the details.

The lesson for talking about climate change: In conversations with others, don’t shy away from mentioning your concern about climate change, but talk about it in a way that invites the other person to ask questions.

– Friend: What have you been up to lately?
– You: I wrote a letter to the editor about sea-level rise, and it got published in the newspaper.
– Friend: That’s great! But so depressing! What did you write about?

4. Share what you know
Now, a doctor will share what he or she has learned about the patient’s illness: “I’m sorry to tell you that when we took a look at the tissue sample, we found that you have breast cancer.”

The protocol contains two pieces of advice relevant to people talking about climate change. First, avoid jargon. Say “human-caused,” not “anthropogenic,” and so on.

Second, choose your words carefully to avoid unintended cruelty. For example, the protocol advises doctors not to say, “You have very bad cancer and unless you get treatment immediately you are going to die.”

Such a statement is absurdly blunt and clearly has no place in a doctor’s office. But it also bears an uncomfortable resemblance to messages we often hear about climate change: “We must cease greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible or there will be catastrophic consequences.” Either one may leave the listener feeling angry and apt to blame the messenger.

Try using more compassionate language: “The climate problem is serious, and that’s why it’s important for all of us to work on a plan to address it.” You might also add that there is still time to avoid the most dangerous consequences.

5. Address emotions
“Responding to the patient’s emotions is one of the most difficult challenges of breaking bad news,” the protocol says. “Patients’ emotional reactions may vary from silence to disbelief, crying, denial, or anger.”

Like breaking bad medical news, sharing frightening information about climate change is likely to provoke an emotional reaction. You can address those emotions by acknowledging their presence, giving people space to express them, and offering validating or empathic responses.

– You: The ocean could rise by as much as six feet during the lifetime of our kids. Unfortunately, if that happens, a lot of Charleston will either go underwater or have frequent flooding problems.
– Friend: That’s horrible to think about.
– You: It’s hard for me, too. I wish I had better news to share.

By acknowledging and validating others’ emotions, you can help them remember that their reaction is normal and that they are not alone.

“People are frightened, and they’re confused at times, and what they really appreciate is kindness,” Baile said.

6. Make a plan
Whether you’re breaking bad news about cancer or the climate, the last and most important step is to work with the other person to come up with a plan.

At this stage, doctors discuss treatment options with patients. The goal is to decide, together with the patient, on a plan that aligns with the patient’s values. For example, some patients may not wish to pursue aggressive treatment if the likelihood of success is poor and the side effects severe.

When you talk with people about climate change, it’s similarly important to discuss what can be done to address the problem, seeking a plan of action that aligns with the person’s values.

– Friend: I feel so worried about what will happen to my son.
– You: I worry a lot about my kids, too. I usually feel better when I do something with that feeling, like going to talk to city planners about the problem. Would you be interested in coming with me the next time I go to speak with them? Your son would be welcome to come along. 

Bonus advice
When I spoke with Dr. Baile, he offered a final piece of advice that wasn’t in his original protocol.

Doctors, he said, often empower family members to become allies of a patient. Family members can take small but effective actions, such as helping the patient get plenty of rest.

The same strategy, he said, can be useful to people who are speaking up about climate change: “Find out who your allies are,” he said. One person’s voice may be ignored, but a chorus of warnings — especially from those well known to and trusted by the listener — is harder to dismiss.

Wondering how climate change could affect you or your loved ones? Send your questions to sara@yaleclimateconnections.org. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.*


----------



## rederob (10 April 2019)

cynic said:


> Incorrect!
> Read the comment made under the heading "4. Discussion".



I know Cook's work inside out, and do not make the mistakes you do.
Your inability to correctly identify what Cook presented was evident in your ramblings.
You are intent on making a links to irrelevances, and you are incapable of working out why it is a nonsense.
You never answer a question properly and think I cannot tell you are moving the goalposts.
When you are able to stay on topic I will address your issues.
Until then you can post as you like.


----------



## Sdajii (10 April 2019)

explod said:


> Have you read the book?.   If not how do you know?.
> 
> If uncertain ask a question




You said that they can see that the rate of change has never been greater than over the last few years because they've been able to measure rock samples. Just take a moment to think about that. Do you think they've been able to get rock samples which show the average temperature of every year or decade for the last billion years?

Can you even begin to comprehend how much sense that doesn't make?

You are claiming someone can prove a negative with something which could never even begin to be considered a complete data set.

On the other hand, we actually do have evidence of massive climate  change (the sea level fluctuations I mentioned - care to explain those?) which have repeatedly occurred over short amounts of time.

No one was there measuring temperatures, but I shouldn't even have to tell you that in the last 100 or 200 years, we haven't seen anything remotely like the degree of climate change which occurred to cause sea levels to fluctuate that much. How much have sea levels changed in the last 200 years? Virtually nothing, right? You can honestly crunch these numbers even in the most basic of ways (how frequently these massive sea level changes took place, how great they were, and thus the rate of change) and it becomes completely and unequivocably obvious that extreme climate change occurs naturally, without CO2 fluctuations, rapidly and frequently.

The climate myths are so blatant, but if you bother to look, even if you literally just look at what climate scientists all acknowledge as hard facts, the myths are dispelled.

Some people hear me say things like this an as has already happened they assume I am in the denier camp and believe all the nonsense they say (we can see examples of people doing that to me in this thread). Yes, their stuff includes a lot of nonsense. They also assume I disbelieve everything the climate scientists and alarmists say, we also see examples of that in this thread, but no, that's not true.

I literally only believe what there is hard evidence for and am agnostic about everything else, something almost no one on either side is willing to do, and doing so puts you in the middle of two sides which are so radically polarised and absurd that both of them look at you as insane. Both sides are insane and any sane person in the middle looks insane to both sides. It really is an absurd situation.


----------



## Joules MM1 (10 April 2019)

Erika A.P. Schreiber   ❄️Retweeted National Snow and Ice Data Center


> #seaice decline gets some of the most press with regards to #climatechange - but its not the only way the #Arctic is drastically changing




watch the video
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafc1b

*Abstract*

Key observational indicators of climate change in the Arctic, most spanning a 47 year period (1971–2017) demonstrate fundamental changes among nine key elements of the Arctic system. We find that, coherent with increasing air temperature, there is an intensification of the hydrological cycle, evident from increases in humidity, precipitation, river discharge, glacier equilibrium line altitude and land ice wastage. Downward trends continue in sea ice thickness (and extent) and spring snow cover extent and duration, while near-surface permafrost continues to warm. Several of the climate indicators exhibit a significant statistical correlation with air temperature or precipitation, reinforcing the notion that increasing air temperatures and precipitation are drivers of major changes in various components of the Arctic system. To progress beyond a presentation of the Arctic physical climate changes, we find a correspondence between air temperature and biophysical indicators such as tundra biomass and identify numerous biophysical disruptions with cascading effects throughout the trophic levels. These include: increased delivery of organic matter and nutrients to Arctic near‐coastal zones; condensed flowering and pollination plant species periods; timing mismatch between plant flowering and pollinators; increased plant vulnerability to insect disturbance; increased shrub biomass; increased ignition of wildfires; increased growing season CO2 uptake, with counterbalancing increases in shoulder season and winter CO2 emissions; increased carbon cycling, regulated by local hydrology and permafrost thaw; conversion between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; and shifting animal distribution and demographics. The Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its 20th Century state and into an unprecedented state, with implications not only within but beyond the Arctic. The indicator time series of this study are freely downloadable at AMAP.no.

====================================================
pictures excerpted ......rest of this article is good reading for the thirsty.....


----------



## Sdajii (10 April 2019)

Ann said:


> *Climate Advice*
> * 'How do I break bad news about climate change?' *
> *A six-step guide to honest and compassionate conversations.*
> 
> ...




You know you're mindless when you follow protocols for how to have conversations with people.

Do you need any more of an obvious slap in the face to alert you to the reality that you are allowing yourself to be controlled by the media? It is literally giving you a template for how to interact with other humans and you are following and advocating for it.


----------



## Joules MM1 (10 April 2019)

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ure-permafrost-sea-ice-wildilfe-ecology-study

"...describe how warming in the Arctic, which is heating up 2.4 times faster than the Northern Hemisphere average, is triggering a cascade of changes in everything from when plants flower to where fish and other animal populations can be found."

" "What stands out for me is an intensified hydrological system," said Jason Box, a climate scientist with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and lead author of the study, published today in the scientific journal _Environmental Research Letters_.

Warmer temperatures have shifted forest and tundra growing seasons, boosted rain and snowfall, increased melting, accelerated glaciers and possibly even increased the number of lightning strikes that could increase the risk of Arctic wildfires in the tundra and boreal forest, Box said. "I think this is a clear signal due to climate warming," he said.

Following are snapshots of some of the changes underway across the region."

*Bering Sea 'In a State We've Never Seen Before'*
Commercial fishers and the indigenous population of the Bering Sea region are feeling how Arctic change is spilling out of the polar region.

During two consecutive years of record-low sea ice, coastal communities lost the ice buffer that protects the land from winter storm surges. Pollock and cod, two valuable fish species, may be running out of spawning habitat in the Bering Sea, and it's not clear they've found a replacement area.

Less sea ice and warming farther north have a domino effect in the Bering Sea, said Jim Overland, a climate researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"In the past, you had sea ice growing in the fall, with northerly winds that helped grow ice. Now, with the delay of Arctic-wide freeze-up, you don't have the pre-conditioning for the Bering freeze-up. Combined with unusual storm systems, you can get these off-the-charts changes in the Bering Sea," said Overland, a co-author of the study.

"Last year, with no sea ice and no pool of deep, cold water, pollock were found in the north Bering Sea where they don't usually go. The question was if they will they spawn in the new location or not, and it doesn't seem that they did," he said. "When this happens two years in a row, it becomes really important. The Bering Sea is now in a state we've never seen before." "






"The new paper helps to show how the Arctic is a connected system affected by global warming, said National Snow and Ice Data Center scientist Twila Moon, who was not involved in the study.

"It's causing coastal erosion that eats away at community land, and, in some cases, causes building and infrastructure loss," she said. "These Arctic changes are also affecting people and communities far from the Arctic." Coastal flooding in the U.S., for example, is worsened by sea level rise that is fed by melting Arctic ice sheets and glaciers.

*Warm Winters Put Spring Closer to Melting Point*
Looking at temperature changes across the seasons, the researchers documented an Arctic that is warming 2.8 times faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere in the cold season, and 1.7 times faster in the warmer months.

The higher rate of cold season warming can be traced to the delayed freeze-up of sea ice, Box said. The relatively warm (compared to ice) ocean water increases moisture in the atmosphere, forming clouds that trap warmth near the surface. The warming in the cold season reduces the overall "cold content" in the Arctic, like leaving the freezer door open. When spring starts, snow, ice and permafrost are already closer to the melting point, he said.

Thawing permafrost creates another climate risk: As long-frozen organic material starts to decompose, it releases methane, a potent short-lived climate pollutant, as well as CO2, both of which contribute to more warming."






" In recent years, scientists have measured record-high annual average temperatures in the top 10 to 20 meters of permafrost at many measuring sites, with the biggest warmup in the coldest parts of the northern Arctic. At three sites on Alaska's North Slope, data in the study show that the freeze-up of the active permafrost layer (which thaws in summer and freezes in winter) now comes two months later than it did in the mid-1980s.

*Changing Flowering Times and Snow Cover*
The study found "strong evidence that the summer warming trend is causing an earlier and more condensed flowering period of key plant species," leading to mismatches between plants and pollinators, as well as making some plants more vulnerable to harmful insects.

Over time, that could fundamentally change the composition of Arctic vegetation, which in turn would affect animals that depend on those plants for food.

The data also contain widespread evidence that snow cover has been declining in the Arctic at a rate of two to four days per decade over the past 30 to 40 years. The trend is stronger the farther north and the higher up you go, Box said. Most of the decline is due to earlier snowmelt in spring, but a later start to the snow season is a factor in some areas, particularly in the eastern Canadian Arctic."



Overall, spring (May and June) snow cover extent has decreased by more than 30 percent since 1971, with evidence of increased ice-layer development in some parts of the Arctic because of more frequent winter thaw and rain events. A decline in the snow cover outside the growing season can make plants more vulnerable to extreme winter temperatures.

*Loss of Sea Ice Also Has Ripple Effects          *
The decline of sea ice is one of the most closely tracked indicators of Arctic change. The new paper describes how, over the past half century, it has shifted "from an environment dominated by thick multi-year sea ice to one dominated by thinner first-year sea ice, with an earlier start to the melt season and a later start to the freeze-up."

A study published April 2 in_ Scientific Reports _digs into one of the ways global warming is affecting sea ice formation and transport.

Off the coast of Russia, sea ice forms as cold winds blowing off the big landmass chill the water. At the same time, the winds push the newly formed ice near the shore northward toward the central Arctic. Over months, those drifting floes pile up to form thick ice that can last through the summer. But with a warmer atmosphere and ocean, more of that newly formed ice melts before it gets out of the formation region, said Thomas Krumpen, a sea ice physicist with the Alfred Wegener's Institute, who scoured satellite images to show changes in the transpolar drift current."






"The breakdown of the ice transport will have impacts on Arctic Ocean ecosystems because the ice formed near shorelines carries with it minerals and tiny biological organisms, including plankton and algae, "like frozen spinach packed in ice," said Eva-Maria Nöthig, an AWI oceanographer who studies the biology of the Arctic Ocean.

"The ice floes with all these particles inside are getting thinner," she said. "All the organisms, from fish at the surface to benthic organisms 4,000 meters deep, who need the sea ice for their development will be gone." "


----------



## basilio (10 April 2019)

If you want to get concerned  very quickly about where we are going with CC in the Arctic a couple of hours spent reading up on the risks associated with an* Arctic Blue Ocean situation *should do the trick.


http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/04/blue-ocean-event-consequences.html


----------



## basilio (10 April 2019)

Joules offers a detailed scientific account of how the Arctic is changing and the speed of this event.
A short summary of what is happening ?

_Forget “early warning signs” and “canaries in coal mines” – we’re now well into the middle of the climate change era, with its epic reshaping of our home planet. Monday’s news, from two separate studies, made it clear that the frozen portions of the earth are now in violent and dramatic flux.

The first, led by veteran Greenland glaciologist Jason Box, looked across the Arctic at everything from “increased tundra biomass” to deepening thaw of the permafrost layer. Their conclusion: “the Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its 20th Century state and into an unprecedented state, with implications not only within but beyond the Arctic.” To invent a word, the north is rapidly slushifying, with more rainfall and fewer days of hard freeze; the latest data shows that after a month of record temperatures in the Bering Sea, ocean ice in the Arctic is at an all-time record low for the date, crushing the record set … last April.

The other study looked at the great mountain ranges of the planet, and found that their glaciers were melting much faster than scientists had expected. By the end of the century many of those alpine glaciers would be gone entirely; the Alps may lose 90% of their ice. From the Caucasus to the south island of New Zealand, mountains are losing more than 1% of their ice each year now: “At the current glacier loss rate, the glaciers will not survive the century,” said Michael Zemp, who runs the World Glacier Monitoring Service from his office at the University of Zurich.

One could list the “consequences” of these changes in great detail. They range from the catastrophic (Andean cities with no obvious source of water supply once the glaciers have melted) to the merely bitter (no one is going to die from a lack of skiing, but to lose the season when friction disappears will make many lives sadder). For the moment, though, don’t worry about the “effects,” just focus on what it means that some of the largest systems on earth are now in seismic shift.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/10/glaciers-arctic-ice-vanishing-radical-politics_


----------



## basilio (11 April 2019)

Learn  more about meltdown in the Arctic.
*Why Greenland’s Melting Could Be the Biggest Climate Disaster of All*
Glaciologist Jason Box is racing to figure out just how rapidly we’re pushing the 7 meters of sea rise level locked up in the Greenland ice sheet onto our shores.

https://www.climatedesk.org/science...-could-be-the-biggest-climate-disaster-of-all


----------



## Ann (11 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> You know you're mindless when you follow protocols for how to have conversations with people.
> 
> Do you need any more of an obvious slap in the face to alert you to the reality that you are allowing yourself to be controlled by the media? It is literally giving you a template for how to interact with other humans and you are following and advocating for it.



Hi Sdajii, you do realize I am not promoting the agenda of GW, I am merely showing how these cult like people are pushing their agenda to vulnerable people using a psychological technique called Gaslighting. If you listen to this, start 7 minutes in for the meaty bit to begin. It is basically a nasty hypocritical style of a con. 

I am simply highlighting how this GW propaganda machine works by showing some of their techniques. This is not science, this is cognitive psychology at work, although I am sure some would call it science. The science of manipulation.


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> On the other hand, we actually do have evidence of massive climate change (the sea level fluctuations I mentioned - care to explain those?) which have repeatedly occurred over short amounts of time.



These were changes over thousands of years.  We are now looking at changes at decadal scales. 
Please provide your time-scale data rather than make sweeping, unsupported claims.


Sdajii said:


> How much have sea levels changed in the last 200 years? Virtually nothing, right?



Wrong.
At century scales please review Table 2 here.


Sdajii said:


> You can honestly crunch these numbers even in the most basic of ways (how frequently these massive sea level changes took place, how great they were, and thus the rate of change) and it becomes completely and unequivocably obvious that extreme climate change occurs naturally, without CO2 fluctuations, rapidly and frequently.



However, you have not presented any data at all.
Frequency of event and rates if change of event are not the same.  Moreover, even Nils Morner will tell you that significant eustatic changes in sea level can be driven by small global changes in temperature - smaller than that of the past century.  His theory of redistribution of energy and mass via the ocean current system due to a feedback interchange of angular momentum explains this, but, as I said, it happens over many thousands of years.
So your claims are without merit and reflect basic misunderstandings of climate science.


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I literally only believe what there is hard evidence for and am agnostic about everything else, something almost no one on either side is willing to do, and doing so puts you in the middle of two sides which are so radically polarised and absurd that both of them look at you as insane..



If that is so, where is the *hard evidence* for your many claims that I have asked for on many occasions?
I link to the science showing you are wrong, but this does not appear to change what you believe.
Dissociative behaviour in climate science denial is worrisome.
Your ideas about "polarisation" are curious.  A reasonable person would look at the scientific evidence and make a determination.  Scientists provide this evidence so cannot be in the camp of a side which is "polarised".  Those who accept the evidence would be siding with "knowledge."  Those who do not *must have* a different belief system.  I do not know what it could be, and as it manifests only in claims without substantiation, it does give cause for thought.


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

cynic said:


> And to take the scrambled eggs analogy one step further, were the examination to only ask for egg cooking recipes, without stipulating the need for them to be scrambled, then no certain claims, about knowledge of egg scrambling, could be reasonably made!
> Note how closely your analogy relates to Cook's conduct, and his logically bereft methodology.



Just an FYI, your post was  a perfect example of a *straw man* argument.
The subject of *egg scrambling* was never a search criteria in your reworking.
However, it could have been quantified as a subset under within all egg cooking recipes.  Cook did this where AGW was the search criterion, and then sorted AGW into 3 different categories.
What you want to do is make assumptions about the other cooking skills of those authors who never had a recipe book which included eggs/scrambled eggs.  Vegan cooking books will necessarily exclude eggs, but it does not mean the author was not a skilled chef and able to scramble eggs to perfection.


----------



## cynic (11 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I know Cook's work inside out, and do not make the mistakes you do.
> Your inability to correctly identify what Cook presented was evident in your ramblings.
> You are intent on making a links to irrelevances, and you are incapable of working out why it is a nonsense.
> You never answer a question properly and think I cannot tell you are moving the goalposts.
> ...



Despite finding this posted content highly disagreeable, I chose to respect your expressed decision to terminate our discussion.
But then you posted this...


rederob said:


> Just an FYI, your post was  a perfect example of a *straw man* argument.
> The subject of *egg scrambling* was never a search criteria in your reworking.
> However, it could have been quantified as a subset under within all egg cooking recipes.  Cook did this where AGW was the search criterion, and then sorted AGW into 3 different categories.
> What you want to do is make assumptions about the other cooking skills of those authors who never had a recipe book which included eggs/scrambled eggs.  Vegan cooking books will necessarily exclude eggs, but it does not mean the author was not a skilled chef and able to scramble eggs to perfection.



How am I to, now,  trust anything you post, when you have demonstrated to me, that you are either unwilling, or unable, to honour one of your recently posted commitments, for so much as a single day?!


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

cynic said:


> Despite finding this posted content highly disagreeable, I chose to respect your expressed decision to terminate our discussion.
> But then you posted this...



Please note that I made no such commitment.
I will pull apart what you state as I see fit.
There is a difference between meaningfulling addressing valid points and showing that what you have written makes no sense.


----------



## cynic (11 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Please note that I made no such commitment.
> I will pull apart what you state as I see fit.
> There is a difference between meaningfulling addressing valid points and showing that what you have written makes no sense.



And down goes the second of your two recent commitments!

(Has anyone noticed that some people's opinions of themselves, are eerily reminiscent, of the opinions once held of the Titanic, just prior to her fateful maiden voyage, i.e. thought to be unsinkable and then promptly sunk?)

Now I shall throw caution to the wind and resurrect those same two recently sunk commitments, and apply them in respect to yourself.

Let's see if I can break your shortlived record, and hold off for more than 16 hours!!


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

cynic said:


> And down goes the second of your two recent commitments!
> (Has anyone noticed that some people's opinions of themselves, are eerily reminiscent, of the opinions once held of the Titanic, just prior to her fateful maiden voyage, i.e. thought to be unsinkable and then promptly sunk?)
> Now I shall throw caution to the wind and resurrect those same two recently sunk commitments, and apply them in respect to yourself.
> Let's see if I can break your shortlived record, and hold off for more than 16 hours!!



You cannot or do not substantiate what you claim - same outcome.
You claim knowledge of logic but display little of it.
You cannot coherently present statistical data.
You have yet to display any understanding of climate science - despite regular postings.
You do not respond to directly to questions put to you.
You create straw men.
As kahuna has noted, there are posters that repeat "rubbish" ad nauseum, and complain when they are called out.
So it seems that global warming is as unstoppable as those who do as you do and choose to avoid understanding why.


----------



## Sdajii (11 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Hi Sdajii, you do realize I am not promoting the agenda of GW, I am merely showing how these cult like people are pushing their agenda to vulnerable people using a psychological technique called Gaslighting. If you listen to this, start 7 minutes in for the meaty bit to begin. It is basically a nasty hypocritical style of a con.
> 
> I am simply highlighting how this GW propaganda machine works by showing some of their techniques. This is not science, this is cognitive psychology at work, although I am sure some would call it science. The science of manipulation.




Sorry, Ann. Sounds like we agree in terms of our opinion on it and I misunderstood the context in which you were presenting it.


----------



## Sdajii (11 April 2019)

rederob said:


> These were changes over thousands of years.  We are now looking at changes at decadal scales.




No, it didn't happen over thousands of years, unless you want to say that the absolute entire process always moved in an entirely smooth pattern and was at the absolute most gradual possible rates to get to those extremes in those times (which we know is not only unrealistic but impossible). It presumably didn't happen within decades, but entire cycles of going from one state to another extreme and back (like, sea levels higher than current to low enough to join major land masses and all the way back up within 1-2 thousand years, and perhaps much much faster, and it seems most likely to have been much much faster but no one was there taking measurements more than a couple hundred years ago). Now, consider the minimal (by comparison to what we tangibly know did happen) predictions the alarmists are making. How much have the sea levels risen? Absolutely bugger all. It's very difficult to explain to someone with no grasp of climate science how absurd your claims are, but actual climate scientists know it, they all agree with me (on this point, seriously, they literally all agree with it, it is tangibly known). Seriously, actually sit down with a climate scientist and discuss this topic in a rational way and you'll find that while they usually squirm about admitting it, the only way you can justify saying the current rate of change is the greatest ever is to completely (and deliberately) misrepresent the data by saying we have never been able to record it before thus it never happened before. In recorded history (ie less than 200 years) we've seen a tiny amount of change compared to what routinely happens naturally, and to say that it has never ever happened before in the history of the planet is so absurd it's just beyond ridiculous. Literally every climate scientist will agree.



> At century scales please review Table 2 here.




If you actually understand how to interpret this data, it proves my point! They're deliberately misrepresenting the data here (the fact that they consistently do this is extremely telling in itself, though most people have no idea what they're looking at so they can't pick it up). Compare the amount they say the sea levels have changed in the last 200 years and compare it to the incredible amount required to get dry land all the way from Australia to PNG. As I said, those few cm most people haven't even noticed are nothing compared to what routinely goes on.

Okay, and consider this. The chart your link shows implies (let's assume that it's entirely correct, which it's not, but let's just assume it is) that the sea levels didn't change for 2,500 years until people started playing with the climate. If this is true, then typically what happens is the climate/sea level sits quietly unmoving, and then suddenly, BAM! In extremely quick events, shifts giving us these incredible sea level fluctuations, and it does this every few thousand years (we know this occurs every few thousand years, absolutely no one disputes this). Alternatively (which is actually the case), the climate is much more volatile and routinely makes short sudden but small moves far greater than the rate we're currently seeing. If you actually look at climate charts across different time periods and actually use your brain to consider the data, all sorts of mutually exclusive information become blatantly obvious, telling you that the propaganda is not true. If you want to actually do some real research, you can then get a grasp of the bigger picture. Naturally there are limitations on what we can be sure about. It quickly becomes obvious that most of the mainstream narrative claims are untrue and/or baseless speculation.



> Frequency of event and rates if change of event are not the same.  Moreover, even Nils Morner will tell you that significant eustatic changes in sea level can be driven by small global changes in temperature - smaller than that of the past century.  His theory of redistribution of energy and mass via the ocean current system due to a feedback interchange of angular momentum explains this, but, as I said, it happens over many thousands of years.




It doesn't always happen over many thousands of years, it sometimes happens *multiple times* in time periods of *less than* many thousands of years!



> So your claims are without merit and reflect basic misunderstandings of climate science.




From now on, only say this when looking in the mirror.


----------



## sptrawler (11 April 2019)

An interesting article on sea level monitoring by NASA.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2804/keeping-score-on-earths-rising-seas/
A recurring statement in the article is:
_“Once we have a better fundamental understanding of what we’re observing in the (satellite) record, we can start projecting that into the future.”

Contributions of the various components – ocean mass, ice sheets, glaciers – can be accurately estimated only for the recent era of satellite measurements, including the first GRACE mission (the twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites).

“If you go back in time, the result is really less (well defined),”
And two factors that have bedeviled sea-level science, though somewhat tamed (or “constrained,” as the scientists say), remain significant unknowns even in the new paper.

The patterns governing this land-to-ocean spigot are not completely understood_.

Reading the article, it becomes apparent, that the science is in its infancy and most historic data pre satellite is of dubious quality. I guess the measurements taken years ago, would have to be taken with the same barometric pressure, lunar influence etc.
No doubt it will become and exact science, but at present it sounds far from it. IMO


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> No, it didn't happen over thousands of years...



And you present no evidence, despite me linking to charts which show your claim is false.


Sdajii said:


> How much have the sea levels risen? Absolutely bugger all.



Again, no evidence with time scales from you, despite me linked to evidence your claim is false.


Sdajii said:


> ...but actual climate scientists know it, they all agree with me...



You repeat this claim, and never have substantiated it.  Whereas I keep showing your claim is wrong.


Sdajii said:


> In recorded history (ie less than 200 years) we've seen a tiny amount of change compared to what routinely happens naturally,...



Again, you offer no evidence, despite me linking to information which shows you have no credible case.


Sdajii said:


> Literally every climate scientist will agree.



I correspond with several who also are uploaders on Youtube, so I know that is a bald-faced lie.


Sdajii said:


> They're deliberately misrepresenting the data here...



And yet you cannot show that is true.


Sdajii said:


> It doesn't always happen over many thousands of years, it sometimes happens *multiple times* in time periods of *less than* many thousands of years!



What exactly are you talking about and where exactly is your evidence.
How many times are you going to make claims which are not supported by science, and which you consistently say are, but never offer evidence?


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Reading the article, it becomes apparent, that the science is in its infancy and most historic data pre satellite is of dubious quality.
> No doubt it will become an exact science, but at present it sounds far from it. IMO



Not quite the case.
The accuracy of data now available means that scientists will be able to clearly discern trends which previously had an error margin which made trend identification problematic.
Prior data was spatially constrained and fraught with other issues.


----------



## sptrawler (11 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Not quite the case.
> The accuracy of data now available means that scientists will be able to clearly discern trends which previously had an error margin which made trend identification problematic.
> Prior data was spatially constrained and fraught with other issues.



I thought that was what I said, my appologies.
They did say they are still trying to understand some of the data.
From my post:
_Once we have a better fundamental understanding of what we’re observing in the (satellite) record, we can start projecting that into the future.”_


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> From my post:
> _Once we have a better fundamental understanding of what we’re observing in the (satellite) record, we can start projecting that into the future.”_



I was being my usual pedantic self.
As a general rule less than 30 years data does not define a climate trend.  The satellite record is a tad shy of that.
That said, your linked article showed that the best science is now coming to the fore, so those casting aspersions on climate data need to provide a compelling case when they claim it is being misrepresented and therefore is not reliable.


----------



## Sdajii (11 April 2019)

rederob said:


> And you present no evidence, despite me linking to charts which show your claim is false.




I was referring to your own bleeding link!



> Again, no evidence with time scales from you, despite me linked to evidence your claim is false.




It's one of the most well known and understood natural phenomena related to the bleeding topic!

You repeat this claim, and never have substantiated it.  Whereas I keep showing your claim is wrong.[/quote]

Your own data proves you wrong!



> Again, you offer no evidence, despite me linking to information which shows you have no credible case.




Good grief, here, I'll get some data.







The above shows sea levels over the last few hundred thousand years (only a very recent part of climate history, no one disputes this overall picture, note that the scale is in ***HUNDREDS OF FEET*** not a few cm)

Note that the pattern is not a smooth one, it is jagged with sudden movements. Keep in mind that in this time scale we can not even see trivial movements such as ones you are calling significant, because they simply wouldn't even show up.

Okay, here is a quote from the Smithsonian institute, you can see the page here: https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise



> Over the past 20,000 years or so, sea level has climbed some 400 feet (120 meters). As the climate warmed as part of a natural cycle, ice melted and glaciers retreated until ice sheets remained only at the poles and at the peaks of mountains. Early on, the sea rose rapidly, sometimes at rates greater than 10 feet (3 meters) per century, and then continued to grow *in spurts of rapid sea level rise* until about 7,000 years ago. Then, the climate stabilized and sea level rise slowed, holding largely steady for most of the last 2,000 years, based on records from corals and sediment cores. Now, however, sea level is on the rise again, *rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years*




Note that they make reference to the fact that the rate of change is not constant. If you're a clever cookie you'll understand that means some periods are more rapid than others. This is just what has happened over the recent times. You're quite welcome to calculate the figures and analyse them, because a lot of the data makes it very obvious that there have been many many periods where the rate was more rapid but simply not recorded, however, the Smithsonian institute acknowledges that the rate of sea level change was greater 6,000 years ago than it is now (they make the 'mistake' of admitting this when they try to make it sound extreme by saying 'it's rising faster now than it has for 6,000 years, which means 6,000 years ago it was faster, and clearly humans weren't doing anything relevant 6,000 years ago). If you're a clever cookie you will understand that even if it actually is true that the sea levels were changing at a faster rate just 6,000 years ago with no human influence, it makes sense that this probably happens something in the ball park of every 6,000 years or so. Although, the data actually makes it very obvious that it is much more extreme much more often.

Again, note that their own data describes the natural state of change to be in "spurts of rapid sea level rise" - their direct quote of what was happening thousands of years ago, during an event completely unremarkable in terms of what occurred many times over the last 100,000 years (the timescale on my chart makes a lot of this movement obscure because of *even larger and more extreme change* over that period, and if we zoom out to a scale of millions of years (which I thoroughly encourage everyone to do!) it gets even more extreme, and if you actually bother to do this it becomes clear that to say the current rate of change is unprecedented it is so absurd it's beyond words and difficult to respond to.

120,000 years ago the sea level was about 5 metres higher than today. 20,000 years ago it was about 120 ***METRES*** lower than that, with a lot of huge fluctuations in between (literally multiple times going up an down to utterly extreme amounts and at extreme rates far greater than the current rate).

Again, literally no climate scientists disagree with this. Your blind, baseless insistence to the contrary don't make it reality. The media pushes a narrative of extreme misrepresentation of climate science which is inherently biased, then it gets exaggerated and the deliberate misrepresentations get remembered as facts, and people like you then insist that they are. I continually say that even the actual climate scientists themselves do not agree with these myths, and you can see that clearly here.



> I correspond with several who also are uploaders on Youtube, so I know that is a bald-faced lie.




See, this sort of comment just demonstrates the level of intelligence of people who believe this nonsense. Honestly, think about that. You could use the same argument, word for word, with equal validity, defending flat Earth theory.



> And yet you cannot show that is true.
> What exactly are you talking about and where exactly is your evidence.
> How many times are you going to make claims which are not supported by science, and which you consistently say are, but never offer evidence?




You're hardly worth it, and actually providing evidence takes time you're really not worth, clearly addressing all these points with drawn out explanations as I have done with just one would get unworkable, but hopefully it gives you some perspective.


----------



## kahuna1 (11 April 2019)

I am sorry to butt in again,

*I have said my piece, made my case*. Take it, leave it ... ignore it .. whatever. This baiting and trolling and presentation of non scientific coal industry or fossil fuel based lobby group gibberish is what it is.

I would humbly suggest to the others trying to speak to the ... well opposing view, remembering this THREAD is about whether the issue is UNSTOPPABLE ... not whether is exists, is a windup. TROLLING ...

Even that 100% of all coral on the great barrier reef, all 3,000 Reefs in 2019 show bleaching due to temperature change and some have extreme damage to the North, something I thought could not be refuted or even questioned, WAS.

I am open to discussion, views and even agree to disagree, but with evidence that 100% of the Northern Reefs in the great barrier reef have EXTREME damage caused by too hot water, and ONLY too hot water not runoff .... HOT WATER ... I got some mumbo jumbo back. I am not sure who is winding up the last two, but appreciate the efforts and lessons in how much I actually DO NOT KNOW about this topic and others who have contributed ,,,, I put the others on ignore  some time ago, the two who were taking the mickey and with respect, humbly would suggest others do the same.

Whilst I appreciate someone else's much superior knowledge, if not all those who have mad postiive contributions, which has been shared, to refute or show how stupid or non science based the other stuff is, as I did when it occurred, after 5 times ... being wound up ... I gave UP.

By giving up, putting them on ignore and not responding saves a lot of sanity. In some issues we will never agree, this thread is about an issue we agree upon, Climate change ... and whether it is stoppable. *NOT about whether it exists*.

If I went onto the electric cars are the future thread and called everyone a moron for driving one, I would be pathetic.

If I went onto a thread about say Oil and called everyone driving a car or using oil a moron and produced evidence which i am sure I could find, I would be pathetic.

There is a thread called "fake news on climate change consensus", for the 1% who do not believe in the issue.

Strange but true ... look below for links. Started by none other than Ann !!

Just a suggestion of course. When I got really interested, like I suspect most I went through the whole issue, both sides, impartially and clinically and was stunned at the rubbish and where a lot of it came from.

For your sanity possibly the best course. IGNORE ...


----------



## Sdajii (11 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I am sorry,
> 
> *I have said my piece, made my case*. Take it, leave it ... ignore it .. whatever. This baiting and trolling and presentation of non scientific coal industry or fossil fuel based lobby group gibberish is what it is.
> 
> ...




Isn't it funny when someone says they've already said their piece, take it or leave it, and *then* continue on with a long post?

If you want to just ask the question 'Is it unstoppable?", by absolutely positively all credible accounts, the answer is a very unambiguous no. The fact that literally no climate scientist argues that the temperature, rate of change, etc etc etc, even CO2 level, is unprecedented, means that no, it clearly is not unstoppable, because it has already happened before to a more extreme extent and then gone on to the cycle of extreme ice ages, more warm periods, more ice ages, etc etc.


----------



## rederob (12 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> The above shows sea levels over the last few hundred thousand years (only a very recent part of climate history, no one disputes this overall picture, note that the scale is in ***HUNDREDS OF FEET*** not a few cm)



I have already covered sea level rise, and do not dispute significant amplitudes.  However, sea level change is very slow *response to climate change*, and can be driven by relatively small changes to temperature over long periods.  We know this is true because the 0.9 degrees Celsius rise since the late 19th century has only led to a sea level increase of about 20cm. We also know change to sea levels cannot be linear or the planet would have literally fried if sea levels rose 20metres.


Sdajii said:


> Note that the pattern is not a smooth one, it is jagged with sudden movements. Keep in mind that in this time scale we can not even see trivial movements such as ones you are calling significant, because they simply wouldn't even show up.



Your sudden movements are actually very long periods of time as each millimetre represents 2 thousand years. What you have not grasped is the concept of fineness of resolution - classic *fail*!
You don't have to believe me so here you will find at Tables 2 & 3 that error bars for sea levels can exceed 5000 years.


Sdajii said:


> Again, literally no climate scientists disagree with this.



True for sea levels, and I agree. And I have already indicated why this is the case.  Polar climate forcings affecting melt and thus sea levels are very different to global climate, and nowhere have you made a link.  To prove this point, in the present era, Arctic climate has changed at 4 times the rate of global climate, yet the 4° Celsius Arctic temperature change has added only centimetres to the eustatic sea level.
I suggest you read this paper, and also read the peer reviewed papers which it derives from, because sea levels are not a valid proxy for climate.  What it shows is that humans have driven climate change at a pace greater than nature could have done, and also graphically explains that the "saw tooths" you charted are likely, in future, to be blunt compared to the influence of the Anthropocene era


----------



## rederob (12 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> If you want to just ask the question 'Is it unstoppable?", by absolutely positively all credible accounts, the answer is a very unambiguous no. The fact that literally no climate scientist argues that the temperature, rate of change, etc etc etc, even CO2 level, is unprecedented, means that no, it clearly is not unstoppable, because it has already happened before to a more extreme extent and then gone on to the cycle of extreme ice ages, more warm periods, more ice ages, etc etc.



This is plain and simple wrong and unscientific.  Unless you are talking about events which nature has locked into at millennial time scales, the present human factor can be entirely mitigated.  This has been outlined time and again by scientists - just read the many IPCC Reports.
At decadal scales, the present high GHG levels and the slow response from warmed oceans means that we cannot avoid a generation or so of ongoing warming.
What you say has happened before, and will happen again, is well known. What never happened before was a human contribution that drove climate not just beyond what nature was otherwise doing, but in the opposite direction.  Were we solely at the whim of nature, then the decline of irradiance since the 1970s would have led to a cooling planet today.


----------



## basilio (12 April 2019)

rederob said:


> At decadal scales, the present high GHG levels and the slow response from warmed oceans means that we cannot avoid a generation or so of ongoing warming.
> What you say has happened before, and will happen again, is well known. *What never happened before was a human contribution that drove climate not just beyond what nature was otherwise doing, but in the opposite direction. Were we solely at the whim of nature, then the decline of irradiance since the 1970s would have led to a cooling planet today*.




Which is the key point about the cause and consequences of global warming today.
Sea levels are rising and the rapid breakdown of Antarctic and Arctic ice caps will result in increasing sea levels in the near future.  End of story and also for our current large cities which are overwhelmingly based around coastal areas.


----------



## Sdajii (12 April 2019)

rederob said:


> This is plain and simple wrong and unscientific.  Unless you are talking about events which nature has locked into at millennial time scales, the present human factor can be entirely mitigated.  This has been outlined time and again by scientists - just read the many IPCC Reports.
> At decadal scales, the present high GHG levels and the slow response from warmed oceans means that we cannot avoid a generation or so of ongoing warming.
> What you say has happened before, and will happen again, is well known. What never happened before was a human contribution that drove climate not just beyond what nature was otherwise doing, but in the opposite direction.  Were we solely at the whim of nature, then the decline of irradiance since the 1970s would have led to a cooling planet today.




No, it is neither wrong nor unscientific. No factor in the current situation is unprecedented. This is not wrong, it's not unscientific, it's just fact which no scientist actually disputes. Yes, in some respects, in some cases, we are indeed talking about events which took a long period of time to reverse, such as massive volcanic or celestial impact events, but even then, once the cause is removed, the system comes back to the balance. Even if you buy CO2 being the main driver of climate change and humans were the only thing doing anything significant to cause climate change at this time (let's just assume you're correct), if you removed that human impact now, the system would revert to 'normal' (except that in the real world the normal, natural situation has always been a constant state of change).

To say it is irreversible means it can never return to 'normal' (we haven't left normal and no climate scientists dispute that) and that we have or are about to enter a state of positive feedback which the climate will never recover from and will permanently be in that altered state. This just simply isn't the case and without being absurd there is no way to make this argument.


----------



## Ann (12 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Sorry, Ann. Sounds like we agree in terms of our opinion on it and I misunderstood the context in which you were presenting it.



Well I am very pleased you picked me up on it, thank you Sdajii. I will be more careful in future to clarify my stance, I don't wish to mislead or confuse people.


----------



## rederob (12 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> No factor in the current situation is unprecedented.



You cannot explain why less energy reaching the planet since the 1970s has made it warmer, can you?
You won't accept any evidence that is contrary to what you believe.
Why are you posting what amount to blatant lies *after* you have been presented with the science?


Sdajii said:


> in some respects, in some cases, we are indeed talking about events which took a long period of time to reverse, such as massive volcanic or celestial impact events, but even then, once the cause is removed, the system comes back to the balance.



Volcanic events take a few years to dissipate, and sometimes their affects are only localised.  Impact events would tend to be cataclysmic, so worrying about climate won't be concern.


Sdajii said:


> To say it is irreversible means it can never return to 'normal'....



No, it means that the trend can actually be reversed - from warming to cooling - by intervention.
You really have novel ways of convincing yourself that you know things.


----------



## Sdajii (12 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You cannot explain why less energy reaching the planet since the 1970s has made it warmer, can you?
> You won't accept any evidence that is contrary to what you believe.




Notice how this is a pure strawman argument, yet again? I literally haven't said anything this is relevant to, it doesn't contradict anything I have actually said.



> Why are you posting what amount to blatant lies *after* you have been presented with the science?




This is actually what you are doing, and I can answer the question of why: You are reading exaggerations and misrepresentations, believing them all sometimes blindly, sometimes because you don't fully understand them. Conceptually, we know that what gets into most people's heads is the inferred message, not the actual one. Like 'Senator refuses to comment on rape allegations' is literally interpreted by most people to mean he is guilty, and even after the evidence to the contrary comes out, people believe it. We see this all the time. We are constantly bombarded by similar forms of gaslighting in the context of the climate narrative. You lump people into categories of deniers and alarmists (though you would not use the term alarmist), you believe anything the alarmists say, nothing the deniers say, and assume that anyone who does not unconditionally believe the entire alarmist narrative believes none of it and believes all of the extreme denier narrative. You display that in your opening statement in the post I am quoting, berating me for believing some I do not and never have. You don't have the ability to think critically or independently, you are a sheep, you demonstrate this very clearly.




> Volcanic






> events take a few years to dissipate, and sometimes their affects are only localised.  Impact events would tend to be cataclysmic, so worrying about climate won't be concern.




Years... not millennia, not even centuries. Correct. This kills your argument. You are desperately clutching at straws. Either way, the relevance is that they have happened, it has been more extreme, and it doesn't have a runaway effect. We have this history, it exists. This shows that the current situation is not irreversible. To even be a situation reasonable to question the reversibility of, it needs to go to unprecedented levels. It's nowhere near it.

Really? You think impact events tend to be cataclysmic? They literally happen many times every day. The vast, vast, vast majority are of such minimal impact they are of literal zero concern. The more severe they are, the less common. Thus, clearly, it is the complete reverse of what you are say, you literally couldn't be more wrong. Celestial impacts have occurred many times to varying levels of severity before. I'm not even bothering to hypothesise about future ones, I was talking about previous ones which have done extreme things to the climate, and the climate then returns to normal. The point, which you somehow missed despite it being completely obvious, which was in direct response to the explicit question, was that after it has happened (as in, the actual examples which have already occurred), the climate returns to the normal range. Honestly, I'd struggle to pretend to miss the point as much as you actually do.



> No, it means that the trend can actually be reversed - from warming to cooling - by intervention.
> You really have novel ways of convincing yourself that you know things.




Again, this is one of your statements you should only say when staring into a mirror, and if you do so, I hope you take the message as reason to change.


----------



## rederob (12 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Notice how this is a pure strawman argument, yet again? I literally haven't said anything this is relevant to, it doesn't contradict anything I have actually said.



Your claim is that all prior climate events have precedents.  However, there is no precedent to this, so not only do you not understand what you are claiming is wrong, you don't even know why!


Sdajii said:


> You are reading exaggerations and misrepresentations,...



In other words, when you cannot explain the science, you call them "*misrepresentations.*"
You said exactly this, "...we are indeed talking about events which *took a long period of time* to reverse, such as massive *volcanic* or celestial impact events..." and now you say it took "*years.*"  Which is your point?


Sdajii said:


> You think impact events tend to be cataclysmic? They literally happen many times every day.



None that are definionally "impact events" and none that have affected climate in the last few hundred million years. These are impact events which have effected climate.


Sdajii said:


> The point, which you somehow missed despite it being completely obvious, which was in direct response to the explicit question, was that after it has happened (as in, the actual examples which have already occurred), the* climate returns to the normal range.*



There is no such thing as a "*normal range*" in climate.
You really clutch at straws, make up your own definitions for contrived reality, and have no grasp of climate science.


----------



## Sdajii (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Your claim is that all prior climate events have precedents.  However, there is no precedent to this, so not only do you not understand what you are claiming is wrong, you don't even know why!




Far out, when called out on your strawman you just build another strawman! You know you're full of shi... er... a lack of substance when you make up blatant lies to cover for your blatant lies. Alternatively... actually, this seems more likely, you actually believe your own words. This probably is the case, because you've demonstrated an apparent sincerity in your false beliefs and a propensity for mental gymnastics which enable you to maintain them.



> In other words, when you cannot explain the science, you call them "*misrepresentations.*"
> You said exactly this, "...we are indeed talking about events which *took a long period of time* to reverse, such as massive *volcanic* or celestial impact events..." and now you say it took "*years.*"  Which is your point?




Good grief, taking things out of context is only supposed to work when presenting them to a naive audience.



> None that are definionally "impact events" and none that have affected climate in the last few hundred million years. These are impact events which have effected climate.
> There is no such thing as a "*normal range*" in climate.




So... if something hasn't happened for a few hundred million years... the laws of physics might have changed and no longer apply? Is that the point you're trying to make?

And... wow, do you ever stop to think? If you believe there is no 'normal range' in climate (no, I don't agree with you... I mean, if the air temperature was above the boiling point of water at the poles or -50 at the equator, I'm sure even you would agree it was outside the normal range), then... I mean... you've actually once again made a statement so ridiculous it's difficult to respond to.



> You really clutch at straws, make up your own definitions for contrived reality, and have no grasp of climate science.




It's amazing how often you end your posts with statements you should only make while staring into those vacuous eyes in the mirror.


----------



## kahuna1 (13 April 2019)

I have solve it ....

Its all about rocks falling into the ocean the sea rise !! A solution .... get the rocks out ? 

*Climate Denier Thinks Falling Rocks Cause Sea Level Rise*


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Far out, when called out on your strawman you just build another strawman!



A strawman would be when I create and answer a claim of my making.
Instead, you claimed the present climatic events were unprecedented.
You sole basis was sea levels.
I explained and showed that using sea levels could not be a valid proxid, with several examples. 
Most importantly, however, there is no known precedent in climate records for long term climate to warm markedly while irradiance continued to decline since the 1970s.
This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory. 
	

		
			
		

		
	






This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory.


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

Fixing up bad spelling/grammar, and repeating what I said:

*A strawman argument occur when I create and answer a claim of my own making.
Yet you claimed the present climatic events were unprecedented.
Your sole basis was sea levels.
I explained, and showed with several examples, that using sea levels could not be a valid proxy.
Most importantly, however, there is no known precedent in climate records for climate to warm markedly while irradiance continued to decline, a trend in place since the 1970s.
This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory.
*
(You later added volcanic and impact events but in your usual manner offered no substantiation of how they supported your ideas.)


----------



## basilio (13 April 2019)

Extinction Rebellion is on the march.
London to be closed down for 2 weeks starting next Monday.
*Be aware if you are planning a business trip.*
https://extinctionrebellion.org.uk/event/uk-rebellion-shut-down-london/


----------



## Sdajii (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> A strawman would be when I create and answer a claim of my making.
> Instead, you claimed the present climatic events were unprecedented.
> You sole basis was sea levels.
> I explained and showed that using sea levels could not be a valid proxid, with several examples.
> ...




You realise all you did there is say that there is no data to back up your claim... I mean... okay... I disagree... but okay... then why are you making it?

Well, you also, bizarrely, claimed that I was trying to say that the current situation was unprecedented... I mean... do you even brain?

You also... I mean, please think about this for a moment or two and let it sink right in... you say that climate and sea level aren't linked but fear that the sea level will rise because the climate will change... and also that the sea level changes dramatically entirely naturally regardless of climate, so because of the climate we should panic about sea level changes.

Again... do you even brain?

In case you try to strawman me or use mental gymnastics to misrepresent me yet again, no, these are not my claims, they are yours. In reality, the actual climate data shows that it did indeed correlate its changes with sea levels. We do know that the climate has changed more rapidly than it is at present, no climate scientists deny that... unless you want to say that it has never changed this rapidly *since accurate records began... decades ago - yes, it is changing more rapidly than at any point in the last century, but while we don't have any accurate records, it probably isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 1,000 years (climate scientists are divided on this point) and it definitely isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 10,000 years (the vast majority of climate scientists agree on this and the only ones who don't are a very small number of exceptionally obvious shills).


----------



## Sdajii (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Fixing up bad spelling/grammar, and repeating what I said:
> 
> *A strawman argument occur when I create and answer a claim of my own making.
> Yet you claimed the present climatic events were unprecedented.
> ...




Wow, even after carefully correcting yourself you repeated that I was claiming the present climatic events are unprecedented.

You seem to be slightly confused about what a strawman argument is.

Good grief, as I already stated more than once, I looked into sea levels and gave evidence and references because you were whinging about it. It was a length post because that's required to look into anything in anything even resembling moderate detail. To go into all of the points I made in significant detail would literally require writing a book.

Of course there are no records of correlation between two things prior to the 1970s when records weren't being made! There are literally billions of years of history in this planet and we have a few decades of that type of data. Do you think it's even possible that humans could cause the first ever case of this, after billions of years of climate, even including massive volcanoes, celestial impacts, major tectonic movement, etc etc, which has done all sorts of stuff including more dramatic CO2 manipulation than humans have done? You honestly think humans are that magical?

Do you even try to use your brain? Because even a gifted primary school student or an average year 12 science student could see how wrong you are on this.


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> You realise all you did there is say that there is no data to back up your claim... I mean... okay... I disagree... but okay... then why are you making it?



I attached links showing your claims were false.  I suggest you read them.


Sdajii said:


> You also... I mean, please think about this for a moment or two and let it sink right in... you say that climate and sea level aren't linked....



False, I did not say that.  Again, read what I did say.


Sdajii said:


> In reality, the actual climate data shows that it did indeed correlate its changes with sea levels.



What correlated?  You showed sea levels rise.  I showed they were not linked to temperature except at millenial/century level time frames.


Sdajii said:


> We do know that the climate has changed more rapidly than it is at present, no climate scientists deny that...



No climate I know makes that claim, and all you do is repeat it.


Sdajii said:


> We do know that the climate has changed more rapidly than it is at present



False, you showed no data on global climate.


Sdajii said:


> Do you think it's even possible that humans could cause the first ever case of this....



That is the claim of scientists.  You have offered nothing to show it is not the case.


Sdajii said:


> ...it probably isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 1,000 years...



There is no credible evidence supporting that claim.
If your intention is to cover every event from earth formation until today, then how is that relevant?
We are discussing climate in terms of what is probable from the the time the planet became habitable.
Or so I thought.
If you want to dabble in irrelevances then this is not the thread for it.


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Extinction Rebellion is on the march.
> London to be closed down for 2 weeks starting next Monday.
> *Be aware if you are planning a business trip.*
> https://extinctionrebellion.org.uk/event/uk-rebellion-shut-down-london/



May the most violent extremists win


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> ...it becomes completely and unequivocably obvious that *extreme climate* change occurs naturally, without CO2 fluctuations, rapidly and frequently.



This is the claim you made.
Your defense of this is only based on sea levels changes, and you added volcanic and impact events later on.  The latter two events are short-lived.
Read the thread title and see if you can get back on track.


----------



## Sdajii (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> This is the claim you made.
> 
> Your defense of this is only based on sea levels changes, and you added volcanic and impact events later on.  The latter two events are short-lived.
> 
> Read the thread title and see if you can get back on track.





Yes, I made that claim, and yes, it's true, and yes, climate scientists all agree!

No, my basis is not just on sea level changes, as I've now had to point out multiple times, that's just one thing I was discussing. Obviously I wasn't trying to relate volcanic activity to that statement, because it's not relevant! (Volcanoes do produce CO2, and significant volcanic events produce a significant amount!)

I am not going to type enough words to fill a book, but to give you a bit of a background story as to why I've looked into this a lot, I am a biologist. The first species of animal I studied in great depth was a type of parthenogenetic grasshopper, _Warramaba virgo_. This species has a very interesting origin, intricately linked to climate change. It starts over 100,000 years ago, when the climate changed to a great extent. The climate became very hot, and in Australia it was very dry (incidentally, at this time when we know it was very hot, lo and behold, the sea level was about 5m higher than it is now! Fancy that!). During this time conditions in Australia, particularly the west where this species originates, were very harsh. Species became extinct due to the harsh conditions, others had their populations reduced and in many cases, fragmented to smaller areas which remained habitable. Because these species now had fragmented, isolated populations, some of them started to evolve independently, and some changed significantly, either to the point of being completely different species, being modified but still the same species, or somewhere in between. These grasshoppers evolved into what we now consider to be different species, two of them, _Warramaba P169_ and _Warramaba P196_. When the climate returned to more favourable conditions, the populations were able to recolonise areas, expand, and they met up with each other. W P169 and W P196 were able to reproduce, but their DNA was sufficiently different to cause problems to occur with the hybrids. It's a very interesting story, but the genetics would be beyond the understanding of non geneticists (feel free to ask in another thread if you're interested, I'm always happy to talk genetics!), but basically, the creation of gametes (sperm/eggs) didn't work properly. The males were effectively sterile, and the females couldn't split their DNA in half to produce eggs in the normal way (normal eggs are supposed to contain half the mother's DNA, the other half being supplied by the sperm). However, because the eggs contained the entire genome of the mother (along with some other genetic quirks which allowed development to start without fertilisation), they were able to develop. These eggs hatched into genetic clones of their mothers, which were able to continue the process. The resulting asexual population still exists today. Through analysis of their DNA we can check for mutations and work out how long ago these events happened, which match up with various other evidence for climate change, and come up with a date of around 100,000 years ago (before you go all strawman on me again, no, I'm not suggesting this is a piece of evidence for a rate of change, but it's a nice way to link up a rough estimate we can make from the genetic data with a specific climate point we know it must coincide with, and thus get a more exact time reference on the timing of the species origin and division events, etc). My interest in this species came from another species I had privately worked with and taken an interest in, or rather, a group of species. They were lizards of the genus _Heteronotia_ which came from the same region of what is now Western Australia, they also speciated because of climate change events in a similar pattern, and two of those resulting species also created races of parthenogens (asexual, self-cloning females). When I heard about the _Warramaba_ project and was offered the position I gleefully jumped at it. Learning about the history of my research species, directly related to climate change, gave me an interest in climate change and also a professional necessity to learn about it, especially in the context of the last 150,000 years or so (again, all climate scientists will agree, unless they're deliberately tweaking the numbers, that the climate has changed more rapidly during that time, multiple times, than the present rate. The only way they can try to credibly say otherwise is in statements like 'we have no accurate data for climate change of this rate' - like, yeah, we know it happened, there's a tonne of clear evidence, but no one was there taking readings, so I can say we "don't have accurate data records"). My work just in this particular project was further related to climate change because I was looking at the abilities of this grasshopper, and the main variable I tested was temperature, and we were specifically looking at developing a method of directly assessing living things to predict their future distribution changes according to climate change (funny that even having worked professionally on a project designed with future climate change in mind, I get called a 'climate denier' (sic)!). Now, there were certainly scientists in the department who believed the paranoia and thought that by 2019 we'd have already experienced catastrophe (I remember the predictions of the climate scientists I was working with around 15 years ago, and some of them said it would be happening within 10 years, many said that by 2025 we'd have absolute climate chaos, but of course most people don't have climate scientists as colleagues or remember specifics about what they heard because it's just vague stuff on the telly or Facebook to them. Without a doubt, climate scientists' predictions are, on average, massively exaggerated when compared to the realities we see by the time the timeframe plays out, but as always, the popular media cherry picks and misrepresents the data). 

As I said, the full version would fill a book, and I'll probably be accused of getting off topic or self indulgent or whatever, but I keep getting accused of not being a scientist or not giving enough information, and hey, I'll still cop that because we have an insane, dishonest propaganda machine AKA media, and when everyone believes lies, anyone saying anything else is seen as crazy or dishonest, but there you go.

As for your repeated question about the title...

I've addressed the thread title question at least three times in this thread including over the last 48 hours. The answer is a completely clear, unambigous "no".


----------



## explod (13 April 2019)

People out there on the ground know it from experience of being amongst nature.  As the Son of a  farmer who followed the weather and the causes I have learned to know it too.  The majority of scientists are telling us all, I don't need that but some still will not accept.   You would think that the opposers would at least err on the side of the possibility for the sake of thier offspring and help in combating increased Co2

The following know as they have been amongst it and noted the acceleration:- 

"
*Former fire chiefs warn Australia unprepared for escalating climate threat*


Major parties must recognise ‘national firefighting assets’ are needed to fight worsening natural disasters, say fire experts

Lisa Cox





 Two dozen former fire and emergency chiefs from all over Australia want the next prime minister to ensure emergency services have the resources to fight natural disasters caused by climate change. Photograph: Rob Griffith/AFP/Getty Images
More than 20 former fire and emergency chiefs from multiple states and territories say Australia is unprepared for worsening natural disasters from climate change and governments are putting lives at risk.

In a statement issued before a federal election date is announced, 23 former emergency services leaders and senior personnel have called on both major parties to recognise the need for “national firefighting assets”, including large aircraft, to deal with the scale of the threat.

The signatories include: Greg Mullins, the second-longest serving fire and rescue commissioner in New South Wales and now a councillor with the Climate Council; Neil Bibby, a former chief executive of Victoria’s Country Fire Authority; Phil Koperberg, a former NSW rural fire service commissioner and former Labor MP and NSW environment minister.

The document calls on the next prime minister to meet former emergency service leaders “who will outline, unconstrained by their former employers, how climate change risks are rapidly escalating”.

The group also wants the next government to commit to an inquiry into whether Australia’s emergency services are adequately resourced to deal with increased risks from natural disasters caused by climate change.


They said some large firefighting aircraft were prohibitively expensive for states and territories and leased from the northern hemisphere, and access to them was becoming more restricted as fire seasons started to overlap.

“I started firefighting in 1971 and the bushfire seasons were extremely predictable,” Mullins said. “They’d start in Queensland and move south progressively.

“You knew when there was a bad season coming because there was an El Nino and drought. In the 90s, I stopped being able to predict it.”

Australia’s emergency resources were still equipped for “what was happening in the 1970s to the 1990s”.

“The first thing is we need whoever is in government nationally to take climate change seriously, rather than making jokes about it in parliament with lumps of coal,” he said.

“It’s just frustrating to hear the lip service being given to ‘Oh yes, we now believe in climate change and need to do something’ when every effort to do something about it is rubbished.”

Last year, in Australia alone, the NSW fire season began in early August, a heatwave led to fires in rainforest areas of Queensland in early December, and forest in Tasmania’s world heritage area caught fire in January, Australia’s hottest month on record.

For the past week the government has been running attacks on Labor’s proposal for electric vehicle targets to reduce carbon emissions.

“You look at any of your headlines over the last six months,” Bibby said. “The hottest month. The hottest summer.

“We know the problem, and the only way to get politicians to do something about these things is put their jobs on the line.”

Bibby said an additional concern was that Australia relied so heavily on volunteers during natural disasters.

As extreme weather becomes more frequent, and fire seasons longer, that would put strain on the system and volunteers helping their communities were at risk of burnout.

There needed to be a review of the methods used to tackle large fires, cyclones and floods that was backed by research from experienced people working on the ground.

“We’re doing the same old things when things are getting worse. We need to find new ways to tackle this problem,” Bibby said.


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Yes, I made that claim, and yes, it's true, and yes, climate scientists all agree!



Whereas there are literally thousands of climate scientists who do not.
Several of my links included specific statements that your claims were false, but that's fine - you can believe what you like.


----------



## Sdajii (13 April 2019)

explod said:


> People out there on the ground know it from experience of being amongst nature.  As the Son of a  farmer who followed the weather and the causes I have learned to know it too.  The majority of scientists are telling us all, I don't need that but some still will not accept.   You would think that the opposers would at least err on the side of the possibility for the sake of thier offspring and help in combating increased Co2
> 
> The following know as they have been amongst it and noted the acceleration:-
> 
> ...




You see, climate change is a real thing, but garbage like this gives the sceptics reason to doubt and ammo against the alarmists.

This is stupid nonsensical anecdotal data, based on data sets within the lifetime of living people! People presenting this sort of garbage as reason to take climate change seriously is a great example of why many people don't, and it's difficult to blame them when you look at this pathetic crap.

Firefighters are good at fighting fires. They're not climate scientists, they're not analysts, they're the guys you call for putting out fires, and maybe rescuing a kitten out of a tree.

It looks really bad when you are trying to get climate change taken seriously and you have to use firefighters' anecdotes as evidence.

The world genuinely is in trouble, human activity is a huge part of it, CO2 probably isn't a big part of it, we're missing the point, and absolute trash like this is purely counterproductive. If I wanted to actually come up with something to fuel people's desire to oppose it I'd be proud if I came up with this!


----------



## Sdajii (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Whereas there are literally thousands of climate scientists who do not.
> Several of my links included specific statements that your claims were false, but that's fine - you can believe what you like.




You have a talent for ignoring a whole heap of data, picking out one small piece you don't understand and ignoring all the stuff which proves you wrong, and then making an incorrect statement.

Literally no climate scientists make that claim! Some deliberately try to make the inference for media attention etc, but none actually make the claim, and if asked directly they will all openly confirm that, because it's a very tangible fact. I entirely agree with the climate scientists on this point. The mainstream narrative is what you are believing. If you read your own links carefully you'll see this is the case.

Literally every climate scientist knows that it is very common (as in, it has happened many many times before, not even just because of rare freak events, but it has happened thousands of times before). It's literally not even in dispute, and it's a completely and utterly ridiculous claim only a completely scientifically illiterate person would make. Honestly, this is like arguing with a 5 year old who swears the moon is made of cheese.


----------



## explod (13 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> You see, climate change is a real thing, but garbage like this gives the sceptics reason to doubt and ammo against the alarmists.
> 
> This is stupid nonsensical anecdotal data, based on data sets within the lifetime of living people! People presenting this sort of garbage as reason to take climate change seriously is a great example of why many people don't, and it's difficult to blame them when you look at this pathetic crap.
> 
> ...




If there is any doubt at all we should for the benefit of our children and grandchildren err on the side of caution.

As a kid we never had TV or computers, we lived outside around the paddocks, we watched Dad measure the rain and it was a consistent 25 to 30 inches a year, starting in May off the trade winds till early August each year.  That was the early 1950's.  They are lucky to receive 10 inches a year now and that comes in unseasonal storms which has made it very difficult for cropping.  Autumn used to be mild and calm and was the most enjoyable time to fly my model plane, so was a big weather watcher from that point also.  Now Autumn is hot and cold all over the place, winds from all directions.   We also loved collecting tadpoles to hatch at school in a jar.  Frogs there were wiped out when the heat and dry increased from around 1967 and have never returned.  The current farmer says that the land only carries half that to the acre as when Dad was there.  Including our place there were nine farms to the small town of Hawkesdale, today there is only four.

Now this is only one little spot but the same story is related by growing numbers of people around the country, it is the scientists who put all the experiences, measurements and changes together to provide the facts.  And for anyone to say 50% changes in just 60 years is not significant then they are in absolute dreamland.   Natural changes have never happened at this rate before.


----------



## Sdajii (14 April 2019)

explod said:


> If there is any doubt at all we should for the benefit of our children and grandchildren err on the side of caution.
> 
> As a kid we never had TV or computers, we lived outside around the paddocks, we watched Dad measure the rain and it was a consistent 25 to 30 inches a year, starting in May off the trade winds till early August each year.  That was the early 1950's.  They are lucky to receive 10 inches a year now and that comes in unseasonal storms which has made it very difficult for cropping.  Autumn used to be mild and calm and was the most enjoyable time to fly my model plane, so was a big weather watcher from that point also.  Now Autumn is hot and cold all over the place, winds from all directions.   We also loved collecting tadpoles to hatch at school in a jar.  Frogs there were wiped out when the heat and dry increased from around 1967 and have never returned.  The current farmer says that the land only carries half that to the acre as when Dad was there.  Including our place there were nine farms to the small town of Hawkesdale, today there is only four.
> 
> Now this is only one little spot but the same story is related by growing numbers of people around the country, it is the scientists who put all the experiences, measurements and changes together to provide the facts.  And for anyone to say 50% changes in just 60 years is not significant then they are in absolute dreamland.   Natural changes have never happened at this rate before.




I agree that we should take care of the planet. We are rapidly destroying it. Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the biggest issue, and by focussing on it we're ignoring the actual important issues.

Your anecdotes are scientifically meaningless on multiple levels.


----------



## rederob (14 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Literally no climate scientists make that claim!



What are you talking about?
Your ramblings are becoming incoherent.
You make sweeping generalisations and have no idea about the present state of climate.
At generational scales the IPCC, the climate scientists who you would presumably be talking about who all agree with you, say the opposite to you.
Well, I think they do, but as you ramble so much it is hard to tell!
The IPCC regard the warming trend as reversible.
Therefore the IPCC regard global warming as *stoppable*.
You say the opposite.
The IPCC regard GHGs - of which CO2 is the main culprit - as a greater threat to the planet than any other factor.
You do not agree, but offer nothing else.
You probably have never read an IPCC Report, because they continue to lay out the consequences of warming to date, and the probability of future events that will become dire with inaction.
The science is regularly confirming what the IPCC then assimilates, and presents for public consumption and the consideration of governments.
Your contribution has been a focus on sea levels, which I have demonstrated cannot be regarded as a reasonable proxy for your claims.


----------



## explod (14 April 2019)

Again back to the real world:-

"
Global warming is transforming the Arctic, and the changes have rippled so widely that the entire biophysical system is shifting toward an "unprecedented state," an international team of researchers concludes in a new analysis of nearly 50 years of temperature readings and changes across the ecosystems.

Arctic forests are turning into bogs as permafrost melts beneath their roots. The icy surface that reflects the sun's radiation back into space is darkeningand sea ice cover is declining. Warmth and moisture trapped by greenhouse gases are pumping up the water cycle, swelling rivers that carry more sediment and nutrients to the sea, which can change ocean chemistry and affect the coastal marine food chain. And those are just a few of the changes.

The researchers describe how warming in the Arctic, which is heating up 2.4 times faster than the Northern Hemisphere average, is triggering a cascade of changes in everything from when plants flower to where fish and other animal populations can be found.

Together, the changes documented in the study suggest the effects on the region are more profound than previously understood


----------



## rederob (14 April 2019)

So here is how Sdajii goes about his incoherent postings:


Sdajii said:


> No, it is not unprecedented. Climate scientists debate how long ago (a few hundred or a few thousand years ago) the most recent time it occurred was, not whether or not it has happened. With the possible exception of a very, very few, all agree it has happened many times.



*And here is the evidence to show climate change over the past 2000 years:*




So what happens when we go further back in time?
"The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring _much more rapidly_ than past warming events."
So if that's what the science shows, how is it that Sdajii is claiming the scientific community believe climate change occurred faster through natural variation in the past?


----------



## kahuna1 (14 April 2019)

It would not matter if you TOOK someone back in time, even back 260 million years ago when the air was NOT breathable ... and still they would dispute it.

In the course of 500 or more posts, back and forth discussions, it has not mattered what FACTS you, I and others presented or the 200 plus scientific organizations  referred to which produce the SAME data and the fact they are in 20 different nations. There is NO convincing or even reasoning or a single inch given.

NOT one singe inch, acceptance or even questioning of their own beliefs or understanding. All 20,000 scientists in 30 different fields are ALL faking it. *Talk about absurd conspiracy theories !! *

I did so enjoy learning ... LEARNING from both sides, until I gave up contributing. I am as always amazed by humans and that NO QUESTIONING ... occurred, and clearly so .. when opinions were given, not science and science and factual data presented back, for some .... belief or dogma outweigh all else.

I learnt from the deniers by yet again going back and examining my own beliefs, their data, cut and paste stuff,  examining data from 3,4,5 and even 20 organizations on temperature, ice and other things and comparing them to claimed opinions. Always good to do this, but ... when it went on ... and on ... and still goes on ? One side claims the sky is blue as does 99.99% of the world and the other ... its not, is where this thread is.


----------



## rederob (14 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> It would not matter if you TOOK someone back in time, even back 260 million years ago when the air was NOT breathable ... and still they would dispute it.
> 
> In the course of 500 or more posts, back and forth discussions, it has not mattered what FACTS you, I and others presented or the 200 plus scientific organizations  referred to which produce the SAME data and the fact they are in 20 different nations. There is NO convincing or even reasoning or a single inch given.
> 
> ...



A common aspect of climate science denial is obfuscation.
Apparently all (or nearly all) scientists agree with Sadjii. I was never able to work out what exactly they were agreeing on - the goalposts shifted from post to post.
The other aspect of denial is to use irrelvances.
The global climate response to warming oceans is unreliable at time scales of less than 250 years when using paleoclimate records.  This is supported by the work of Zac Hausfather and others who have pointed out the capacity of the ocean to absorb heat without materially impacting generational-level climate.
The real problem, however, is that we need to focus on present trends, in light of parameters capable of driving climate change in present terms.
Not that this example is fair, but if we were to propose that temperatures would change at the present rate for the next 1000 years, there would be nothing in the paleoclimate records that could come close.  Yet Sadjii is content to believe the present rate of change has many and regular precedents.
And he claims to be a scientist .
I need a pick me up .


----------



## kahuna1 (14 April 2019)

Hahah ..

I would debate the ocean side, but sadly suspect their are issues more closer in terms of time than the ocean changes which on the main are post 2100. The potential feedback loops, and ones not spoken about, are actually worse even than the Arctic methane release, the permafrost melting event and even a melting of the Antarctic and sea levels rising 20 meters ... and combined ... then multiplied 5 times ... and that is something for the post 2100 or 2150 region to deal with, if they can. 

In that I include the ocean acidification as well ... but that too, like most of this, is well known, now being measured for some time and of course obfuscated. If we deny it, even the rising of acidity by 50% ... or the disappearance of 75% of the Great Barrier Reef ... in 33 years, or ignore it.

Well ... I am sure if we can do this, even up until the point where one f the impacts of a feedback loop via climate change or weather induced climate events, it will be even be debated and denied until then, even with 100 million deaths and 200 million climate refugees.

If in 2018 the USA reporting of climate change and use of the word fell ... FELL by 45% in 2018 ... by mainstream media in the USA, it is not surprising this will occur. NOTHING ... denial and even this thread as interesting as it is, and refreshing my own finite understanding of the topics and being forced to examine whether I and 20,000 other scientists have it wrong or 250 organizations and institutions in 20 different nations, ALL with identical or very similar conclusions, and projections, we all are some delusional crowd supposedly who despite the last 30 years and even 130 years the predictions made pre computer were accurate ... scientific ones ... 

Lets ignore it all !! Lets NOT report it as the USA does. Lets use the CATO institute numbers which is founded by the Koch brothers and funded BY them the coal and OIL and gas barons out of the USA and only use their data ... or the Heritage Foundation, different name, similar funding and non science based rubbish ... or maybe ... FOX ... I am going to have FOX news play during my sleep.

Fascinating on many perspectives this thread, peoples contributions, depth of knowledge which exceeds my own and I rely of course on others ... and have shared a few of them, I have to stop listening to them and just ... well buy some sunblock and ignore a lot of people I love are turning 18,19 and 20 in the coming weeks and their kids, will have an interesting time let alone if I am lucky to live till say 2060 or more it will be already I suspect with a great deal of confidence ankle deep in Miami where idiot Trump has his golf course somewhere down there. He will be long gone and hopefully forgotten other than in a negative way ...

Such is the circle of life.


----------



## Joules MM1 (14 April 2019)

"....this is the fastest calving glacier in the world, it's advancing about 45m a week..twice as fast as it was 10 years ago"
from netflix our planet

watch on a full screen


----------



## Ann (14 April 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> "....this is the fastest calving glacier in the world, it's advancing about 45m a week..twice as fast as it was 10 years ago"
> from netflix our planet
> 
> watch on a full screen





Here we go, another bit of 'unbiased' propaganda from WWF and Silverback films.

Wheeling out David Attenborough to do the voice over for totally unsubstantiated claims. Just say it, just say it loud enough, just say it often enough, just get someone with a broadcasters voice to say it with authority, no-one will question it! It must be true!

I am wondering if this clip was actually from some ancient film Attenborough narrated decades ago.

It is all so predictable.


----------



## Joules MM1 (14 April 2019)

enjoy


Ann said:


> Here we go, another bit of 'unbiased' propaganda from WWF and Silverback films.
> 
> Wheeling out David Attenborough to do the voice over for totally unsubstantiated claims. Just say it, just say it loud enough, just say it often enough, just get someone with a broadcasters voice to say it with authority, no-one will question it! It must be true!
> 
> ...



enjoying your new-found attempt at sarcasm (like that!)
try using this one
Ann says "all scientists are trying to be as smart as me but...."


----------



## kahuna1 (14 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:
> 
> 
> Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.






Ann said:


> I don't wish to mislead or confuse people.




I not sure what I find more hysterical ... being told we are gaslighting by disagreeing with you ...
or having you on ignore and missing the chance to waste my time responding.

Since the others did .... and this claim ... is actually factual, that the rate of seas level increase is going UP every year, along with about half of the other things ... proof provided ... IGNORED ... time and time and time again ...

I am not confused. I had my blue pill, green and yellow pills ... had my 23 hours sleep. Changed my nappy prior to sitting down and well ...

I have to admit when I took the gibberish off ignore, I am confused.

I see claim, followed by factual evidence at source as the response, claims that NO one made on this thread, being treated as though they did ....  or their responses ... pointing this out ... they never said that ...  referring to worlds best scientific results and  ... *ignored*.

Its all a conspiracy !! I don't have pill to fix this one.

I am confused as to your reasoning, logic and rude responses to anyone who does not agree with your, well, quite bizarre views.

I shall put myself to bed and you back to ignore, sadly, I cant even comprehend how one arrives at your conclusions, or dogma. Sad ... sad ... sad ..


----------



## Sdajii (14 April 2019)

rederob said:


> A common aspect of climate science denial is obfuscation.
> Apparently all (or nearly all) scientists agree with Sadjii. I was never able to work out what exactly they were agreeing on - the goalposts shifted from post to post.
> The other aspect of denial is to use irrelvances.




I didn't say climate scientists all agree with me on everything. I said that on most points, I agree with climate scientists.

It shows how absurd the alarmists are, how extreme the mainstream narrative is, and how scientifically illiterate and naive people like you are, when literally just going with what the actual climate scientists say gets you called a 'climate science denier'!


----------



## MARKETWINNER (14 April 2019)

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/04/09/climate-change-industry-who-most-risk
_Climate Change by Industry: Who Is Most at Risk?_

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/...onment/climate-change-carbon-engineering.html
_Blamed for Climate Change, Oil Companies Invest in Carbon Removal_


----------



## rederob (14 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> It shows how absurd the alarmists are, how extreme the mainstream narrative is, and how scientifically illiterate and naive people like you are, when literally just going with what the actual climate scientists say gets you called a 'climate science denier'!



What is an alarmist?
The mainstream narrative is not the science - you are supposed to be a scientist.
And when it comes to scientific illiteracy, your comments have been proven to be false on many occasions in this thread.  
So false are your claims that you say you agree with the scientists on many points, but you don't even understand why GHGs are the most important issue requiring action be taken.
Exactly what is it that you agree with regarding the science on climate change, seeing you have got just about everything wrong?


----------



## Ann (15 April 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> Ann says "all scientists are trying to be as smart as me but...."



Joules, would you be kind enough to link to any post where I said this please? I don't verbal you, please do not verbal me.

Scientists have very little input into this whole GW political agenda. Political interests are paying for the science and science has to deliver the outcomes their Masters require. One only needs to look at  Big Pharma to see how it all works. If there is a negative scientific outcome for one of their drugs it is never published, they manipulate the sample group of trial patients and exclude those who are sensitive to the drugs in order to demonstrate low side-effects. There are ways and means to always get the answer the Master's want. They take the scientists' work and manipulate numbers and percentages in scientific papers to distort the outcome. Science and scientists and their work have very little to do with outcomes in Big Pharma or GW. 

It is purely a way to add an international tax on to individual countries, their populations and business. Not to see this is naive in the first degree.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Scientists have very little input into this whole *GW political agenda*.



There is *no *such thing, Ann.  Why do you carry on this farce.  Scientist are presenting the science.


Ann said:


> Political interests are paying for the science and science has to deliver the outcomes their Masters require.



This is sheer ignorance.  Climate science is one of the worst areas, financially, for people getting higher qualifications.  If these people were out to make money they would choose more rewarding paths as job opportunities are few and far between.


Ann said:


> One only needs to look at Big Pharma to see how it all works.



These scientists are amongst the highest paid in the word, and they are employed by massive, highly profitable, conglomerates.  
You got your ideas completely assabout.


Ann said:


> It is purely a way to add an international tax on to individual countries, their populations and business. Not to see this is naive in the first degree.



Clearly it is not as there is *no *such international tax.
To not see this is ignorance at the highest level.
But at least you are consistent Ann - nothing right, and no idea about climate science - just the usual baseless rant.


----------



## kahuna1 (15 April 2019)

*


Ann said:



			Scientists have very little input into this whole GW political agenda.
		
Click to expand...



Really ... another conspiracy theory Ann !!



Ann said:



			One only needs to look at Big Pharma to see how it all works
		
Click to expand...



And another ...



Ann said:



			If there is a negative scientific outcome for one of their drugs it is never published
		
Click to expand...



And another .. 

I had the displeasure of reading your RUDE belligerent, and frankly insane posts on this thread  yet again, to try and understand, just the last 15 pages or so ... was enough ...only to have yet another quite delusional conspiracy theory put forward, number 27 ? now ?Or is it number 28 ?*


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> What is an alarmist?
> The mainstream narrative is not the science - you are supposed to be a scientist.




That's my point. Most people follow what the mainstream and social media say, which is a massive exaggeration of the science, and the science itself is biased to the alarmist side, because the most alarmist stuff which can be justified as qualifying is science is what gets the most funding. Think about it - if climate science was sitting around saying 'no problem, nothing interesting, don't worry about it', it would get less funding. If it says 'Oh my god, the world is headed for apocalypse!' it will get more attention and funding. Even if you think the science is pure science and unadulterated by the bias (which apparently you do), you can't deny that bias exists, and it's a huge leap of faith to say it completely resists that bias.

You could call anyone who pushes or believes an exaggerated version of the issue an alarmist. Obviously it comes in varying degrees.

In most peoples' minds, there are two camps. The alarmists see themselves as correct, and anyone who doesn't unconditionally believe the most extreme version of the narrative is a denier, who they believe believes no climate change exists or humans are having zero impact on climate change. And I suppose most deniers do fit that image. Anyone in between, even if like me they totally acknowledge that climate change is real and that humans are having in influence on it, are seen as crazy by most people. When people get so irrationally polarised, both sides see anyone in the middle as belonging to the opposite side. Same deal with left/right. I'm actually a bit to the left but the vast majority of people on the left see me as alt right. Modern communication promotes echo chambers which makes people's views extreme and polarised, and anyone thinking rationally and not taking part in echo chamber mentality is seen as being an extremist on the opposite side.



> And when it comes to scientific illiteracy, your comments have been proven to be false on many occasions in this thread.
> So false are your claims that you say you agree with the scientists on many points, but you don't even understand why GHGs are the most important issue requiring action be taken.




I'm completely familiar with the arguments, but what can clearly be seen if you look at the data without bias or scientific illiteracy and faith, is that we don't have the data required to be as sure as the published science suggests, and the mainstream narrative doesn't just believe it but hugely exaggerates it. For everyone pushing the narrative there is huge financial incentive (the climate scientists themselves for funding, as described above, and the governments and media (because they're funded by political interest) to create taxes, stifle competitors, and distract from other environmental issues).



> Exactly what is it that you agree with regarding the science on climate change, seeing you have got just about everything wrong?




You're asking for a massive answer there. If I was to post everything I agree with I'd need to write a book.

If you want to address specific points we can do that, but to ask for an all encompassing response like that is silly. Some of the specific things which I disagree with most laymen on and agree with the climate scientists on are the history of the climate (over the last few hundred million years) and the fact that the current climate is not exceeding natural limits in terms of rate of change or extremity. The climate scientists' words are often twisted and misrepresented. Most people believe that the climate is changing more rapidly than ever before (utterly, utterly untrue, and climate scientists don't believe this) and that the world is now hotter than ever (utterly, utterly untrue, and again, no climate scientist will make this claim). However, the mainstream narrative pushes both of these beliefs.

The one big point I disagree with climate scientists on is how important CO2 is. This is more of a shades of grey issue than a black and white one. Obviously CO2 is a greenhouse gas (not by any means the most important one) and obviously the greenhouse effect is extremely important to our climate. Yes, more CO2 will increase the temperature. Most people have difficulty seeing that it's possible to disagree 100% without disagreeing 100%, and in their minds they imagine that since I recognise that the situation is exaggerated somewhat, I must completely disagree, and then they attack me accordingly. Since we absolutely know there is a heap of bias in terms of the CO2 narrative from everyone reporting it, it almost certainly indicates that the mainstream narrative is going to be an exaggeration. It's incredibly naive to believe that with all that bias we are going to end up with a mainstream narrative (or even just a scientific consensus) which is spot on. Look at science throughout the whole history of science and you'll see problems with bias. It's strange if you think this is the first time bias has not altered the message. We actually have very little data to work with. Literally billions of years of climate history exists but we don't have accurate records of it, and we only have a few decades of reliable records. But, we do know that the climate has violently fluctuated throughout the entire time, often without CO2 fluctuations. We don't understand the climate system very well (some climate scientists acknowledge this, others try to pretend otherwise, and of course they are biased towards saying they know what's going on so that we'll take them more seriously so that we'll give them more money and attention, and when there's a clear bias and divided opinion, with any group or any issue, you can be fairly sure that the truth is closer to the unbiased opinions). 

Most people will read that and just come away with the completely incorrect summary of "Sdaji doesn't believe climate scientists at all and thinks CO2 is a lie and he doesn't understand how the greenhouse effect works and believes Trump and is a climate denier and doesn't think climate change is real" - absolutely none of which is the case. It's a difficult conversation to have, because every step of the way people make completely incorrect assumptions like this, and then I have to try to carry on the conversation while I'm talking to people who have that completely incorrect view of the situation. With most people, anything other than blindly going along with the mainstream narrative and also believing that the climate scientists agree with it means that everyone will think you're a crazy 100% climate change denier and scientifically illiterate (very ironic!).

So, I've barely skimmed the surface and it's already a longer post than it should be, which is why I can't really answer your whole question.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Most people follow what the mainstream and social media say, which is a massive exaggeration of the science, and the science itself is biased to the alarmist side....



You really do not have a clue about science, despite what you think.
*Science is based on science.*


Sdajii said:


> You're asking for a massive answer there.



Not at all.  You do not believe that the pace of warming is unprecedented, and you have a view on GHGs which is not accepted by climate science.
Exactly what claims do you think you are in agreement with climate scientists regarding the present state of play?


Sdajii said:


> Some of the specific things which I disagree with most *laymen *on and agree with the climate scientists on are the history of the climate (over the last few hundred million years) and the fact that the current climate is not exceeding natural limits in terms of rate of change or extremity.



We are talking about the science here - not about what lay observers think.  I can link to more science papers - I thought 3 was enough so far - to show that your claim is false.


Sdajii said:


> The climate scientists' words are often twisted and misrepresented.



By you presumably, as what they present is very clear.


Sdajii said:


> ...and that the world is now hotter than ever (utterly, utterly untrue, and again, no climate scientist will make this claim).



Probably because no climate scientist has ever made that claim - it's one unique to folk who make up stuff.


Sdajii said:


> However, the mainstream narrative pushes both of these beliefs.



Another blatant lie - I have never read this nonsense in mainstream media.


Sdajii said:


> Obviously CO2 is a greenhouse gas (not by any means the most important one) and obviously the greenhouse effect is extremely important to our climate.



Would you like the facts to prove you wrong, yet again, or would you like to find out for yourself.
I will give you some time and see how you go.


Sdajii said:


> But, we do know that the climate has violently fluctuated throughout the entire time, often without CO2 fluctuations.



False.  After earth formation and once the planet was habitable there is zero evidence for that claim.  Moreover, the habitable planet has no periods where high CO2 levels inconsistent with warming. 
You rambled on and on and continued with your inability to work out the present state of our climate.


----------



## basilio (15 April 2019)

Let's summarise Climate Science to date in a few paragraphs

1) Climate scientists know that there have been wildly ranging climatic conditions on earth over hundreds of millions of years. These have been caused by a range of factors including
   Variations in planetary orbits
   Large scale volcanic activity
   Increases and deceases in Greenhouse gases  caused by a range of influences
   Changes in the intensity of the sun.
   And more

2) In the last 150 years and in particular the last 40 years human produced greenhouse gases, (CO2 methane, Nitrous oxide, fluorcarbons ) have become the dominant forcing agent of our climate.  In light of the overwhelming increase  in these GG sources all other factors have been been reduced to bit players

3) As the planet has rapidly warmed a range of self reinforcing feedback effects are coming into play. It's basically akin to throwing more fuel on a raging fire. The most significant ones to date are the melting of Arctic sea ice enabling more sunlight to heat the oceans thus melting more ice and so on. This warming of the oceans is also threatening to destabilize billions of tons of frozen methane on the sea floors an under frozen tundra.

These are  the basic facts about our climate. Any climate scientist would acknowledge them as the critical factors. Unless we somehow drastically reduce the excess Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere we facing runaway global warming as the various tipping points take effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system


----------



## basilio (15 April 2019)

basilio said:


> I started the discussion with the IEA energy report. The IEA is considered an independent world authority on energy resources. It is certainly no Government think tank. If anything it is aligned to the fossil fuel industry
> 
> If you look at its research and publications you'll find a number of extensive analysis of energy issues.
> 
> ...




Back to the beginning.


----------



## Ann (15 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Scientists have very little input into this whole GW political agenda






rederob said:


> Scientist are presenting the science.




Politically appointed representatives to the IPCC are assessing the scientific literature and presenting it, not the climate scientists who wrote the papers.
_
......Governments and Observer Organizations nominate, and Bureau members select experts to prepare IPCC reports. They are supported by the IPCC Secretariat and the Technical Support Units of the Working Groups and Task Force. Ref._



rederob said:


> Climate science is one of the worst areas, financially, for people getting higher qualifications. If these people were out to make money they would choose more rewarding paths as job opportunities are few and far between.




Climate science is receiving a lot of funding and grants into the universities, not that the post grad students are getting a whole lot of money, they would get a small living grant and sufficient amount to get their papers published, this would enable them to gain their post grad qualifications. They will be beholden to the heads who offered the stipend for writing a paper related to the research focus of the subject. There would be the chance of their papers not being published if no clear outcome for the research was found. Scientists want their papers published. Academics by nature are more interested in science than making money, money is unlikely to be a major motive for a scientist/academic, published papers would be far more likely an incentive. The more published papers you have the greater the respect. I can see an incentive here for potential bias from a less than ethical student.



Ann said:


> One only needs to look at Big Pharma to see how it all works.






rederob said:


> These scientists are amongst the highest paid in the word, and they are employed by massive, highly profitable, conglomerates.




Generally the scientists in Big Pharma are not the people who are corrupt. It is the journals who won't publish negative results and Big Pharma who buy advertising space in these same journals. It is Big Pharma who select which papers they will publish. It is Big Pharma who feed the doctors distorted and manipulated facts using spin and distorted percentages to confound and confuse.
(For anyone interested there is an excellent book called Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre.) Alternately there is a long but interesting video which makes some salient points about Big Food and Big Pharma. The points they make could be relevant in any scientific area where a specific conclusion is desired.






Ann said:


> It is purely a way to add an international tax on to individual countries, their populations and business. Not to see this is naive in the first degree.






rederob said:


> Clearly it is not as there is *no *such international tax.




_The UN’s emissions gap report suggests a carbon tax as high as $70 per ton would go further in reducing carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming.


“Studies show that a carbon tax of US$70/tCO2 in addition to existing measures could reduce emissions from just above 10 percent in some countries to more than 40 percent in other countries,” the UN reported, adding these taxes would also raise revenue. Ref._

_*Memo To Congress: French Riots Show Why U.S. Carbon Tax Should Be A Non-Starter*
Ref.
*Ontario challenge of federal carbon tax heads to court this week Ref.*
*
Why greens are turning away from a carbon tax Ref.
*
*Here’s How Carbon Gets Priced Around the World Ref.*


This is the tax which is related to Climate Change the UN are suggesting should be imposed internationally, meaning as in each country. I am sure weaselly words could spin this into something other than an international tax but a tax it is and people are not happy! [italics fault of ASF]
Here is a research paper from 2016 which shows how the Carbon taxes are carved up in each country or province. Ref.
_


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You really do not have a clue about science, despite what you think.
> *Science is based on science.*




It should be, but unfortunately it's not. Scientists are human beings. They still need to make money, they still have egos. They still have basic human errors, they still make mistakes. There's no shortage of examples of scientists deliberately misrepresenting data or completely fabricating it for various reasons, and humans being biased is pretty much universal, and surely you can see which direction the bias is. Many people, scientists included, believe what they want to be true more. Being constantly surrounded by scientists who were being guided by money and politics rather than science is the main reason I left the whole scene.



> Not at all.  You do not believe that the pace of warming is unprecedented, and you have a view on GHGs which is not accepted by climate science.




It's not unprecedented. Climate scientists don't think it is. I obviously agree with the principle of the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its relative importance has been overplayed. This is actually inherently obvious. The bias is very obvious, and it should go without saying that if a huge number of people have a huge bias, it will affect what they say.



> We are talking about the science here - not about what lay observers think.  I can link to more science papers - I thought 3 was enough so far - to show that your claim is false.




Well, we were talking about both. If you really want to go through this, we can. The reality is, climate scientists don't make this claim, no matter how much you want to believe it based on influence from mainstream narratives, social narratives, and misrepresented data (if you carefully look at the data, you can see this). I'm happy to examine it in detail if you want, but if you do, do it as a standalone topic rather than a part of a lengthy set of responses like this or it will get too messy.



> By you presumably, as what they present is very clear.




That's just a ridiculous statement.



> Probably because no climate scientist has ever made that claim - it's one unique to folk who make up stuff.




Well, at least we agree on something. It's just one example of something most people think climate scientists say, despite the fact that they don't. But that wasn't my point.



> Another blatant lie - I have never read this nonsense in mainstream media.




Come on, surely you know the media pushes that message. I think literally most laymen would believe it, and if so many people believe it, where do you think that message is coming from? Not climate scientists, obviously.



> Would you like the facts to prove you wrong, yet again, or would you like to find out for yourself.
> I will give you some time and see how you go.




You can get all emotional and silly like this, despite being wrong, but it's not conducive to a good discussion. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, not CO2.



> False.  After earth formation and once the planet was habitable there is zero evidence for that claim.  Moreover, the habitable planet has no periods where high CO2 levels were cold.




You continually say "False" as though that's evidence of a legitimate demonstration for you being correct. There is plenty of evidence. It's true that we don't have any direct evidence for periods of high CO2 levels and cold temperatures. It's actually extremely likely to have happened but with confounding variables (such as massive volcanic events which released huge amounts of CO2 but also ash etc which caused extremely cold periods). No one was around to measure these events so we don't have the data, but it probably occurred. The reality is that we just don't have much specific data on short timescales for the last few hundred million years. But yes, under 'normal' circumstances we may not have had a period of cold temperatures and high CO2 levels, I haven't said otherwise and won't argue.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> It should be, but unfortunately it's not. Scientists are human beings. They still need to make money, they still have egos. They still have basic human errors, they still make mistakes.



The peer review process resolves these concerns.
You keep clutching at straws.


Sdajii said:


> It's not unprecedented. Climate scientists don't think it is.



Do I need to give another link to show your claim is false?


Sdajii said:


> You can get all emotional and silly like this, despite being wrong, but it's not conducive to a good discussion. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, not CO2.



Water vapour is a feedback.
You seem to be oblivious to this.
Unless water vapour can heat itself, then its concentrations are stable.  The role of water vapour in global warming is insignificant.
Carbon dioxide is the most important of Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. While it absorbs less heat per molecule than methane or nitrous oxide, it’s more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. And while carbon dioxide is less abundant and less powerful than water vapor on a molecule per molecule basis, it absorbs wavelengths of thermal energy that water vapor does not. As a result carbon dioxide is responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance leading to warming.
But you can disagree with scientists on this, rather than me.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> The peer review process resolves these concerns.
> You keep clutching at straws.




The peer review process contains the same bias. Surely this should be obvious. Sadly it isn't, I suppose.



> Do I need to give another link to show your claim is false?




You're welcome to if you like. I'll request that you discuss the topic without emotive, baiting language, but hey, even if you can't, sure, go for it.



> Water vapour is a feedback.
> You seem to be oblivious to this.
> Unless water vapour can heat itself, then its concentrations are stable.  The role of water vapour in global warming is insignificant.
> Carbon dioxide is the most important of Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. While it absorbs less heat per molecule than methane or nitrous oxide, it’s more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. And while carbon dioxide is less abundant and less powerful than water vapor on a molecule per molecule basis, it absorbs wavelengths of thermal energy that water vapor does not. As a result carbon dioxide is responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance leading to warming.
> But you can disagree with scientists on this, rather than me.




...and you accuse me of trying to waffle on and twist things.

Water vapour is literally the most important greenhouse gas. Literally no one disputes this. Go check Wikipedia or something if you want a basic overview.

Obviously the amount of CO2 has changed more than the amount of water in recent times. That seems to be what you're saying, but I don't disagree with that and you seem to just be trying to misrepresent what I'm saying for the sake of an excuse to disagree.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Water vapour is literally the most important greenhouse gas. Literally no one disputes this. Go check Wikipedia or something if you want a basic overview.



I linked to what climate scientists say.
Water vapour is abundant.
In terms of how it affects climate, here's the IPCC's words:
"_As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason_,* scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change*."
Or this might be clearer for you, again from the latest IPCC Report:
"_The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is the main reason why tropospheric_ *water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing*."

Please tell us what it is that you believe is consistent with climate science, as you appear to know very little that makes sense.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I linked to what climate scientists say.
> Water vapour is abundant.
> In terms of how it affects climate, here's the IPCC's words:
> "_As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason_,* scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change*."
> ...




Once again, you're trying to convince me of something I already agree with and have never disputed. I have already even clarified this for you, yet you continue.

It's no wonder you don't think I know much when you use your imagination you ascertain what I believe rather than what I say. I've repeatedly explained this too.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Once again, you're trying to convince me of something I already agree with and have never disputed. I have already even clarified this for you, yet you continue.
> It's no wonder you don't think I know much when you use your imagination you ascertain what I believe rather than what I say. I've repeatedly explained this too.



You claim water vapour to be the most important GHG.  No scientist agrees.
Your exact words: "Water vapour is literally the most important greenhouse gas. Literally no one disputes this."  So despite showing what the IPCC state, you remain firm believing your lies.

You claim CO2 is not very important, yet it is the principal driver of climate change.  You have never yet shown any evidence for your claim.  My link to IPCC AR5 shows your ideas have no merit.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You claim water vapour to be the most important GHG.  No scientist agrees.
> Your exact words: "Water vapour is literally the most important greenhouse gas. Literally no one disputes this."  So despite showing what the IPCC state, you remain firm believing your lies.




Good grief, go google "What is the most important greenhouse gas". Tell me what it says.



> You claim CO2 is not very important, yet it is the principal driver of climate change.  You have never yet shown any evidence for your claim.  My link to IPCC AR5 shows your ideas have no merit.




I didn't say it wasn't important, I said it wasn't the most important. Again, don't twist my words.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

In case you are too lazy to use a search engine...







Note that CO2 is included *as a part of* 'other'. Whether or not you want to include clouds, water is still the most important greenhouse gas. No scientist disputes this, no matter how hard you protest.


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> In case you are too lazy to use a search engine...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Could you please include a reference of where this article and graph came from so that the context can be verified.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Your quotes:


Sdajii said:


> It's not unprecedented. Climate scientists don't think it is.





Sdajii said:


> You're welcome to if you like. I'll request that you discuss the topic without emotive, baiting language, but hey, even if you can't, sure, go for it.



Biological adaptation is seldom mentioned, so here's how a biologist disagrees with you.
In terms of natural variation to climate we are left with chemical processes and, separately, irradiance.
We can discount irradiance as solar cycles are too slow to affect climate such that the rate of change would be dissimilar to what we know from modern data and astronomical cycles.
On the chemical front we have weathering which releases CO2. There are no reliable data beyond 66 million years, so here's what we do know.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Note that CO2 is included *as a part of* 'other'. Whether or not you want to include clouds, water is still the most important greenhouse gas. No scientist disputes this, no matter how hard you protest.



We are discussing GHG radiative forcing effects, not composition of the atmosphere.
You are so far off the mark here it is little wonder you make absurd claims on such a regular basis.
Please tell me the radiative forcing contribution of water vapour to the *energy* *imbalance *over any period of time you wish to choose.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> Could you please include a reference of where this article and graph came from so that the context can be verified.




Are you kidding me? Check any reference you like. From Wikipedia to any climate science department you like, you'll get the same general picture. Do I seriously need to provide a reference for a chart this basic and universally accepted? If you need a reference for this you shouldn't be in the discussion, you should go do some research and grasp the most basic... I mean... wow... I have no words.


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Are you kidding me? Check any reference you like. From Wikipedia to any climate science department you like, you'll get the same general picture. Do I seriously need to provide a reference for a chart this basic and universally accepted? If you need a reference for this you shouldn't be in the discussion, you should go do some research and grasp the most basic... I mean... wow... I have no words.



Some time back I was reprimanded on ASF for not providing a reference to my posts.  I'm simply asking for your reference in this case


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> We are discussing GHG radiative forcing effects, not composition of the atmosphere.
> You are so far off the mark here it is little wonder you make absurd claims on such a regular basis.
> Please tell me the radiative forcing contribution of water vapour to the *energy* *imbalance *over any period of time you wish to choose.




...and you accuse me of being scientifically illiterate.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV

https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=2&secNum=4

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Literally no actual climate scientist is in doubt about water vapour being the most important greenhouse gas.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Are you kidding me? Check any reference you like. From Wikipedia to any climate science department you like, you'll get the same general picture. Do I seriously need to provide a reference for a chart this basic and universally accepted? If you need a reference for this you shouldn't be in the discussion, you should go do some research and grasp the most basic... I mean... wow... I have no words.



In other words you do not have a scientific basis for showing a compositional chart which has very little to do with climate change - too funny.


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

*What is the percent composition of CO2?*
Chemistry  The Mole Concept  Percent Composition
*1 Answer*



Manish Bhardwaj
Apr 17, 2016
*Answer:*
Mass percentage of Oxygen is 72.7%
Mass percentage of Carbon is 27.3%


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> Some time back I was reprimanded on ASF for not providing a reference to my posts.  I'm simply asking for your reference in this case




I'm not using this as a reference as an amazing authority or anything, it was just the first chart which came up, but any chart will show a similar relative amount. CO2 is the most important gas in the 'other' category. The page that chart came from is here: https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ghg-and-carbon-cycle/what-gases-are-greenhouse-gases/

I posted some links to other sites which are more credible or likely to be taken as credible when saying water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. NASA was the first one, I hope that's credible enough. It probably won't be for some.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> .Literally no actual climate scientist is in doubt about water vapour being the most important greenhouse gas.



Not a single scientist was quoted.
No mention was made of radiative forcing effects in any of your links.
We are talking about climate change here, not raw composition.
Please use actual science papers which show how your idea of water vapour is changing climate, given I have never yet found one.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> In other words you do not have a scientific basis for showing a compositional chart which has very little to do with climate change - too funny.




Oh good grief, I never said it was related to climate change, I said it was a chart showing the gases by importance (how much each contributes) to the greenhouse effect I provided the link so you can verify that. I also provided further links which were more relevant if you want links with authoritative data rather than a convenient visual aid.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Not a single scientist was quoted.
> No mention was made of radiative forcing effects in any of your links.
> We are talking about climate change here, not raw composition.
> Please use actual science papers which show how your idea of water vapour is changing climate, given I have never yet found one.




So NASA doesn't have scientists working for it?

You can continually say "We are talking about..." to move the goal posts after I say something, but it's just silly. Of course you're going to disagree with me if you change the context of what I'm saying and misrepresent it rather than just looking at what I actually say!

You're so desperate to argue with me and find things we disagree on, so why not stick to things we actually disagree on? I'm not going to defend things which I've never said and don't agree with.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> *What is the percent composition of CO2?*
> Chemistry  The Mole Concept  Percent Composition
> *1 Answer*
> 
> ...




I am at a complete loss as to why you posted this. It relates only the relative weight of the constituents of CO2 and has nothing to do with how much of it is in the atmosphere or its effect on anything.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

In case anyone is wanting a chart similar to the one I posted earlier, but with CO2 shown individually rather than lumped in with all others (the original chart was just to show that water was the most important), here is another chart which shows greenhouse gas by contribution to the greenhouse effect, with CO2 shown individually.






And again, this is not designed to be a reference in itself, use one of my above links (the one to NASA's data should probably be a good one for most people, and I hope NASA is seen as credible!) if you want to read more about it from a source most should consider authoritative.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Oh good grief, I never said it was related to climate change, I said it was a chart showing the gases by importance (how much each contributes) to the greenhouse effect I provided the link so you can verify that. I also provided further links which were more relevant if you want links with authoritative data rather than a convenient visual aid.



So, we are talking about climate change in this thread, but *you are not*!
Take your nonsense elsewhere as this is now beyond a joke.
Figures 1 & 2 here are clear on GHG contributions to climate change, and *water vapour in not a factor*.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> In case anyone is wanting a chart similar to the one I posted earlier, but with CO2 shown individually rather than lumped in with all others (the original chart was just to show that water was the most important), here is another chart which shows greenhouse gas by contribution to the greenhouse effect, with CO2 shown individually.



So if I told you that nitrogen was the most important gas affecting humans, I would be correct.
There's almost 4 times more nitrogen than oxygen, so it must be the most important.
Breathe a sigh of anguish!


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> So, we are talking about climate change in this thread, but *you are not*!
> Take your nonsense elsewhere as this is now beyond a joke.
> Figures 1 & 2 here are clear on GHG contributions to climate change, and *water vapour in not a factor*.




I am discussing climate change, spoke about something directly related to it and clearly stated the context.

Again, please try to word your posts without excessive baiting and emotional waffle.

I am familiar with the positions climate change scientists have on CO2 and water vapour and their affects on climate change as opposed to the greenhouse effect. You don't need to explain it to me.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> So if I told you that nitrogen was the most important gas affecting humans, I would be correct.
> There's almost 4 times more nitrogen than oxygen, so it must be the most important.
> Breathe a sigh of anguish!




Your tantrums are becoming even more disconnected from anything relevant. The discussion will flow better if you just calmly stick to the topic.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I am discussing climate change, spoke about something directly related to it and clearly stated the context.



Climate change is about the factors affecting the energy imbalance.
*WATER VAPOUR IS NOT A FACTOR.*
So in the context of this thread, it was a complete nonsense.
It's apparent you are clueless here.


Sdajii said:


> I am familiar with the positions climate change scientists have on CO2 and water vapour and their affects on climate change as opposed to the greenhouse effect.



If that were true then there was no point introducing water vapour into this discussion.

So can you tell us what you do know about the *science of climate change*, seeing so far it has amounted to *ZERO*.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Climate change is about the factors affecting the energy imbalance.
> *WATER VAPOUR IS NOT A FACTOR.*
> It's apparent you are clueless here.




You seem to be getting emotional. It's peculiar that you would be this way in response to someone saying something only in your imagination.



> If that were true then there was no point introducing water vapour into this discussion.




The point was simply to put CO2 into perspective. You can imagine it was presented in some other way, but that's not reality, just your imagination.



> So can you tell us what you do know about the *science of climate change*, seeing so far it has amounted to *ZERO*.




This request is completely silly. Read back through the discussion and leave your imagination behind and you may be able to continue in an appropriate way.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> The point was simply to put CO2 into perspective. You can imagine it was presented in some other way, but that's not reality, just your imagination.



The climate change perspective is unequivocal - CO2 is the principal driver.
I have provided several links making that clear.
I had already mentioned to you that water vapour was a feedback and that it had no role in climate change, but you persisted with raining it time and again, and claimed it was in *context *- in context of what?

The clincher is that you think you have said something about the present state of climate that is consistent with what scientists agree on.
Yet every single time I ask, you change obfuscate.
Why not present us something sensible to discuss, and cease your aimless rants.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> The climate change perspective is unequivocal - CO2 is the principal driver.
> I have provided several links making that clear.
> I had already mentioned to you that water vapour was a feedback and that it had no role in climate change, but you persisted with raining it time and again, and claimed it was in *context *- in context of what?




It's already been said multiple times. This is going around in circles, I'm going to leave it there.



> The clincher is that you think you have said something about the present state of climate that is consistent with what scientists agree on.
> Yet every single time I ask, you change obfuscate.
> Why not present us something sensible to discuss, and cease your aimless rants.




Why would you want to make a huge deal out of finding something that everyone agrees on? It's just completely pointless. Okay, if you really must get an answer to such a pointless question, I agree with climate scientists on the approximate rate of change over the last few years and the approximate current average global temperature.

See, there's just no point in saying that. But hey, I hope it somehow made you happy.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Okay, if you really must get an answer to such a pointless question, I agree with climate scientists on the approximate rate of change over the last few years and the approximate current average global temperature.



That's basic maths.
The issue is if you understand the science.
Apparently not .


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> That's basic maths.
> The issue is if you understand the science.
> Apparently not .




You're asking what I agree with about the current state of the climate. The current state of the climate is easily observable and measurable. Why would anyone disagree with what we can directly measure? What do you even want?


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> You're asking what I agree with about the current state of the climate. The current state of the climate is easily observable and measurable. Why would anyone disagree with what we can directly measure? What do you even want?



You seldom ever addressed what was asked.
I don't care if you agree on the data, as in the past you have preferred to believe whatever you wanted, introduced time frames that were never in the initial premise, chosen to believe that peer reviewed science is unreliable, and despite being shown specific evidence that your claims were false, ignored the science.

In this instance I said, unequivocally, "*the issue is if you understand the science.*"
Your posts suggest you do not.


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> You're asking what I agree with about the current state of the climate. The current state of the climate is easily observable and measurable. Why would anyone disagree with what we can directly measure? What do you even want?



Aaa haar, now you are getting close, "observable" you say,  of course. people and their homes being washed away in cities that have stood firm for over a 1000 years, heat spells that no one has experienced before and one can go on.  We do not need science to tell us that climate change is a fact and it is accelerating dangerously.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> Aaa haar, now you are getting close, "observable" you say,  of course. people and their homes being washed away in cities that have stood firm for over a 1000 years, heat spells that no one has experienced before and one can go on.  We do not need science to tell us that climate change is a fact and it is accelerating dangerously.




Oh dear.

This is just looking at something which happened today. As said repeatedly in this thread, massive fluctuations the likes of which have never been seen in the last 1,000 years happened completely naturally over the last 100,000 years quite a lot of times, and no scientists dispute this.

Climate has only been accurately measured for decades. If you watch absolutely any random system for any period of time, the odds of seeing a more extreme scenario in the next period of time of equal length is 50%. If you have only just started watching a system, the odds of seeing the most extreme scenario you have ever seen are... 100%. Of course we are seeing the most extreme stuff we have ever seen before - we have only recently started looking at it!

Your attitude only makes sense if climate change literally wasn't a thing until humans started influencing it. No scientist tries to make this claim.

The climate changes, I have never said otherwise. If humans had been living in the modern way for the last 150,000 years and hypothetically had not altered the climate at all, there would have been massive problems due to climate change. Alternatively, if hypothetically humans were having no affect on the climate and the climate had fluctuations similar to what happened over the last 150,000 years, there would be massive problems due to climate change. And lo, we can see problems occurring due to climate change today.

Actually, it's worth considering that in preindustrial times when humans were not altering the climate, climate change did indeed cause huge numbers of people to die. 70,000 years ago due to completely natural events, literally most of the humans in the world at the time were killed by it! Many species all over the world went extinct. It wasn't the most extreme event ever, but it's the most extreme climate change event of the last 100,000 years. You don't need to go back that far to find the most extreme rate of change though, and of course over the hundreds of millions of years it has happened countless times. Again, no scientists dispute this. Throughout the planet's history, natural events have caused the climate to change and wipe out huge percentages of all life on the planet. We haven't seen anything like that in the last 200 years. But we still have people claiming the current rate of change is the most extreme ever. Good grief. Not climate scientists of course, but laymen like those in this thread, and they incorrectly claim climate scientists say these things.


----------



## MARKETWINNER (15 April 2019)

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Climate change: How do we know?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/earths-scorching-hot-history/566762/
Scientists Have Uncovered a Disturbing Climate Change Precedent


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> As said repeatedly in this thread, massive fluctuations the likes of which have never been seen in the last 1,000 years happened completely naturally over the last 100,000 years quite a lot of times, and no scientists dispute this.



This only applies to sea level change - events which occur at relative snails pace to begin and accelerate at century scales due to thermal inertia.
There are no other climate data at proxy level that agree with your claim.


Sdajii said:


> If you watch absolutely any random system for any period of time, the odds of seeing a more extreme scenario in the next period of time of equal length is 50%.



So what?
What period of time are you looking at?  Another 600 million years?
Your ideas have marginal relevance to understanding climate.


Sdajii said:


> Your attitude only makes sense if climate change literally wasn't a thing until humans started influencing it. No scientist tries to make this claim.



The scientific concept of "*climate change*" does not mean the climate just changes over time - it must have statistical significance within a specified period which precludes other factors from negating it.  I suspect you are unaware of this, as it is the premise of AGW and the complete opposite of your claim.


Sdajii said:


> If humans had been living in the modern way for the last 150,000 years and hypothetically had not altered the climate at all,....



That is in science terms, an oxymoron.  It is not possible for the modern way of life to be excluded from
impacting climate.


Sdajii said:


> Again, no scientists dispute this.



This appears to be your mantra.
Yes, there were periods of extreme cold in the past - some things are obvious.


Sdajii said:


> We haven't seen anything like that in the last 200 years.



You mean in the last 20 million years don't you?


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

MARKETWINNER said:


> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> Climate change: How do we know?
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/earths-scorching-hot-history/566762/
> Scientists Have Uncovered a Disturbing Climate Change Precedent




Notice if you read these links they talk about natural periods of time long long before humans where CO2 was far, far higher than at present or anywhere anyone expects humans to take the planet within however many decades. Times where there were crocodiles living in the tropical conditions within the arctic circle, references to abrupt changes, references to it being no more than millennia since the last rate of change greater than current, etc.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> This only applies to sea level change - events which occur at relative snails pace to begin and accelerate at century scales due to thermal inertia.




This is simply not true. If you want to assert that it is, provide a reference.



> There are no other climate data at proxy level that agree with your claim.




Except that there are, and several links containing references to such data have been put up in this thread.



> So what?
> What period of time are you looking at?  Another 600 million years?
> Your ideas have marginal relevance to understanding climate.




So considering we have only just started watching the climate and taking accurate records, it is obvious we are going to get the most extreme results ever recorded. This is in direct reference to climate.



> The scientific concept of "*climate change*" does not mean the climate just changes over time - it must have statistical significance within a specified period which precludes other factors from negatingit.  I suspect you are unaware of this, as it is the premise of AGW and the complete opposite of your claim.




The concept of climate change does literally mean the climate changing over time. I'm completely familiar with the concept of anthropogenic climate change and if you want to suspect otherwise despite me having repeatedly spoken about it it just makes you wrong.



> That is in science terms, an oxymoron.  It is not possible for the modern way of life to be excluded from
> impacting climate.




As I said, it was a hypothetical. If you can understand this concept, the reason people use hypotheticals and how they can be useful even in describing impossible scenarios, read it again and try to catch the point. If not, please stop posting.



> This appears to be your mantra.
> Yes, there were periods of extreme cold in the past - some things are obvious.




And extreme heat too, far hotter than at present. It's not my mantra but I do say it a lot because you keep denying it despite it being what climate scientists do say. It's ironic that you complain about me not believing the climate scientists when I go on what they say and you dispute what they say.



> You mean over 20 million years don't you?




Once again you missed the point of what I was saying. Yes, it has been millions of years, but my point was that it happened long before humans existed and not during the time in which humans have been interacting with the climate (less than 200 years). Yes, millions of years is more than 200. Good boy.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> This is simply not true. If you want to assert that it is, provide a reference.



Read the IPCC AR5 on sea levels - it's all there.


Sdajii said:


> Except that there are, and several links containing references to such data have been put up in this thread.



You say things like this all the time, and apart from some info on sea levels, there is nothing.


Sdajii said:


> The concept of climate change does literally mean the climate changing over time.



United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
The IPCC refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity, and requires that changes in the mean and or the variability of particular properties  that persist for extended periods, typically decades or longer, are statistically significant.


Sdajii said:


> And extreme heat too, far hotter than at present.



How many millions of years are you now going back?
And how many people were on the planet for it to be relevant?
So you continue to make claims about the past which have zero relevance to the present situation.

And you continue to show you do not understand climate nor the science of climate.


----------



## kahuna1 (15 April 2019)

*The Milankovitch Cycles and their effect on Climate Change*

You know the SUN around the earth .... nope ... Earth around sun, universally accepted even by NASA and every space agency on the planet.

What happens when every 35,000 years if you have Mega Fauna pumping out of massive trees and CO2 levels crash, and the event you seem to be alluding to is WHEN the last variation in the orbit around the sun, and its radiance FALLS and hence the Ice age you allude to. Not a real one, but yep, for a while ... things got cold.

Any scientist KNOWS this. Knows it without any doubt. Knows it was the cause of the ice age you allude to. CO2 measured via ice bubbles was at a low for the past million years when this one occurred. Hence the well known impact of CO2 on solar absorption was at ALL TIME lows in the last million years, then hit with a Milankoviitch cycle where the sun pumped out less energy to the earth and HENCE the double whammy of ultra low CO2, and the TILT and WOBBLE .... at this extreme occurs every 35,000 years or so !!

Enjoy ..


and YES this is addressing your ice age 100,000 years ago. Not invented, not able to be debated as the course and history of the Earth moving around SUN is not open for debate. Nor are CO2 levels via the bubbles in ice cores going back around 1 million years.

LOSS of 6% IRRADIANCE is about the norm ... basically  a winter upon a winter ... the cycle 41,000 years, and another the earths actual cycle and its orbit ... again measurable ... two extreme periods ... one is where the TILT is at its maximum irradiance and the other extreme ... oblique and heliun furthest from the sun and MINIMUM solar irradiance.

The latter ...  again, is called the WOBBLE of the orbit of the Earth around the SUN.
Its what causes seasons, and summer and winter, but in a bigger sense is this winter and summer ... is also in a massive cycle around the sun measured over 41,000 years.

This b the way has been know, accepted ... unchanged since I think 1690.

1690 !! The year 1690 ...

Oh and *the next one is 10.500 years in the future. *

Cores show the temperature cools and warms 4-10 degrees for a period of time years. But if one goes back ... temperature is a mere part of the climate change issue and naturally, YES we do warm and cool ... but CO2 is directly linked to the extinction events, clearly and without any doubt via fossil records of these extinctions. OR maybe that is to be also denied. 

We warm and cool over a period of say 5000 years, NOT 200 years. The 5000 years of the apex and the other end, cooling are 5,000 years out of the 41,000 year cycle.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You say things like this all the time, and apart from some info on sea levels, there is nothing.




Except that there's a pile of links since the sea level stuff talking about extremity and rates of change. Saying it's not there doesn't make it not there. You ask for links, you get links, you ignore them, not my fault.



> United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.




That's lovely. You can pick some specific context and try to retroactively assign it to something that someone else said, but it's just a stupid thing to do.

The IPCC refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity, and requires that changes in the mean and or the variability of particular properties  that persist for extended periods, typically decades or longer, are statistically significant.
How many millions of years are you now going back?
And how many people were on the planet for it to be relevant?[/quote]

Are you attempting to be irrelevant? If so, good job.



> So you continue to make claims about the past which have zero relevance to the present situation.




You refusing to see what someone else is saying and being fixated on trying to relate it to something else is your own fault.

I think I'm about done with this. If you want to attempt intelligent conversation I'll respond, but if it's just this ridiculous going around in circles with you being irrational I've already wasted too much time.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *The Milankovitch Cycles and their effect on Climate Change*
> 
> You know the SUN around the earth .... nope ... Earth around sun, universally accepted even by NASA and every space agency on the planet.
> 
> ...





This cycle is only one of the many natural phenomena affecting climate change. If you look at the climate data over the last few hundred thousand years it does not follow a slow, steady, regular pattern. It is chaotic and has rapid fluctuations and sometimes stable periods.


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> This cycle is only one of the many natural phenomena affecting climate change. If you look at the climate data over the last few hundred thousand years it does not follow a slow, steady, regular pattern. It is chaotic and has rapid fluctuations and sometimes stable periods.



Agree, but nowhere near as chaotic as the last few years.  As said, cities that have stood solid for hundreds of years are suddenly being hit with house wrecking winds and floods every year.  Insurance companies are refusing to cover anymore.  If it had always been this way those cities would not have been developed in those places in the first place. On ABC news tonight another is hitting US towns as we speak.

Sorry but it is very different this time Sd.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Except that there's a pile of links since the sea level stuff talking about extremity and rates of change. Saying it's not there doesn't make it not there. You ask for links, you get links, you ignore them, not my fault.



Nope - nothing showing that prior rates ever were or could be greater than the present rates of climate change.
To achieve what you claim you will need to write a new energy balance equation.  To help you, one is in the link I provided that showed that human induced climate change has no precedent.


Sdajii said:


> That's lovely. You can pick some specific context and try to retroactively assign it to something that someone else said, but it's just a stupid thing to do.



Whereas I use the definitions used by scientists, and you never knew there was one.  For that matter, it seems clear that you do not understand what they actually mean, despite the fact I gave a more succinct definition earlier.

It really makes no difference what science you are presented with, you can magically wave it away.  Maybe if you want to "discuss" this with someone more meaningfully in future you should at least read AR5.

Climate science basics start with an energy balance equation. There are very few "drivers" of climate that comprise the equation.  At no point in a single post did I see you grasp the concept of radiative forcing. That concept underpins AGW - which is not an idea, but a scientific theory.  Statistical probability approximates it to evolution as a theory.
You remain clueless on climate science.


----------



## kahuna1 (15 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> This cycle is only one of the many natural phenomena affecting climate change. If you look at the climate data over the last few hundred thousand years it does not follow a slow, steady, regular pattern. It is chaotic and has rapid fluctuations and sometimes stable periods.




With respect, you are WRONG, I have followed both your and Ann's views.

This sums it up very well.

On every single 10 myths of climate change, all 10 .... every single one ... you disagree with every one , so to the 250 plus scientific organizations I have cited, and taken the time to cite.

EVERY SINGLE MYTH ...  All of them .. has been covered, covered again. Pulled apart and still you believe in all 10.

Sorry but if someone reads this in the future, *TAKE THE TIME* ... *irrespective of your views, opinions, beliefs and listen to this below.*

Then if in doubt, do your own investigation as have 20,000 scientists and 200 Noble prize winners who signed off on the 2017 paper and the 50,000 WHO contributed to the IPCC and they all agreed. No myth ... just science. Facts, chemical reactions, a long long list of other things. NOT conspiracy theories.

*Top 10 climate change myths*



I do have a very good idea WHY this topic seems to be going in circles. It would be highly offensive were I to share what is pretty clear. Obviously one is open to opinions, something you have missed or have incorrect, or so I thought.

This guy is calm, and if you can disprove one single one of the myths he covered ... and some seem to believe ... I will give you a prize !!

On and Ann's favorite about Ice growing ... covered but this ... is a classic



This latter one covers some, *but NOT all*, of Ann's conspiracy theories.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> Agree, but nowhere near as chaotic as the last few years.  As said, cities that have stood solid for hundreds of years are suddenly being hit with house wrecking winds and floods every year.  Insurance companies are refusing to cover anymore.  If it had always been this way those cities would not have been developed in those places in the first place. On ABC news tonight another is hitting US towns as we speak.
> 
> Sorry but it is very different this time Sd.





explod said:


> Agree, but nowhere near as chaotic as the last few years.  As said, cities that have stood solid for hundreds of years are suddenly being hit with house wrecking winds and floods every year.  Insurance companies are refusing to cover anymore.  If it had always been this way those cities would not have been developed in those places in the first place. On ABC news tonight another is hitting US towns as we speak.
> 
> Sorry but it is very different this time Sd.




This demonstrates such a lack of understanding it's disheartening to read. I don't want to discuss this with you any more.


----------



## Sdajii (15 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> With respect, you are WRONG, I have followed both your and Ann's views.
> 
> This sums it up very well.
> 
> ...





I'm not going to sit through the video (I can read and type quickly, but a video moves at a constant pace and is painful to drag myself through), but if it's the usual list of top 10 climate myths presented in the usual way, I would agree with the video, at least on those 10 major points in appropriate context. If you want to write a list in text I'll confirm it.

Did I misread you or did you assert that I believed all of those myths? If not, I think I've missed the point of your response.


----------



## kahuna1 (16 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I'm not going to sit through the video




Well I am agog at this response, but not surprised.



Sdajii said:


> in appropriate context




You would agree in ... *"appropriate context*, which MEANS and for 500 odd responses means YOU don't agree !! This person, a reporter,  a good one, has impartially examined both sides of every ... topic and MYTH ... in fact 16 of them about 30 mins or so ... and found the source ... then examined the science as WE have on this thread, other scientists, *REAL ONES* ... and in fact sometimes 15 or 20 different ones in different nations, and* they ALL say the same thing*.  

If anything the real scientists predictions have fallen SHORT and far more conservative than reality. Quoting say Al Gore or some pilot from the 1930's and their layman ... or in the case of the first a man who could not spell POTATO ... is not a rebuttal.

*"appropriate context* means for some and for most, in this internet age, their view is made and not to be altered, no matter what. I personally, enter any topic knowing how stupid I am. Open to hear opinions, views, theories and so on. Then, examine them and respond as we have for 500 odd posts.

An *"appropriate context* is that your opinion, on science, in about 30 different fields, from ocean acidity to Ocean temperature, to atmosphere to permafrost, to Arctic Shel and Ocean sediment and on and on ... possibly 50 different quite unique and complex scientific fields where 50,000 or so scientists, professors and others operate, and agree, all 50,000 of them, and 200 Nobel prize winners, who peer review and discuss the topics and have been 100% accurate over a very long time ... their findings are ... only to be taken in what you deem to be ... *"appropriate context*....  that being all of them are wrong.

You have displayed this .... calling their work ... incorrect verses your own, and theirs must be taken in *"appropriate context* ... which is yours. Which the appropriate context is they are wrong, and you are right.

Interesting and you have shared your view on virtually all of the 16 topics covered in the two videos and ignored all written responses of the same .. for your own *"appropriate context*.

Having had the pleasure and honor of scientifically at times peer reviewing I suppose 100 papers over the years, writing over 50 of my own, and been peer reviewed, its always interesting and not necessary to deal with peer reviews where  *"appropriate context* ...  comes into play. Usually if not always, others ' peer reviewing' the paper and topic will respond and as we have seen here.

It is however not possible to deal with dogmas, illogical or mathematically impossible or reviews as rarely occurs, but does that have no margin for being wrong, or even the possibility of it.





Sdajii said:


> Did I misread you or did you assert that I believed all of those myths? If not, I think I've missed the point of your response.




Sadly, you do. If your view, opinion, of ... *"appropriate context* .... as you see it, is better than 50,000 scientists in I suppose 50 fields, 200 Nobel Prize winners and your context, is ascribing to ALL the Myths and not just one, but all of them ... and I did take the time to read your responses ... so  be it.

Despite, well, disagreeing and open for discussion on the topic, my small understanding of it, and that based upon worlds best, leaders in the field and 200 plus institutions, are they all wrong ?

It goes to a wider issue with the internet and whilst not being insulting, "confirmation bias" and
"Dunning-Kruger effect".

The first, *"confirmation bias"*, is where you are fed a diet of your beliefs, via the very nature of the search engines or say Facebook and if you read or search say for gimp leather masks like from the movie Pulp Fiction" you will forever be served ads and sites that sell GIMP MASKS. If you read conspiracy theory sites, you will be forever served them. If you watch Fox news, and even if you don't, its virtually impossible to get it off suggestions and it coming up as a source.

Second issue, and I AM AN IMBECILE ... I enter these discussion not knowing anything, or clinging to anything I think I know ...*"Dunning-Kruger effect"* ....  where one knows a bit about something but NOT really a lot, but* you think you KNOW more than you really know* and reality is that your an imbecile. I say this about MYSELF ... and even topics where 2 pages of qualifications and peers, leaders in the field would disagree .. with me being an idiot .. but ... I know many things can change, technology, can destroy one  effect or reality quite quickly. I try NOT to pretend I know anything, not being coy ... just to LEARN ...  even about things where I do have vast experience, or stick to a dogma or idea.

Last issue,* is letting go of EGO ... need to be correct* ... different personality types and actual intelligence. I raise this one, and I am NOT at all comfortable with speaking about it. Reason being, well one must open a can of worms and get personal or share some things I never wear on my sleeve. I welcome being wrong, I welcome someone pointing out I am stupid, and have missed something in a paper or idea I am trying to formulate and have opened it to peer review. Two heads and in fact 100 heads are better than one !!

For some, being right, and extreme forms of it Narcissists and those who cannot ever be swayed from an idea, belief or dogma, not talking religion or politics but science ... or finance ... which is a SCIENCE, based upon math and valuation. Some, its an impossibility to even get them to agree that 1 plus one equals 2. Their view is, that its one day three or four. 

It is impossible for them to accept they are wrong. I am wrong and wrong about so much I thought I knew and think I know and understand, its ... actually funny what I once knew to be a fact, is now I know totally wrong.


----------



## Ann (17 April 2019)

So much money in Carbon Trading such a huge industry! 

*U.K. Budget Suffers Brexit Blow as Carbon Market Unravels*

_The U.K. budget is already falling victim to Brexit-related trouble in the carbon market.

The government might have lost as much as half a billion euros ($565 million) in revenue in the first quarter after auctions of emission permits were frozen, according to estimates by the International Emissions Trading Association. The decision not to hold government sales under the European Union’s Emissions Trading System was taken last year amid concerns 2019 allowances may become invalid in the event of a no-deal Brexit.More.._


----------



## qldfrog (17 April 2019)

Explod, please read calmly
"I agree that we should take care of the planet. We are rapidly destroying it. Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the biggest issue, and by focussing on it we're ignoring the actual important issues."
There can not be a truer saying
Worse, even if CO2 was the major threat, you and the whole movement keep pretending we ,aka west as we are the only one doing any effort in the area, can actually change anything.
even if europe usa and australia were just wiped out tomorrow, india and china alone will keep increasing overall co2 output
These are not anecdotal paddocks measures but hard fact
True or not?
Simple clear: is the above true or false?
Then act accordingly and stop the bullshitting and hurting the planet indirectly


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> My comments are in *blue*.



Explod, please read calmly
"I agree that we should take care of the planet. We are rapidly destroying it. Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the biggest issue, *that would be a claim which has no evidentiary base *and by focussing on it we're ignoring the actual important issues." *And these are?*
There can not be a truer saying *Another baseless claim*
Worse, even if CO2 was the major threat, *so now you are not sure if what you said was true *you and the whole movement keep pretending we, *You are talking about what every scientific institution regards as factual, and make a claim that it is not - again without evidence *aka west * no, the "west" are a small number of the nations who agree in with the role that GHGs play in damaging our planet *as we are the only one doing any effort in the area, *except that we in the west are the worst per capita emitters of GHGs and are slower than some developing countries in moving to renewable energy *can actually change anything. *Australia's GHG emissions are increasing, so yes, we are making it worse.*
even if europe usa and australia were just wiped out tomorrow, india and china alone will keep increasing overall co2 output *yet these nations are doing more than most western nations to transition to renewables*
These are not anecdotal paddocks measures but hard fact yes,* it's a fact based on selective use of data - something educated people do not do -  and one which seeks to demonise nations which are aspiring to have first world living standards.  *
True or not?  *It's only true based on gross population.  In other words it's a classic example of how the uneducated use data.*
Simple clear: is the above true or false?  *Read the comments and you will see how baseless your claims are.*
Then act accordingly and stop the bullshitting and hurting the planet indirectly.  *By doing what? ...spreading the rubbish you write and claim they are facts.*
*Some who post here are better educated and understand what is going on in the world, so are active in correcting commentaries that are mostly baseless and  filled with error.*


----------



## explod (17 April 2019)

This sums a few points up:-

"Had we put as much effort into preventing environmental catastrophe as we’ve spent on making excuses for inaction, we would have solved it by now. Everywhere I look, I see people engaged in furious attempts to fend off the moral challenge it presents.

The commonest current excuse is this: “I bet those protesters have phones/go on holiday/wear leather shoes.” In other words, we won’t listen to anyone who is not living naked in a barrel, subsisting only on murky water. Of course, if you are living naked in a barrel we will dismiss you too, because you’re a hippie weirdo. Every messenger, and every message they bear, is disqualified on the grounds of either impurity or purity.

As the environmental crisis accelerates, and as protest movements like YouthStrike4Climate and Extinction Rebellion make it harder not to see what we face, people discover more inventive means of shutting their eyes and shedding responsibility. Underlying these excuses is a deep-rooted belief that if we really are in trouble, someone somewhere will come to our rescue: “they” won’t let it happen. But there is no they, just us."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/15/rebellion-prevent-ecological-apocalypse-civil-disobedience?fbclid=IwAR2urdNuvrn0IkfxOvh0x4V48c8K3soy4dlmQL_rNoapQghwJvqGn9SfGuI


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2019)

explod said:


> This sums a few points up:-
> 
> "Had we put as much effort into preventing environmental catastrophe as we’ve spent on making excuses for inaction, we would have solved it by now. Everywhere I look, I see people engaged in furious attempts to fend off the moral challenge it presents.
> 
> ...



Begs the question:

How does population wide action happen without individual action?

I have already posted the research that shows that climate sceptics actually I'm more likely to be individually more responsible, with climate alarmists actually less responsible.

 I am confused, can you explain to me how this works?


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Begs the question:
> How does population wide action happen without individual action?
> I have already posted the research that shows that climate sceptics actually I'm more likely to be individually more responsible, with climate alarmists actually less responsible.
> I am confused, can you explain to me how this works?



Not a very sensible question at all.  Individuals have little choice in western economies when it comes to per capita CO2 emissions as the very nature of those economies demands high energy use.
As to your research, given that I am a climate sceptic and not an alarmist, the reliability of your claim is dubious.


----------



## Ann (17 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I have already posted the research that shows that climate sceptics actually I'm more likely to be individually more responsible, with climate alarmists actually less responsible.
> 
> I am confused, can you explain to me how this works?




As I see it wayne, it is a darn site more intoxicating joining in with your mates in a civil protest and feeling the power of the 'beast' (crowd mentality).  It is fun and exhilarating feeling that ancient lizard brain getting riled and excited as you join in with the mass emotion. Afterwards you can go home and spend your time uploading the pics you took on your mobile phone or GoPro up to Facebook, telling your mates how great you are, fighting to make the world a better place. Then mum calls you for your specially prepared vegan dinner and you can pound on about how great you are and how much you have done for the planet. After dinner you can pop online and buy a cheap T-shirt from H&M for the next protest.

However, if you are putting your food peeling waste into a compost bin, buying a Soda Stream in an effort to cut down on the plastic used, weeding your vegetable garden, saving water with recycled barrels attached to the down pipes, buying only second hand items, recycling, re-purposing, avoiding over packaged foods to keep waste down, covering leftovers in the fridge with plates on top of glass bowls instead of plastic wrap. Buying food more often so as not to waste with items going off. Buying quality whole, unprocessed food and grass fed meat. This is all not a particularly exhilarating feeling but it is a way to be responsible ecologically. But hell, we are only climate sceptics who are taking no responsibility for the planet's wellbeing! (Sarcasm folks, it leaks out sometimes).


----------



## Sdajii (17 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Well I am agog at this response, but not surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I obviously can't have a rational discussion with you. Even when I bluntly say I agree with a whole heap of stuff you put forward, you accuse me of being wrong because I don't believe it.

If you can't grasp the concept that just because I disagree with one thing I can still agree with other things, it's clear that we're going to keep going around in circles.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Sdajii (17 April 2019)

Ann said:


> However, if you are putting your food peeling waste into a compost bin, buying a Soda Stream in an effort to cut down on the plastic used, weeding your vegetable garden, saving water with recycled barrels attached to the down pipes, buying only second hand items, recycling, re-purposing, avoiding over packaged foods to keep waste down, covering leftovers in the fridge with plates on top of glass bowls instead of plastic wrap. Buying food more often so as not to waste with items going off. Buying quality whole, unprocessed food and grass fed meat. This is all not a particularly exhilarating feeling but it is a way to be responsible ecologically. But hell, we are only climate sceptics who are taking no responsibility for the planet's wellbeing! (Sarcasm folks, it leaks out sometimes).




This is off topic to the thread, but it's an important point worse addressing. People often think that if they put in a heap of effort in reducing the amount of resources they consume, or the amount of carbon, or whatever, they're part of the solution. In reality, if you put in a heap of effort to reduce your impact on the world by 5%, you're still causing 95% of the damage you were before, so you're still part of the problem, and despite putting in a heap of work you're still pretty much the same amount of the problem, and for virtually every Australian, a much much larger than average part of the problem compared to the average person in the world. People then ask "Well then, what can I do?" as though the absence of a real solution turns their fake solution into a real solution. The only real solution to humans destroying the planet is too politically incorrect to put into text (and no, I'm not talking about just randomly going around killing people, although I suppose if you chose the right people that would help the planet, but it's not what I'm talking about).


----------



## explod (17 April 2019)

This lass has not been put up to this.  Her getting upset about 4 minutes in is of genuine concern.

 ..


----------



## Ann (17 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> People often think that if they put in a heap of effort in reducing the amount of resources they consume, or the amount of carbon, or whatever, they're part of the solution. In reality, if you put in a heap of effort to reduce your impact on the world by 5%, you're still causing 95% of the damage you were before, so you're still part of the problem,




I hear what you are saying Sdajii, to say, anything I can do to keep my part of the world clean and leave as little footprint as possible would only be saving 5% (which is a pretty random figure) but hypothetically, let's say it is only a 5% improvement, why should that be a reason to throw my hands in the air and say to hell with it, how is 5% going to help? If everyone improved the world by 5% with small incremental actions in their own lives, the change would be enormous. It would have a compounding effect. And it actually isn't a heap of effort once you have trained yourself. It is quite easy, it saves a fortune and those of us who grow our own food, it gives a feeling of peace.



Sdajii said:


> People then ask "Well then, what can I do?" as though the absence of a real solution turns their fake solution into a real solution.




And this is a really important point you have made. The political agenda of anamorphic global warming can create a feeling of helplessness when there could be real and tangible things which could be done now. If we put everything down to the fault of increased carbon into the atmosphere then we run the risk of ignoring other risk factors as in the damage to the Barrier Reefs, with dredging and mining and farm runoff and crown of thorns starfish and overfishing, a raise in fire danger with more homes being built in fire-prone areas with poor planning, if we feel there may be danger to homes close to a shore line, plan to move people to higher ground over time, if there is likely to be increased storm activity build community bunkers. So much can be done, if we stop using increased carbon as a cop-out and scream for more taxes so we can build more solar and wind power. It is just ridiculous behaviour not to look further at what may or may not be a problem. If a problem needs spin doctors to promote it, there may be a problem with the problem.



Sdajii said:


> The only real solution to humans destroying the planet is too politically incorrect to put into text (and no, I'm not talking about just randomly going around killing people, although I suppose if you chose the right people that would help the planet, but it's not what I'm talking about).




The planet will kill us off in time. We are doing a pretty good job ourselves with all the massive increase in diseases and the massive increase in same-sex relationships which will profoundly reduce the population in a very short period of time. Nature is already in the phase of culling us. Once the next serious ice-age occurs we are likely to have many of us wiped out with all the new diseases, famine and wars.


----------



## explod (17 April 2019)

sorry all, the link did not take and too late to delete.


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> In reality, if you put in a heap of effort to reduce your impact on the world by 5%, you're still causing 95% of the damage you were before.....



This is just bad maths.
You cannot assume that everyone does the same "damage" from the outset, but that is what you have done.


Sdajii said:


> People then ask "Well then, what can I do?" as though the absence of a real solution turns their fake solution into a real solution.



Again, very poor assumptions.  There are many things that can be done effectively, and most every one has been enunciated.  At national levels the IPCC has been crystal clear on what needs to occur.
Your "fake solutions" must involve actions which only people like you would consider solutions to begin.


Sdajii said:


> The only real solution to humans destroying the planet is too politically incorrect to put into text....



Except that is a claim that only people ignorant of climate facts would make.  Please read about climate science from the people who have laid down a pathway to mitigation, and stop making up nonsense.


----------



## Sdajii (17 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I hear what you are saying Sdajii, to say, anything I can do to keep my part of the world clean and leave as little footprint as possible would only be saving 5% (which is a pretty random figure) but hypothetically, let's say it is only a 5% improvement, why should that be a reason to throw my hands in the air and say to hell with it, how is 5% going to help? If everyone improved the world by 5% with small incremental actions in their own lives, the change would be enormous. It would have a compounding effect. And it actually isn't a heap of effort once you have trained yourself. It is quite easy, it saves a fortune and those of us who grow our own food, it gives a feeling of peace.




Of course 5% is a vague figure plucked out of the air. In reality, for most people, it would be lucky to be 1%. Look at the plastic straw example for one. People are literally making a big deal about something which is literally not even going to register as something worth noting on a percentage scale. Look at the plastic bags in supermarkets for another example. It scarcely makes a difference but people kicked up a fuss about it. Look at the recycling farce. Then look at where the vast majority of resources are being used, and no one is doing anything about it, or even recognising it as part of the problem.

And far, far offset by any 1% or 5% or whatever percentage you want to estimate it at, is the fact that we are consuming more resources over time, not less. So by cutting last 5% off what you did last year, you're probably only increasing next year to 115% instead of 120% (obviously this is not to say these are exact figures, but almost literally everyone is using more each year, not less, and that's the important concept). 



> And this is a really important point you have made. The political agenda of anamorphic global warming can create a feeling of helplessness when there could be real and tangible things which could be done now. If we put everything down to the fault of increased carbon into the atmosphere then we run the risk of ignoring other risk factors as in the damage to the Barrier Reefs, with dredging and mining and farm runoff and crown of thorns starfish and overfishing, a raise in fire danger with more homes being built in fire-prone areas with poor planning, if we feel there may be danger to homes close to a shore line, plan to move people to higher ground over time, if there is likely to be increased storm activity build community bunkers. So much can be done, if we stop using increased carbon as a cop-out and scream for more taxes so we can build more solar and wind power. It is just ridiculous behaviour not to look further at what may or may not be a problem. If a problem needs spin doctors to promote it, there may be a problem with the problem.




Definitely, 200%, screamingly agree with you on this point (except the dredging, I don't really think that's a very big deal, but the concept of the big issues being missed is an elephant in the room). The CO2 issue is massively overblown. Not to say it doesn't exist, but it's not the only issue and almost certainly not the main one, yet it is often presented pretty much as the only thing we should be worried about. 



> The planet will kill us off in time. We are doing a pretty good job ourselves with all the massive increase in diseases and the massive increase in same-sex relationships which will profoundly reduce the population in a very short period of time. Nature is already in the phase of culling us. Once the next serious ice-age occurs we are likely to have many of us wiped out with all the new diseases, famine and wars.




I'm... quite puzzled at you saying this. People are less diseased than ever before. Same sex relationships are not going to stop population growth. There aren't that many homosexual people, and while the number of open ones is higher than before, the proportion of the population isn't changing all that dramatically (difficult to measure because previously they were so secretive). Now as before though, they often still want to have children. Homosexual people still have urges to reproduce. The fastest growing demographic in the world seeks to literally exterminate them and in a growing percentage of the world actively carries that task out. That growing demographic has a policy of high reproductive rate and actively carries it out (which is the main reason it is the world's fastest growing demographic). Most people will always be heterosexual and reproductive until cataclysm or totalitarianism intervenes. 

If nature is in the process of killing us off it's odd that the population is still growing so rapidly. I agree that a population already living unsustainably and also rapidly growing is destined for inevitable disaster (that's literally what unsustainable means, so it's odd that almost everyone agrees the situation is unsustainable yet disagrees with inevitable disaster), but it hasn't started to happen yet. The disaster will almost certainly come in the form of war. There have always been wars being fought, but there will be a really big one which makes WWII look like a primary school scuffle.


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Of course 5% is a vague figure plucked out of the air. In reality, for most people, it would be lucky to be 1%.



Baseless assumption.


Sdajii said:


> And far, far offset by any 1% or 5% or whatever percentage you want to estimate it at, is the fact that we are consuming more resources over time, not less.



Consumption need not imply additional CO2 generation.  That's exactly why renewables become a significant part of the "solution".


Sdajii said:


> The CO2 issue is massively overblown.



Where is your evidence - another baseless claim.


----------



## qldfrog (17 April 2019)

If you decrease you co2 by 5pc, just wait next year and Chinese will ensure we are back even


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> If you decrease you co2 by 5pc, just wait next year and Chinese will ensure we are back even



The reason we can believe you is....?


----------



## qldfrog (18 April 2019)

@sdaji do not know much about you yet i am also one who after a life of world travel and exoerience consider 
the Green plague (nothing to do with the green party however dangerous they might be locally) 
and overpopulation
 as the key threats to mankind.
During that time we ban plastic bags in supermarket 8n full knowledge that we overall increase plastic consumption and  pollution by doing that
And people whose vision of the world is shaped by the abc,the guardian and travels to bali and mother england play puppets to the globalists interests
Global warming is so indeed depressing


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> @sdaji do not know much about you yet i am also one who after a life of world travel and exoerience consider
> the Green plague (nothing to do with the green party however dangerous they might be locally)
> and overpopulation
> as the key threats to mankind.
> ...



Full of opinions and dog whistles.
Devoid of facts.
Typical of your every post.


----------



## Sdajii (18 April 2019)

rederob said:


> The reason we can believe you is....?




Because both national and global consumption is up. A primary school kid can understand that if consumption is increasing not decreasing, the efforts are not working. These things are not solutions, they are distractions.

You become part of the solution of you are making things better. If you slightly reduce the rate at which you increase the damage you are doing, or even if you actually reduce the damage you are doing but continue to cause damage, you are still part of the problem, you are not the solution.

If not mislead, a young child can understand this. Remarkably, western people have become so mislead that they actually believe if they make any effort to reduce their impact, they are part of the solution, and are happy to be distracted from the fact that their overall impact is increasing. Many people even think that by being an 'activist' (posting memes on Facebook is enough, or you can go all out, blindly believe the propaganda and angrily argue with someone on a forum trying to encourage people to be rational and you're, like, totally a champion single-handedly saving the world) they are part of the solution.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Because both national and global consumption is up. A primary school kid can understand that if consumption is increasing not decreasing, the efforts are not working. These things are not solutions, they are distractions.
> 
> You become part of the solution of you are making things better. If you slightly reduce the rate at which you increase the damage you are doing, or even if you actually reduce the damage you are doing but continue to cause damage, you are still part of the problem, you are not the solution.
> 
> If not mislead, a young child can understand this. Remarkably, western people have become so mislead that they actually believe if they make any effort to reduce their impact, they are part of the solution, and are happy to be distracted from the fact that their overall impact is increasing. Many people even think that by being an 'activist' (posting memes on Facebook is enough, or you can go all out, blindly believe the propaganda and angrily argue with someone on a forum trying to encourage people to be rational and you're, like, totally a champion single-handedly saving the world) they are part of the solution.



I have this debate so often; people believing ing they are part of the solution because they are "spreading awareness" (from their v8 Landcruiser, two story airconditioned home. yearly holidays and over-packaged everything)


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Because both national and global consumption is up.  A primary school kid can understand that if consumption is increasing not decreasing, the efforts are not working.



Europe has proven that CO2 output can decline concurrent with increasing population and consumption.
So yet another of your claims is proven false.
The issue resolves to what action is being taken, as clearly the right policy settings make a big difference to how nations progress.
The rest of your rambling post simply reflects a state of mind which does not properly understand the problems, nor the solutions.


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I have this debate so often; people believing ing they are part of the solution because they are "spreading awareness" (from their v8 Landcruiser, two story airconditioned home. yearly holidays and over-packaged everything)



That's not a debate, Wayne, that's merely anecdote.
It is your usual lack of evidence for posted claims that finds your credibility in this realm highly suspect.


----------



## Sdajii (18 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I have this debate so often; people believing ing they are part of the solution because they are "spreading awareness" (from their v8 Landcruiser, two story airconditioned home. yearly holidays and over-packaged everything)




Yeah, exactly. And when you point out to people like rederob that they're being hypocritical etc etc, they hypocritically throw a bunch of empty, nonsensical ramble at you and accuse you of having no substance to your words.

Most people just believe what they want to believe, and many people are incredibly prone to projecting.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2019)

Unfortunately this forum alerts me when there is blocked content.

But I'm guessing Rederob has claimed I have no credibility... again.

Yawn...


----------



## Sdajii (18 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Unfortunately this forum alerts me when there is blocked content.
> 
> But I'm guessing Rederob has claimed I have no credibility... again.
> 
> Yawn...




Yeah, he's projecting again


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Most people just believe what they want to believe, and many people are incredibly prone to projecting.



I linked to data showing your claim was poorly based.
Rather than suggest I am the problem, tackle the fact that you seem to not understand why your claims have proven to be erroneous.


----------



## Sdajii (18 April 2019)

Judith Curry is an interesting example of what happens to a climate scientist who dares to move away from absolute dogmatic suppression of debate and adherence to anthropogenic climate change propaganda.

She herself has always promoted the climate change agenda, she was one of the world's most prominent climate scientists, highly respected and had a lot of attention on her for many years. She made the career mistake, however, of taking the stance that opposing views should be allowed to be published if they showed equal merit, and that climate sceptics should be listened to and open discussion allowed so that there was a transparent situation and people could trust the science. She recognised that there were some issues with the conventional science and in some cases the models were exaggerated and data was being deliberately misrepresented (all the while, and to this day, she maintained her belief that humans were causing the majority of current climate change, she just wanted it to be a topic open to discussion and for there to be an acknowledgement when there had been mistakes). Despite being a high level climate scientist who had previously enjoyed a prosperous career, publications, media attention, etc, quite suddenly this stopped and she was forced out of academia.

Take a moment to think about how extreme that level of bias is. All you need to do, even if you believe the climate science, even if you are already a prominent, respected climate scientist, is encourage honesty and open discussion and it's a career killer! Now imagine if someone actually has a contrarian view! We're not even talking about a contrarian view like 'Humans aren't having an influence on the climate' - virtually no one believes that, and literally no one with even the slightest grasp of the science would try to suggest that, but just saying we should have a more balanced look at how much of an influence we are having on the climate, that's a career killer.

Curry wasn't old, she didn't retire, she still works in a fairly decent role, but was forced out of academia.

...and there are people willing to say that climate science has no bias!

Think about the incredible control climate science has over the global energy industry, arguably the #1 fundamental industry in the world. Appropriately or not, for better or worse, using the guidance (perhaps engineered, guided guidance) of the climate science, huge taxes have been taken from energy companies, and a huge change in the balance of power between countries has been created. If you don't think that's going to cause a bias it's probably not worth talking to you.

When something is pushed as dogma to be unconditionally believed rather than openly and critically assessed, and there is blatant bias, you have to wonder what's going on. This doesn't mean climate science is completely wrong, it doesn't mean humans aren't influencing the climate (and it's difficult for most people to grasp the concept that something which is mostly correct can be exaggerated and/or misused, especially when they have been manipulated into dogmatic, unconditional belief).


----------



## Ann (18 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Of course 5% is a vague figure plucked out of the air. In reality, for most people, it would be lucky to be 1%. Look at the plastic straw example for one. People are literally making a big deal about something which is literally not even going to register as something worth noting on a percentage scale.




I am not concerned about the percentage you quote Sdajii, I am aware it is simply to illustrate what you are saying, so no problem. By saying that straws don't even register it sounds as though you are saying, let's not worry about it until it is a problem. I know that is not what you meant and am not trying to twist your words but it is a good point you are making, so my response is this, let's start cleaner living sooner rather than later even if it is simply refusing a plastic straw, or a plastic lid on a t/a coffee. Small **** but do it often enough with enough people is what I am saying, before it becomes a problem.



Sdajii said:


> Look at the plastic bags in supermarkets for another example.



Yeah! Wasn't that a money making token gesture! Why is supermarket meat packed in rigid plastic containers? Meat won't break or squash.



Sdajii said:


> Look at the recycling farce.




We should be doing so much better with this.



Sdajii said:


> Then look at where the vast majority of resources are being used, and no one is doing anything about it, or even recognising it as part of the problem.




Agree, so much wasted effort on emissions when there is so much more that should be done elsewhere. However this is not to say we don't have to worry about dirty, polluted air, we do and we should, just not because of an imaginary co2 level in the atmosphere.



Sdajii said:


> So by cutting last 5% off what you did last year, you're probably only increasing next year to 115% instead of 120% (obviously this is not to say these are exact figures, but almost literally everyone is using more each year, not less, and that's the important concept).



I try not to let this happen, I try to revue what is being used. Look to where I can cut things down or out, but I do it in a sustainable way, in a way I can maintain the changes without martyring myself, as that is never a sustainable thing to do. If a 'normal' person all of a sudden began living as I do, they would give up in six months, as it would not be sustainable for them.



Sdajii said:


> (except the dredging, I don't really think that's a very big deal,




Dredging may be the main cause for the damage to the Coral Reef....
_"Fine sediments are thrown up into the water and can drift for over 100 kilometres, smothering coral, seagrass beds, and ruining water quality. Dredging can more than double the level of coral disease, in particular white syndrome which causes coral tissue to fall off." Ref.

*"Sediment choke*

Sediment, which can travel long distances, will kill seagrass, exacerbating the decline in dugong populations that feed on it. 

 Corals will also be affected. Many species get almost all their energy and nutrients from the algae that live symbiotically on them. When increased sediment stops light from getting through the water, the algae stop growing, weakening the coral." Ref._



Sdajii said:


> The CO2 issue is massively overblown.




Spot on! It is a green propagandized Furphy and it will leave the real cause of problems  to be ignored or minimized.



Sdajii said:


> The CO2 issue is massively overblown. Not to say it doesn't exist, but it's not the only issue and almost certainly not the main one, yet it is often presented pretty much as the only thing we should be worried about.




Because it is the only thing which the Green Agenda can use as a weapon against fossil fuels. Take co2 out of the equation and what have they got? Nothing.
......but the earth is warming....well yes it is. It is more likely to be a normal cycle caused by orbital rotations of the planets. Does the tide come in? Yes it does because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Do we move from ice-ages to tropical warm? Yes we do, likely because of the gravitational pull of the planets.

It would have been an easy physics calculation to work out for the GreenTeam Alarmists when the earth will be at its historically hottest level then add the fifty year old co2 measurements taken from inside a co2 effusing volcano in Hawaii (Mauna Loa). Voila, Global Warming caused by co2. Let's panic the population into making Green Earth choices for energy and eating habits and get control of the financial industry and governments. Then we can bring in our own laws.
.....but what if it starts to get colder......still climate change folks.....see we still have high levels of co2! It is all about co2. Those volcanoes will keep exuding, the co2 levels will still rise. 


.....but we measure the atmosphere by satellites and ancient ice cores for co2 as well as inside a co2 spewing volcano, then average out the results....... Great, so if the atmospheric measurements are barely altering but the volcano is spewing out higher levels of co2 then we will see the average of co2 rising. This is not rocket science folks this is spin 'science'.





Sdajii said:


> I'm... quite puzzled at you saying this. People are less diseased than ever before. Same sex relationships are not going to stop population growth.



In the past we had more viral diseases which killed us, these days we are having huge increases of metabolic diseases as in cancer, Alzheimers, heart disease, diabetes, MS, Parkinsons, obesity and so forth. We are killing ourselves, not an external virus which sweeps through, kills all those who are not immune and then subsides.  As a kid in the 50's you never heard about anyone getting cancer except rich, skinny women. Nowadays it seems like it is as common as a flu.



Sdajii said:


> Most people will always be heterosexual and reproductive until cataclysm or totalitarianism intervenes.




Maybe so, but as societies becomes wealthier they breed less.



Sdajii said:


> If nature is in the process of killing us off it's odd that the population is still growing so rapidly.




Nature is slow it needs to evolve. It is like an oscillation, most growth of life will happen at the warm highest point and a reduction of life as it falls back to a colder time. Least life during the coldest point. You need to step back and look at the very big picture. The earth can support the current population growth, because it is natural and we are at the pinnacle of the warm oscillation.

Planetary Orbits graph....


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> She [Judith Curry] made the career mistake, however, of taking the stance that opposing views should be allowed to be published if they showed equal merit, and that climate sceptics should be listened to and open discussion allowed so that there was a transparent situation and people could trust the science.



It is not the purview of Curry to determine what can or cannot be published.
That's one mistake in your claims.
Second, *all* climate scientists are, by definition, climate sceptics - it's a label which goes with the profession.  That's a fundamental misunderstanding of science - and you keep saying you are  scientist!
Finally, science can be *believed *until the point it is proven to be inadequate.  Science is therefore progressive.


Sdajii said:


> ... she was forced out of academia.



She  left her job because...well, too much heat...and she ain't no Cook.
Anyway, *retiring* from an academic posting is very different to what you have claimed - so more falsehoods from you.


Sdajii said:


> All you need to do, even if you believe the climate science...



That's false.  Curry in fact does *not*.  Curry is of the view that natural variation can cause the warming we have.  But Curry has not published anything credible to sustain her position. Curry does not even use the scientifically accepted definitions used in climate science.


Sdajii said:


> Curry wasn't old, she didn't retire, she still works in a fairly decent role, but was forced out of academia.



Please check the evidence and stop repeating falsehoods.


Sdajii said:


> ...huge taxes have been taken from energy companies, and a huge change in the balance of power between countries has been created.



Please link your evidence.
Here's mine on taxes, suggesting that yet again you are clueless.


Sdajii said:


> ...it's difficult for most people to grasp the concept that something which is mostly correct can be exaggerated and/or misused, especially when they have been manipulated into dogmatic, unconditional belief



That's an interesting claim.
It's almost like saying people have been manipulated into believing that evolution is true. 
You, as a scientist, should appreciate that a *theory *is very different to "dogma."

So let's get back to Curry.  Please cite a paper where she has accounted for the present warming of the planet.  I have looked many times in recent years and I find a stream of work showing her grasp of climate data is nowadays deficient.


----------



## Sdajii (18 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I am not concerned about the percentage you quote Sdajii, I am aware it is simply to illustrate what you are saying, so no problem. By saying that straws don't even register it sounds as though you are saying, let's not worry about it until it is a problem. I know that is not what you meant and am not trying to twist your words but it is a good point you are making, so my response is this, let's start cleaner living sooner rather than later even if it is simply refusing a plastic straw, or a plastic lid on a t/a coffee. Small **** but do it often enough with enough people is what I am saying, before it becomes a problem.




I'm not opposed to doing little bits here and there to lessen the impact. The problem is that these little bits are used as excuses to believe people aren't a problem or are part of the solution, even though they are still very much the problem. If I catch 100 children per day and kill all of them, and tomorrow I decide to let 2% of them go, I suppose that's a good thing, it's an improvement, but I'm still killing heaps of children and I'm still a really bad person. If I'm now catching 105 children per day, the 2 which I release don't even offset the extra 3 I'm killing. The straws, recycling, buying a plastic bad instead of getting a free one, etc, are like patting yourself on the back for releasing some children so you don't have to feel guilty about killing the extra 3. That's the problem, not the fact that you're releasing 2 children. 



> Yeah! Wasn't that a money making token gesture! Why is supermarket meat packed in rigid plastic containers? Meat won't break or squash.




Exactly. But you didn't use a disposable straw and you reused a plastic bag a few times (never mind that it's a much thicker, heavier bag and it won't last forever anyway... just pat yourself on the back for being a good person)



> We should be doing so much better with this.




Again, recycling is just lip service. It's not just that we should be doing better; we arguably aren't even doing anything overall positive! But don't let that stop you from patting yourself on the back and believing you're a good person, part of the solution.



> Agree, so much wasted effort on emissions when there is so much more that should be done elsewhere. However this is not to say we don't have to worry about dirty, polluted air, we do and we should, just not because of an imaginary co2 level in the atmosphere.




That's my point. There are much bigger pollution issues than CO2. 



> Because it is the only thing which the Green Agenda can use as a weapon against fossil fuels. Take co2 out of the equation and what have they got? Nothing.
> ......but the earth is warming....well yes it is. It is more likely to be a normal cycle caused by orbital rotations of the planets. Does the tide come in? Yes it does because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Do we move from ice-ages to tropical warm? Yes we do, likely because of the gravitational pull of the planets.




I'm a bit more agnostic about the cause of current climate change. The natural fluctuations are extreme, they are not well understood in terms of cause and mechanism, which makes it difficult to say what's really going on. But totally, they focus on CO2 primarily because it is a powerful economic and political tool for everyone involved. Even if you want to believe CO2 is the total cause of climate change (nonsense which literally no climate scientist would believe), the CO2 thing is obviously being done primarily for political and economic reasons.



> It would have been an easy physics calculation to work out for the GreenTeam Alarmists when the earth will be at its historically hottest level then add the fifty year old co2 measurements taken from inside a co2 effusing volcano in Hawaii (Mauna Loa). Voila, Global Warming caused by co2. Let's panic the population into making Green Earth choices for energy and eating habits and get control of the financial industry and governments. Then we can bring in our own laws.
> .....but what if it starts to get colder......still climate change folks.....see we still have high levels of co2! It is all about co2. Those volcanoes will keep exuding, the co2 levels will still rise.





To be fair, I think in relatively normal scenarios, volcanoes' influence is a bit overplayed. There are sometimes massive volcanic events which do serious things to the climate (far, far more extreme, rapid, and destructive than what the climate scientists are predicting we are going to do). It would actually be sort of funny if there was such a volcanic event now which plunged the world into severe winter for a few years (many geologists predict we are due for exactly this) and global warming (whatever the cause) dramatically mitigated the problem. It's actually quite a plausible scenario!



> In the past we had more viral diseases which killed us, these days we are having huge increases of metabolic diseases as in cancer, Alzheimers, heart disease, diabetes, MS, Parkinsons, obesity and so forth. We are killing ourselves, not an external virus which sweeps through, kills all those who are not immune and then subsides.  As a kid in the 50's you never heard about anyone getting cancer except rich, skinny women. Nowadays it seems like it is as common as a flu.




There are several reasons for this. Most of them disprove your arguments.

The average human life expectancy has dramatically increased. Children don't get Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's, etc. It's is primarily old people who get cancer, etc. People previously died while young. Look at all these diseases you list - they are all things while primarily or exclusively kill people who are of an age they previously would not have reached, or in some cases went undiagnosed. By making people live longer we have just changed what they die of. Keep in mind that all people die of something. The death rate of humans is 100%.



> Nature is slow it needs to evolve. It is like an oscillation, most growth of life will happen at the warm highest point and a reduction of life as it falls back to a colder time. Least life during the coldest point. You need to step back and look at the very big picture. The earth can support the current population growth, because it is natural and we are at the pinnacle of the warm oscillation.




The planet can support the current population/growth because we are guzzling resources unsustainably. I agree that this means we will have a severe population crash, but not through diseases and homosexuality. Unless we get a freak event in the next 25 years (celestial impact, severe volcanic event, alien invasion, severe viral pandemic, extreme freak weather (not climate), divine intervention, invention of presently inconceivable technology, mushrooms revealing that they are sentient beings with extreme power who were waiting to save us in our hour of need etc) we will have a massive war over remaining resources.


----------



## Ann (18 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> To be fair, I think in relatively normal scenarios, volcanoes' influence is a bit overplayed.




They are actually physically inside the bloody volcano taking the readings, not a mile or two or three away measuring the co2 emissions. It is a live exuding volcano spewing out co2!





Hawaiian Volcano Observatory scientist monitoring gas emissions on Mauna Loa in 2015
Ref


----------



## Sdajii (18 April 2019)

Ann said:


> They are actually physically inside the bloody volcano taking the readings, not a mile or two or three away measuring the co2 emissions. It is a live exuding volcano spewing out co2!
> 
> View attachment 93906
> 
> ...





That's pretty cool and everything, but CO2 from volcanoes isn't really all that significant.

A lot of people here obviously think that because I'm open minded and don't blindly believe all the mainstream dogma I'm some sort of hardcore complete 'climate denier' (sic) who believes the opposite extremist dogma, but I'm happy to say the actual hardline anthropomorphic climate change deniers who promote the myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans burning fossil fuels are wrong.

Volcanoes produce about 1-2% of the amount of total CO2 humans do, depending on which source you use (it's definitely less than 3% unless they're lying to us really, really badly).


----------



## Ann (18 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> That's pretty cool and everything, but CO2 from volcanoes isn't really all that significant.




If you wanted to measure the amount of nicotine coming from second hand smoke, surely if you held the measuring device directly in front of a persons mouth as they were exhaling the reading would be higher than if you stood across the room from them?
This is the same scenario with measuring co2.


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> That's my point. There are much bigger pollution issues than CO2.



So why not name them and describe their consequences.  You make claims without having a clue about whether or not they are valid.


Sdajii said:


> The natural fluctuations are extreme, they are not well understood in terms of cause and mechanism, which makes it difficult to say what's really going on.



This is false.  The natural fluctuations cannot be derived because the increased energy in the climate system has created a new normal.
Climate is in fact very well understood.  This is not a concept you can work out, but that's a problem for you to resolve.


Sdajii said:


> But totally, they focus on CO2 primarily because it is a powerful economic and political tool for everyone involved.



Science has no care for the politics or economics so yet another false claim.
Whatever science you claim to have done, I suspect it has not left a mark on you.


Sdajii said:


> Even if you want to believe CO2 is the total cause of climate change (nonsense which literally no climate scientist would believe), the CO2 thing is obviously being done primarily for political and economic reasons.



Yet that is one of the scientific definitions of climate change, so again your claim is utterly false.

You are not very good at climate science.  And you are barely proficient at science judging from the lack of quality of your posts.


----------



## qldfrog (18 April 2019)

and on this debate we forget that the vast majority of mankind does not give a dam
That every year China and India emissions/use of energy increase by more than 5%..EVERY YEAR, and they are 2/3 of human emissions or so, by far the majority, and wait till Africa wake up...maybe ..or places like Indonesia, Egypt, etc


----------



## basilio (19 April 2019)

Sir David Attenborough has weighed in with the current last word on the catastrophic consequences of CC. It was screened at the same time as Extinction Rebellion is closing down the streets of London in a series of peaceful protests* demanding *immediate government action on the climate emergency.

*Climate change: Sir David Attenborough warns of 'catastrophe'*
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent

18 April 2019


Related Topics

London climate change protests

Media captionViewers can watch Climate Change - The Facts on BBC One, Tonight at 9pm
Sir David Attenborough has issued his strongest statement yet on the threat posed to the world by climate change.

In the BBC programme Climate Change - The Facts, the veteran broadcaster outlined the scale of the crisis facing the planet.

Sir David said we face "irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies".

But there is still hope, he said, if dramatic action to limit the effects is taken over the next decade.


What is climate change?
Talk to our climate change bot
Central banks warn of climate dangers
Warning from 'Antarctica's last forests'
Sir David's new programme laid out the science behind climate change, the impact it is having right now and the steps that can be taken to fight it.

"In the 20 years since I first started talking about the impact of climate change on our world, conditions have changed far faster than I ever imagined," Sir David stated in the film.

"It may sound frightening, but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies."

Speaking to a range of scientists, the programme highlighted that temperatures are rising quickly, with the world now around 1C warmer than before the industrial revolution.


----------



## rederob (19 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> and on this debate we forget that the vast majority of mankind does not give a dam



It's a bit like saying most people do not care about cancer...until it happens!
Governments *do care*, and they are the agencies who consolidate issues of concern into actions to mitigate them.


qldfrog said:


> That every year China and India emissions/use of energy increase by more than 5%.



And despite this, neither economy is yet on par with the USA's per capita emissions.  So let's reverse the logic and push the USA's per capita output down to that of India's.  Hell no, let's push every nation down to India's... and the problem of rising CO2 emissions is immediately solved.


qldfrog said:


> and they are 2/3 of human emissions or so, by far the majority



Completely false - it's about one-third coming from about one-third of the global population.  You keep making up what you want to believe, so try to get some facts into your case in future. 

If we are going to call this a "debate" then please try to make statements which align with reality.
Your banging-on of China and India as problem nations ignores the fact that until 2004 the USA had for well over a century been emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than China.  Indeed, until the 1990s the USA was emitting twice as much as India and China combined.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 April 2019)

Exhausted ?

WOW ... I have heard drivel and I am not sure if talking about 650 million years ago, before continental drift and tectonic plates colliding pushing UP land, forming mountains, and sea levels falling in relation to new mountains, would ever be stupid enough ever to be mentioned verses sea levels NOW  .... I was wrong.

Talking about sea level rises, when land is either rising or falling, but going back 650 million years ago, prior to the plates colliding and moving, was for me a special on this thread of the wasted nature of even discussing anything on this topic with what is, interesting if not idiotic stupidity.

Second prize, burning wood, whilst not optimal and some expert trying to claim its CO2 bad, which it is, and it is NOT, as its CO2 neutral, because trees DIE and either rot, and let the CO2 captured back out, or BURN .... and either via bush-fire or whatever .... TREE's have a cycle and whilst it is stupid to think the world can be powered via wood, burning wood, that is Replaced and regrown or would either rot and emit back out as it rotted CO2. as being an issue, gets second prize.

Third was Morrison's plan to plant a billion tree's and it would capture less than  2% of the CO2 we emit for 40 years,,,,, till they die and the cycle begins again.

Fourth was another idiotic plan to plant globally 1 trillion tree's ... just out in the media. At around 5 million sq KM, it would, on future carbon emissions absorb 5% .... YEP 5% of the 2050 targets for around 40 years, then they die, regrow and so on.

Its not that I am against any positive move, trees are GOOD ... the sad fact is that Tree's verses the rate of emissions *are NOT good enough absorbing CO2* at 4 tons per hectare. Other things can do it 25 times better at 100 tons and even 150 tons of CO2 per hectare, and ones with a bit of money and intensive ones at 1,000 tons of CO2 per hectare. This verses a tree is .... what it is ... 5% ... for 5 million sq km which is absurd that will occur EVER ... with Trump and other dingbats denying whilst the Great Barrier Reef will die .... and 75% of its gone ... it will die before any of them even blink on their views or idiotic greed based or stupidity based beliefs.

Carbon must be CAPTURED as was done via coal and OIL deposits, we now burn .... and emit CO2  and even this ... that CO2 heats the air is denied by some. Quite idiotic as its a scientific experiment that conducted 1 trillion times will always result in the same thing.

But nope .... its all ... a hoax. Hilarious thread. Great displays of both sides.

I found this U tube amusing ...

*Conspiracy Theories That Are Utterly Ridiculous*


enjoy !!

Earth is flat ? Hollow ... ? Or we are living inside the earth ? Some of the theories postulated here on this thread make these beliefs ... seem smart !!



*"Climate Change" Myths"*

These cover a total now of 21 of the myths, this is the last 5 .... this U tube ...  that have been presented here on this thread as somehow scientific or factual.

Amazing, these whacky theories ....  they make the hollow earth theory ... look more likely !!


----------



## Sdajii (20 April 2019)

Ann said:


> If you wanted to measure the amount of nicotine coming from second hand smoke, surely if you held the measuring device directly in front of a persons mouth as they were exhaling the reading would be higher than if you stood across the room from them?
> This is the same scenario with measuring co2.




I must admit, I am blindly trusting the official data regarding the CO2 output of volcanoes. I don't know how they measure it, your analogy makes sense and they aren't 'measuring the smoke as it leaves the smoker's mouth', but I did assume they had a reasonable way to estimate the CO2 output of volcanoes with respectable accuracy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Very interested if you do.


----------



## Sdajii (20 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Sir David Attenborough has weighed in with the current last word on the catastrophic consequences of CC. It was screened at the same time as Extinction Rebellion is closing down the streets of London in a series of peaceful protests* demanding *immediate government action on the climate emergency.
> 
> *Climate change: Sir David Attenborough warns of 'catastrophe'*
> By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent
> ...




Attenborough is not a climate scientist. He isn't even really a proper biologist. Long ago he was a wildlife poacher who got lucky when the narrator of a documentary got too sick to do the job, he was in the right place at the right time, and they gave him a go (he actually openly spoke about this about 5-10 years ago which was interesting, decades after no one cared about such things and he was open about it and then people gradually forgot during the same time attitudes were changing - look at the early documentaries he narrated and it was about poaching trips!). Turned out he was an extremely good narrator. As a biologist myself I've usually cringed at the nonsense he speaks in 'his' documentaries (as good a job as he does of speaking it). He doesn't know much about biology, he doesn't have a good understanding of it, he's just extremely good at reading a script and being charismatic. People loved him because of those talents and mistakenly thought he was the brains behind the narration, and credit where it's due, his talents have inspired a lot of love of nature in people, which is great, but there's no reason to take anything seriously because Attenborough says it. He just parrots what someone else told him to say (nicely worded and spoken) and people irrationally take it as more authoritative.


----------



## Sdajii (20 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Exhausted ?
> 
> WOW ... I have heard drivel and I am not sure if talking about 650 million years ago, before continental drift and tectonic plates colliding pushing UP land, forming mountains, and sea levels falling in relation to new mountains, would ever be stupid enough ever to be mentioned verses sea levels NOW  .... I was wrong.
> 
> ...





You were wrong, but not about assuming no one was going to talk about sea level fluctuations in a 650 million year context. You would have been correct about that because no one did it. You were wrong in imagining that people did it. The sea level fluctuations being discussed were in much more recent history and unrelated to tectonics. Obviously sea level changes over hundreds of millions of years are related to tectonics. Massive *cycles* over the last few *tens of thousands* of years which go *back and forth* are not related to tectonics.

But by all means, you murder your own strawman as savagely as you please.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 April 2019)

Yep.

I mentioned the earths wobble as it goes in orbit around the sun, known since 1690 ... and the sun and its irradiance of the earth is 4-6% less ... hence an ice age ... and yep ... you decided the earth was hollow. It suited your theory. Sadly science did not. 

Sorry, but well covered in the three decent Utube posts on your ...  theories.

Must run. Found a hole and it may lead to the hollow earth ... Never heard of that one, nor some of the things raised here, as being correct.

Tomorrow ... I am off to see if the earth is flat ... and Monday, that Mount Everest was at sea level, when the seas were 120 meters higher, and fossils are found on Mountain tops, thanks, but I will stick to science.

Happy Easter.


----------



## Ann (20 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I must admit, I am blindly trusting the official data regarding the CO2 output of volcanoes. I don't know how they measure it, your analogy makes sense and they aren't 'measuring the smoke as it leaves the smoker's mouth', but I did assume they had a reasonable way to estimate the CO2 output of volcanoes with respectable accuracy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Very interested if you do.





They _are _standing at the 'smoker's mouth' to measure co2 at Mauna Loa, they actually go down to the lava and measure what is coming off the volcano.There would be no problems with the measurements coming from the volcano, their instruments would be quite accurate, one would think . The problem comes when they say the levels at Mauna Loa are rising, so therefore the entire atmosphere is rising to these levels. These are micro measurements of an exuding volcano being imposed on a macro view of earth's atmosphere. 

The added kick to this whole thing is Kilauea  area started to erupt continuously from 1983 to 2018, that is a volcano directly beside Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa's recent eruptions started from March 1984. It is being closely monitored at this time....._.

April 15, 2019 at 5:06 AM HST 
The Hawaii Tribune-Herald reported Sunday that The Hawaii Volcano Observatory is closely monitoring Mauna Loa as conditions have risen to levels comparable to a more active period between 2014 and 2017.

Officials say it is too early to predict possible outcomes.

Officials say there have been increased earthquakes and ground deformation around Mauna Loa's summit.


Officials say earthquakes on Mauna Loa dropped to less than five per week in early 2018, but there have been up to 90 earthquakes weekly since August, with most considered mild at 2.0 or less on the Richter scale.

An eruption last year by Hawaii's Kilauea volcano destroyed more than 700 homes from May through August. Ref.
_

As I showed you in the photo Sdajii, they take their gas monitoring systems down inside the actual exuding volcano and stick the instruments by the active co2 smoking volcano and take the measurements_, _straight out of the smoking mouth of the volcano. So we shouldn't be surprised when co2 levels rise at the same time as volcanic activity.







Then they record and report the levels...

March 22, 2019
* Global carbon dioxide growth in 2018 reached 4th highest on record *
By the end of 2018, NOAA’s atmospheric observatory at Mauna Loa recorded the fourth-highest annual growth in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in 60 years of record-keeping.

June 7, 2018
* Another climate milestone on Mauna Loa *
Carbon dioxide levels measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory averaged more than 410 parts per million in April and May, the highest monthly averages ever recorded, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego announced today.

March 13, 2017
* Carbon dioxide levels rose at record pace for 2nd straight year *
Carbon dioxide levels measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Baseline Atmospheric Observatory rose by 3 parts per million to 405.1 parts per million (ppm) in 2016, an increase that matched the record jump observed in 2015.




August 2, 2016
*  2015 State of the Climate: Carbon Dioxide *
Using measurements taken worldwide, scientists estimated that 2015’s global average carbon dioxide concentration was 399.4 parts per million (ppm), a new record high. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawai’i, where atmospheric carbon dioxide has been recorded longer than anywhere else in the world, the annual average carbon dioxide concentration was 400.8—also a new record, and a new milestone.

June 21, 2016
* MLO Science Fair Awards *
Every year MLO contributes to the local Science Fair event. This year Samantha Yamamoto & Maile Birlhante won the junior research award with their project 'Light Dispersing'. Kendra Puleo won the second award with 'Ocean acidification effect on the food chain.' Kylan K. Sakata won the senior division award with 'Verifying special relativity over time dilation through moon decay at variable altitudes' and Moana Lily Pinner won the second award with 'Investigating the SPF, anti-oxidant and anti cancer potential of turmeric and ginger.'

March 10, 2016
* Record annual increase of carbon dioxide observed at Mauna Loa for 2015 *
The annual growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii jumped by 3.05 parts per million during 2015, the largest year-to-year increase in 56 years of research.

April 23, 2015
* American Chemical Society honors measurement set at NOAA observatory *
The American Chemical Society designated the Keeling Curve – a long-term record of rising carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere -- as a National Historic Chemical Landmark in a ceremony April 30 at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

February 24, 2015
* MLO Science Fair Awards *
Every year the Mauna Loa Obervatory contributes to the local Science Fair event. This year, Halia Buchal won the junior research award with the project titled: _Purple or Green? Does Leaf Color Affect How Plants Respond to Different Colors of Light?_ The Senior research recipent Keanu D. Pinner won the senior division award with the project titled: _Activation of the Hepatocyte Antioxidant Response by Kava Secondary Metabolites._




July 13, 2014
*  2013 State of the Climate: Carbon dioxide tops 400 ppm  *
On May 9, 2013, the daily average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where the modern record of observations began back in 1958. Other Northern Hemisphere sites also reported CO2 concentrations exceeding 400 ppm in 2013. By summer, the high concentrations at these sites had dropped as vegetation began taking up carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

July 8, 2014
* Greenhouse gases top 400 ppm for three months in a row at Mauna Loa *
For the first time since carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been measured, the levels of this greenhouse gas at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, have been above 400 parts per million every single day for three straight months.

March 21, 2014
* Heat-trapping gas concentrations top 400 ppm, two months earlier than last year *
Over the last five days beginning on March 16, 2014, carbon dioxide levels have surpassed 400 parts per million at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. This is nearly two months earlier than last year when the concentration of this greenhouse gas was first recorded above 400 parts per million on May 9, at the historic NOAA observatory.

May 10, 2013
* Carbon Dioxide at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory reaches new milestone: Tops 400 ppm *
On May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 1958.

Ref.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 April 2019)

Sadly the hole ...

did not lead to the middle of the earth. Since they measure CO2 in 20 different places ....  around the globe

I found this more instructive than the dribble above ..




Here is the CSRIO ... just one of 20 different ones ... where they measure CO2

Cape GRIM ... on the way to the hollow earth ... or flat earth ... turn left and your there !!

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

Nearest active volcano ... for NON flat earthers is 3,000 or more km away if not 4,000 km away.

*Nothing like displaying in vivid color how ...  idiotic the theory you have is. *


----------



## MARKETWINNER (20 April 2019)




----------



## Ann (20 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Since they measure CO2 in 20 different places .... around the globe




Please list the locations of the 20 monitoring stations of CO2 measurements you mention.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 April 2019)

OOOH .... as if ... it would make a difference ...

The earth is flat ... the earth is hollow ... they are measuring inside a volcano ? I shared ONE .... ESA satellite measures CO2 ... the new one ... that's three ... as for sharing with you ? You dispute even sattlelite data of NASA on ice ... let alone me sharing with you 20 sites ....



I suggest you put the Annoying apple on feedback and keep watching.

Below is Cape Grim ... 4,000 KM away from any volcano ...  yep ... next !!









kahuna1 said:


> Nothing like displaying in vivid color how ... idiotic the theory you have is.




but this is a good site ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19162051

satellite ones 
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/99/graphic-measuring-carbon-dioxide-from-space/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/satellite-to-measure-co2-in-space

https://www.gislounge.com/measuring-carbon-dioxide-nitrogen-dioxide-trends-remote-sensing/

One could go on ... and on ... but I suggest the Apple is better ... or hollow earth theory !!


----------



## Ann (20 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Below is Cape Grim ... 4,000 KM away from any volcano ... yep ... next !!



That is one station measuring ice cores which are carbon sinks not atmospheric conditions.


kahuna1 said:


> Since they measure CO2 in 20 different places .... around the globe



I am still waiting for 19 more.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 April 2019)

Cape GRIM ... is located on the Western tip of Tasmania !!

I have provided 5, *which you did not look at* ...

then talking about Cap Grim ... ice cores ? REALLY ....seriously .... Top of Mt Fuji .... thats 6 ... Samoa ... 7 ... Hatemura Island 8 ... I can go on .. *but its pointless*.

Seriously


Ann said:


> That is one station measuring ice cores which are carbon sinks not atmospheric conditions.




I provided the CSRIO website Ann and your ... still not able to comprehend !!


... are you that silly ... and this is being polite ... to suggest satellites of which there are 3 measuring impartially CO2 ... are wrong ?

You seem to think their is some ice cap in TASMANIA ....

*Cape Grim lies in the far north-western tip of Tasmania. 

The winds that roar through Cape Grim have traveled more than 16,000 kilometers across glacial southern oceans, passing no land, no city or factory, uncontaminated.*

I think of any land based monitoring stations, this one AUSTRALIAN ... its saying the same as others, its pretty obvious the APPLE is speaking to the orange here !!

*Ice cores in Tasmania .... thats a new one with the hollow earth ... I love it. 
*
*Air samples collected at Cape Grim, Tasmania under clean air (baseline) conditions*

*CSRIO ... 

*
https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

*Cape Grim program originated from a commitment by the Australian Government to the United Nations Environment Program in the early 1970s to monitor and study global atmospheric composition for climate change purposes. As a result, the Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station first began measuring the composition of the atmosphere in April 1976 and has been in continuous operation since that date.*

*What is measured?*
_*Air samples are analysed at the station to determine concentrations of greenhouse and ozone-depleting gases, other air pollutants, including aerosols and reactive gases, and radon.

Also measured are weather and climate indicators like wind speed and direction, rainfall, temperature, humidity and solar radiation.

Since sampling began at Cape Grim, more that 3 billion measurements have been taken. Among these are measurements of greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and synthetic GHGs such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).*_

You really really are an *ORANGE*  ?

Ice cores ? And them being carbon sinks ? Gee ... must go explore that hole again as* it surely leads to the hollow earth. !!*


----------



## ghotib (20 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I must admit, I am blindly trusting the official data regarding the CO2 output of volcanoes. I don't know how they measure it, your analogy makes sense and they aren't 'measuring the smoke as it leaves the smoker's mouth', but I did assume they had a reasonable way to estimate the CO2 output of volcanoes with respectable accuracy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Very interested if you do.




"They" explain exactly how "they" measure background atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, including how "they" account for nearby emission or absorption, here.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

Measurements of CO2 emissions from the volcano are interesting for other reasons
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

Ann,
Cape Grim is in Tasmania; I'm sure the Tassia govt would be delighted to receive your proposal for tourist travel to the Tasmanian ice core drilling station. But before you submit it, you might like to check your understanding of carbon sinks and ice core data.

Sdajii,
I'm quite sure you know that an analogy making sense is no guarantee that it has any relationship to reality. You would be doing a kindness if you avoid encouraging anyone to believe that finding an analogy is the same thing as finding an explanation.


----------



## rederob (20 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Massive *cycles* over the last few *tens of thousands* of years which go *back and forth* are not related to tectonics.



Another gross failure from you:





There was in fact *not even one cycle in over 20,000 years *from the present period.

From the below time separated logarithmic chart of temperature we can clearly see that *ONE *deglaciation in the past 20,000+ years (encompassing the entire Holocene) aligns with the above chart.


----------



## explod (20 April 2019)

Good clear chart rederob which removes all argument.

But I'm sure the fairy tailors will still try.


----------



## explod (21 April 2019)

This is unstoppable change all right.

"
*French Riviera Gardener*
March 28 at 10:00 PM · 
What a sad observation.
I have my heart crying 

 · See original · 
Rate this translation


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Yep.
> 
> I mentioned the earths wobble as it goes in orbit around the sun, known since 1690 ... and the sun and its irradiance of the earth is 4-6% less ... hence an ice age ... and yep ... you decided the earth was hollow. It suited your theory. Sadly science did not.
> 
> ...




??? I never said the Earth was hollow.

And if you think the Earth's wobble can affect the climate and sea levels that dramatically, then why worry about human-induced climate change or claim humans are doing anything unprecedented?


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

Ann said:


> They _are _standing at the 'smoker's mouth' to measure co2 at Mauna Loa, they actually go down to the lava and measure what is coming off the volcano.There would be no problems with the measurements coming from the volcano, their instruments would be quite accurate, one would think . The problem comes when they say the levels at Mauna Loa are rising, so therefore the entire atmosphere is rising to these levels. These are micro measurements of an exuding volcano being imposed on a macro view of earth's atmosphere.
> 
> The added kick to this whole thing is Kilauea  area started to erupt continuously from 1983 to 2018, that is a volcano directly beside Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa's recent eruptions started from March 1984. It is being closely monitored at this time....._.
> 
> ...




Seems like we had a bit of a misunderstanding. What I meant was that we can't collect all of the gas which comes out of a person's mouth and analyse the composition and volume, but we can't do that with volcanoes, so it is difficult to measure the absolute amount of CO2 a volcano produces. I'm not exactly sure which of the official figures you're not agreeing with.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

ghotib said:


> "They" explain exactly how "they" measure background atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, including how "they" account for nearby emission or absorption, here.
> https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
> 
> Measurements of CO2 emissions from the volcano are interesting for other reasons
> ...




I understand that an analogy is only useful for explaining how something works and not proving that something is a certain way. I was just saying to Ann that I understood her analogy, not that I was acknowledging that I believed it was evidence of her claim, and I remain sceptical/agnostic about it. I don't know much about the specific topic.


----------



## kahuna1 (21 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I never said the Earth was hollow.




Yes you did .... even worse and more silly things you have said time and time again !!

Maybe an ice core trip to TASMANIA is in order ? 

You still persist about CO2 measurement ... CAPE GRIM is ... where it is ... inside the hollow earth.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Another gross failure from you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Amazing! You've proven you're not worth conversing with, but I couldn't let that one go. Look at your first figure. Look at the time scale. Look at the height scale. Look at how many metres that chart says the sea level fluctuates in extremely short intervals. It's also just a scatterplot, not a set of maxima and minima.

Look at your second chart, look at the time scale. Do you really think it is possible for that sort of variation to occur without it ever having gone through a more rapid rate of change? No climate scientist in the world thinks so. Your data makes it is obvious it is not the case. But you post it as evidence.

Here's a challenge for you. The default state, the null comment, is that nothing is happening or that the extreme claim is not the case. So, find an authoritative source from actual climate science which says that the current rate of climate change is greater than the planet ever went through before the start of the industrial revolution.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Yes you did .... even worse and more silly things you have said time and time again !!
> 
> Maybe an ice core trip to TASMANIA is in order ?
> 
> You still persist about CO2 measurement ... CAPE GRIM is ... where it is ... inside the hollow earth.




Try to find reality. I never said the Earth was hollow. I'm not saying it now, I've never said it before.

No idea why you say I "still persist" about CO2 measurement. Someone else brought it up and I've said little more than 'I don't know much about it but would be interested in learning'.

With such a clear and repetitive demonstration of your lack of desire or ability to be rational or worth talking to, I'll probably not bother to respond to you going forward. This sort of nonsense isn't worth it.


----------



## kahuna1 (21 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Try to find reality. I never said the Earth was hollow. I'm not saying it now, I've never said it before.
> 
> No idea why you say I "still persist" about CO2 measurement. Someone else brought it up and I've said little more than 'I don't know much about it but would be interested in learning'.
> 
> With such a clear and repetitive demonstration of your lack of desire or ability to be rational or worth talking to, I'll probably not bother to respond to you going forward. This sort of nonsense isn't worth it.




Is that a promise ?
*I'll probably not bother to respond to you going forward. This sort of nonsense isn't worth it.
*

You will stop with idiotic comments about sea levels 120 metres higher ? When if every bit of ice melted it would only rise 30 metres ?

Please ...  please ... I suggest a nice trip to your hollow earth .... or to not find fossils at 15,000 feet ... hence the irrelevant nature of all your supposed science.

There is a thread, FAKE NEWS ... Global warming Consensus  ... *you are posting on the wrong thread*. It was started by Ann and maybe you can take a day trip to the hollow earth or the ice cores at Cape Grim in Tasmania ? 

Maybe start your hollow earth thread, or one about seas 120 metres higher ?


----------



## Ann (21 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Cape GRIM ... is located on the Western tip of Tasmania !!




I know this! That is two stations out of the 20 you quoted, I am still waiting for the other members of the 20. There are four.



ghotib said:


> Ann,
> Cape Grim is in Tasmania; I'm sure the Tassia govt would be delighted to receive your proposal for tourist travel to the Tasmanian ice core drilling station. But before you submit it, you might like to check your understanding of carbon sinks and ice core data.




*Arctic sea ice helps remove CO2 from the atmosphere**
_A new study shows that calcium carbonate in the ice absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. 
A new thesis from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources proves sea ice to be an important transporter of greenhouses gases from the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean.
The Arctic has warmed so much over the past few decades that the amount of sea ice has been reduced by some 30 per cent in the summer, and the winter ice has become much thinner.
For this reason it’s to be expected that if the Artic sea ice shrinks, the atmosphere’s content of CO2 will also increase.Ref

_
Ghotib both air ( taken from Cape Grim) and from air samples of carbon sinks*** of firn and ice core samples from the Antarctic are measured at Cape Grim.

_Source: Observed by CSIRO in the atmosphere at Cape Grim, Tasmania (41°S) , and from air extracted from Antarctic firn and ice cores. Ref. _

If you look at the graphs on that Ref. site, note that they are taking ice core measurements dated back to 1500AD which was the depth of the 'Little Ice Age'. But it is great for a quick glance, it makes the rise in co2 look so profoundly dramatic with such a massive rise on such a massive time scale. It is amazing the stories you can create with charts (speaking as a chartist) which incidentally stopped at 2015.


Let's have a look at the natural events which can contribute co2 to the atmosphere, which are completely disregarded as a contributor to co2...
_
During the 1997 Indonesian forest fires 97,000 km² (37,000 sq mi) of forest were destroyed, more than* 2.6 gigatonnes of CO2 was released to the atmosphere*. There are other forest fires in Java and Sulawesi on the same year._

Now lets look at the big volcanic eruptions in recent years...

_Mount St. Helens 1980 Most deadly and economically destructive volcanic eruption in the history of the United States. The eruption reached all the way to Montana but killed a small number of people and the blast of the volcano was heard 700 miles away.

El Chichón 1982 Ejected 7 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere 

Mount Pinatubo  1991 Largest stratospheric disturbance since Krakatoa eruption in 1883, dropping global temperatures and increasing ozone depletion.

Soufriere Hills Volcano  1997  The major volcano eruption caused pyroclastic flows to move at 60-100 MPH and destroyed towns.

Nyiragongo 2002 At least 15% of Goma comprising 4,500 buildings was destroyed, leaving about 120,000 people homeless.

Eyjafjallajökull 2010 Caused the worst flight disruption over Europe since the Second World War. 

Mount Merapi  2010  Over 350,000 people were evacuated from the affected area. Ash plumes caused major disruption to aviation across Java.

Puyehue-Cordón Caulle 2011  Major flight disruptions across the southern hemisphere, including South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Ejecting 0.7 cu km, this event was the biggest volcanic eruption of the 21st century to date.

Mount Sinabung 2014  Mount Sinabung's eruptions caused many pyroclastic flows, one resulting in the loss of 15 lives.

Mount Ontake  2014 A phreatic eruption and pyroclastic flow occurred without warning, killing 63 people. Deadliest eruption in Japan since 1902, first volcano-related deaths in Japan since 1991. 

Calbuco  2015 First eruption at Calbuco since 1972. At least 4,000 people evacuated. No casualties reported.

Mount Sinabung 2016 Mount Sinabung continued to erupt, with 7 fatalities over two different occasions

Volcán de Fuego 2018  At least 190 people were killed after the volcano's most powerful eruption since 1974. Ash forced the closure of La Aurora International Airport in the capital Guatemala City.

Anak Krakatoa 2018  A major eruption triggered a tsunami that killed at least 437 people, and injured 14,059 others. The VEI is said to have possibly reached 4. As a result of the landslide, the height of the volcano was reduced from 338 meters to 110 meters
Ref._

Added to all the volcanoes and bushfires belching co2 and other GHG, it turns out measurements at Cape Grim might potentially be a questionable place to be measuring co2 in the atmosphere, unless the requirements were for higher readings of course....

*Massive ocean carbon sink spotted burping CO2 on the sly*
Data from robotic ocean floats reveal that waters off Antarctica don’t absorb as much carbon as scientists thought.

.......But now researchers report that the choppy waters around Antarctica are also quietly belching out massive quantities of CO2 during the dark and windy winter, reducing the ocean’s climate benefit.

The scientists behind the work, presented this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington DC, say that the winter emissions reduce the Southern Ocean’s net uptake of CO2 by 34%, or more than 1.4 billion tonnes per year. That amount is roughly equal to Japan's annual carbon emissions.Ref.


Ahh yes, let's not ruin a good anthropomorphic story with all the facts!


----------



## kahuna1 (21 April 2019)

Blah blah blah ...

Sorry .... I am on the way to explore the Hollow Earth. And collecting ice cores at Cape Grim ... bit busy wasting time to deal with geography or your, lasting .... display of stupidity.

Oh and under 120 meters of water as well ...

*You do know the Antarctic is 5,000 km SOUTH from Cape Grim  in Tasmania ?
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/geography/distances*

Must run, found the entrance to the Hollow Earth as Sanjiiididi suggested.

Your post about fires .... even big ones at 2.6 billion tons in a once off verses 37 billion a year we EMIT ... as idiotic as the search for the hollow earth. As  to volcanoes, they are already factored in and suggesting they had something to do with the rise from 390 to 410 PPM in the last 10 years ... well is STUPID >.... one idiotic facebook conspiracy theory suggested this .... covered in responses which you and Sadijjiii dont read, misplaced the decimal point 1 million places. ONE MILLION PLACES.

And here you are serving it again ... like your theory about ice cores in Cape Grim Tasmania !!



can you tell me do the Lizard people who live in the Hollow Earth take credit cards? Or AUD currency ?


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Blah blah blah ...
> 
> Sorry .... I am on the way to explore the Hollow Earth. And collecting ice cores at Cape Grim ... bit busy wasting time to deal with geography or your, lasting .... display of stupidity.
> 
> ...





Your irrational, nonsensical tantrums don't deserve a response, but you seem fixated on saying I claimed the sea level was 120m higher than at present. I actually said it was previously 120m *lower*. Big difference. Complete opposite. Sea levels have risen over 120m since the lows. That means they were previously lower than now. They would have to have fallen 120m since the highs to have previously been 120m higher.

Perhaps this inability to understand basic numbers is a big part of the cause of your repeated ramblings and tantrums. Maybe put more effort into reading and thinking than using bold and underlined text in your tantrum posts.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

explod said:


> This is unstoppable change all right.
> 
> "
> *French Riviera Gardener*
> ...




Unfortunately you have completely failed to understand the difference between "not currently stopping" and "unstoppable"

While I am driving my car and my foot is on the accelerator and I am accelerating my speed, I am not unstoppable. I am still perfectly capable of taking my foot off the accelerator, and if I do, the car will gradually come to a stop (we don't even need the brake for this analogy, but the equivalent would be humans actively doing things to repair environmental damage/pollution). The analogy works quite well because in both cases the system is moving in one direction, and in both cases the future has them both moving in the opposite direction. The myth this thread's title comes from is that climate change is now or soon will be at a point where it will enters a positive feedback state and without human influence will continue to warm and become unlivable. To make any sense it needs to be based on another myth which is that the climate is currently hotter or more extreme than ever before. None of this is true, no climate scientist believes so.

Incidentally, neither of the comparison picture pairs above are from the same locations. You have 4 different locations pictured (if the floating ice all melted, you would be left with liquid water, not land, and the topography of the first pictures is different). Also, the population of polar bears is increasing. There are plenty of healthy ones alive today and there have been sick and skinny ones since the dawn of the species. It's ironic that the poster child of 'animals harmed by global warming', the polar bear, has a population which is increasing.


----------



## rederob (21 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Amazing! Look at your first figure. Look at the time scale. Look at the height scale. Look at how many metres that chart says the sea level fluctuates in extremely short intervals. It's also just a scatterplot, not a set of maxima and minima.



This is about science, not comedy.
You claimed "Massive **cycles** over the last few **tens of thousands** of years which go *back and forth.*"  A completely untrue claim as there was barely half a cycle in over 20k years.  That's obvious to anyone, but seemingly *not *you.
You mention that sea levels *fluctuated*.  No problem with that idea as it's beyond dispute.  However, that's not what you were saying to begin with and, being obvious, is somewhat pointless.
You mention it is a *scatterplot*.  Given that is how the only scientific data that was available can be represented, what is your point?  
And you finish by noting that it's "not a set of maxima and minima."  Just think about that comment, then put it in the context of climate, and then you will know how inept you are and why it's so funny!
I will tackle your other comments later on, but between you and qldfrog, the  day has been filled with laughter here.


----------



## rederob (21 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Unfortunately you have completely failed to understand the difference between "not currently stopping" and "unstoppable"



You know that *definitionally* anything which can be reversed must have been stopped at some point.  Climate change can be reversed.
Sadly, you have no logical processes to even work out that your analogies are not relevant.


Sdajii said:


> The myth this thread's title comes from is that climate change is now or soon will be at a point where it will enters a positive feedback state and without human influence will continue to warm and become unlivable.



This is a total nonsense claim.
You are absolutely clueless.
AGW theory does *not *rely on positive feedbacks for its warming trend.
Reducing GHG levels (not just CO2) in the atmosphere will ultimately lead to the planet cooling providing irradiance does not increase.  And given we are in a series of 11-year solar cycles with decreasing irradiance the physics demands only one outcome.
Your knowledge of climate science is not even at a basic level, you have no conceptual skills, do not think logically,  and then continue to repeat what are proven to be falsehoods.
Keep it up.  It's heartening to know that those who deny science are as able as you.


----------



## kahuna1 (21 April 2019)

I am still speaking to the Lizard people .... in the Hollow Earth ...

Even they KNOW ... weather and winds go from West to East. So air, going over 16,000 km of Ocean and NO land, no volcano's even the Lizards are amazed someone was suggesting this.

The Lizard people from Hollow Earth also know what absorbs CARBON the most on the planet ... and I will give you a HINT .... ITS THE OCEAN and its absorbing about 70% of Carbon out of the air. So to suggest volcanoes are causing CO2 and its traveled 16,000 KM ... the air over an ocean is ... the opposite of reality and so stupid the Lizard people from Hollow earth want to meet you !!

The Lizard people also know what produces the majority of oxygen we BOTH breathe. They even know where it comes from. THE OCEAN ... so air over an ocean producing Oxygen and soaking up CO2, and both of you .... Ann and Sandijjiiis are suggesting volcanoes have something to do with Cape Grim Co2 measurement or .... 3 satellites that measure in 1,000 different locations millions of times a year and one at various levels of the atmosphere as well ?

Lizard people need a leader, come ,... to Hollow Earth and they will welcome you !!

No one I thought could suggest such silly things.

I, as always, am ashamed in underestimating human stupidity, greed or cruelty. Never go short .... you will get caught. Sadly I am now being asked for a margin call of negative IQ points ....


----------



## rederob (21 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Look at your second chart, look at the time scale. Do you really think it is possible for that sort of variation to occur without it ever having gone through a more rapid rate of change?



You tell me what the rate of change of climate was, and I will be able to respond.
We are not, here, discussing sea level rates as sea levels are a response to climate.  This is well proven by the last 200 years of data.


Sdajii said:


> Look at your second chart, look at the time scale.



Yes, it's separated into logarithmic time sectors, so millimetres can be in the tens of millions of years.
I have previously told you that you are clueless on issues of scale, so if you think an inflection appears "rapid" the shortest discernible scales are at 100s of years.


Sdajii said:


> Do you really think it is possible for that sort of variation to occur without it ever having gone through a more rapid rate of change?



If you think you know the rates of climate change, then please offer them.
As it stands, your claims are simply more unscientific nonsense.


Sdajii said:


> The default state, the null comment, is that nothing is happening or that the extreme claim is not the case.



Too funny!
Exactly what does that mean as it's not a sense.


Sdajii said:


> So, find an authoritative source from actual climate science which says that the current rate of climate change is greater than the planet ever went through before the start of the industrial revolution.



I have done this previously.
I won't bother doing it again because you do what you always do, and recite rubbish.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

rederob said:


> This is about science, not comedy.
> You claimed "Massive **cycles** over the last few **tens of thousands** of years which go *back and forth.*"  A completely untrue claim as there was barely half a cycle in over 20k years.  That's obvious to anyone, but seemingly *not *you.
> You mention that sea levels *fluctuated*.  No problem with that idea as it's beyond dispute.  However, that's not what you were saying to begin with and, being obvious, is somewhat pointless.
> You mention it is a *scatterplot*.  Given that is how the only scientific data that was available can be represented, what is your point?
> ...




Cycles as in going back and forth. True, they're not regular in time intervals. Sue me.

Check the scatterplot again carefully and see how many times, according to your scatterplot, it has gone up and then down by more than a metre, within periods of 20,000 years.

It may be in the context of climate, but it is a chart of sea level values. I'd say you should be capable of grasping this concept but either through inability or lack of desire, I am not sure.

It's nice to know that at least you are able to be amused. Imagining you inspires visions of what I imagine manic institutionalised mental patients look like.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You know that *definitionally* anything which can be reversed must have been stopped at some point.  Climate change can be reversed.




The universe has always been expanding. It has never been stopped. Hypothetically it could be reversed. I could give as many reasons as I felt like of things which have only ever gone in one direction, have never stopped, but could be reversed (including many which tangibly could be). Everything which reverses must do so for the first time.



> Sadly, you have no logical processes to even work out that your analogies are not relevant.
> This is a total nonsense claim.
> You are absolutely clueless.
> AGW theory does *not *rely on positive feedbacks for its warming trend.
> ...




You continue to demonstrate not being worth responding to (you do so in a variety of ways, which is almost interesting), I'll go back to not responding.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I am still speaking to the Lizard people .... in the Hollow Earth ...
> 
> Even they KNOW ... weather and winds go from West to East. So air, going over 16,000 km of Ocean and NO land, no volcano's even the Lizards are amazed someone was suggesting this.
> 
> ...




So vivid is your imagination that when I say the sea level was previously 120m lower than at present, you claim I believe some insane idea about what might be able to cause the sea level to have been 120m higher, which I never said. Even when that's pointed out, you continue.

And so vivid is your imagination that when I merely say "I don't know much about this, I'd like to learn more" you believe I have been pushing some agenda related to the topic.

You have demonstated that you are no more worthy of response than rederob. Enjoy your insanity. Or don't, I don't care.


----------



## rederob (21 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> The universe has always been expanding. It has never been stopped.



We are discussing climate change.
Please try to be relevant.
That said, you need to realise that *the basis for your claim on the universe is not sound*. The Big Crunc*h* has many adherents.  Importantly, dark energy comprises perhaps 70% of the universe and is not well understood.  Additionally, if our universe was born from a singularity, what says it cannot return to that state.
As I have said suggested many times, your thinking skills are not particularly good.


----------



## Sdajii (21 April 2019)

Do you make deliberately absurd posts just to bait me into responding? If so, well done I guess.



rederob said:


> We are discussing climate change.
> Please try to be relevant.




You said definitionally things can only reverse if they have previously stood still. This was just one of an enormous number of examples which contradict that claim. It is perfectly relevant, as would any other example be.



> That said, you need to realise that *the basis for your claim on the universe is not sound*. The Big Crunc*h* has many adherents.  Importantly, dark energy comprises perhaps 70% of the universe and is not well understood.  Additionally, if our universe was born from a singularity, what says it cannot return to that state.
> As I have said suggested many times, your thinking skills are not particularly good.




Wow, you want to pull that out in the context of complaining about people not believing conventional scientific consensus on climate change.

You win, that was insane enough to get a response, but I'll continue not responding to most of your posts.


----------



## rederob (21 April 2019)

You can choose to be as stupid as you like, but this from you is *FALSE*:


Sdajii said:


> You said definitionally things can only reverse if they have previously stood still.



Whereas I exactly said this:


rederob said:


> You know that *definitionally* anything which can be reversed must have been stopped at some point. Climate change can be reversed.



Your claims are unmitigated garbage, and so regular that it's a bit beyond a joke now.
Then, when I respond to your claim about the universe, you confuse it with climate change, thus:


Sdajii said:


> Wow, you want to pull that out in the context of complaining about people not believing conventional scientific consensus on climate change.



Two points of note.
First, you still do not accept the scientific definition of climate change.
Second, consensus is not science.
As I say often, those that don't accept the science indulge in obfuscation and irrelevances because they simply do not understand what they are talking about.  If you did, you would be discussing forcing effects and drivers.  You never do because you seem to be making stuff up as you go, and hoping you don't get called out.
You are an object lesson of a classic fail.


----------



## qldfrog (22 April 2019)

explod said:


> This is unstoppable change all right.
> 
> "
> *French Riviera Gardener*
> ...



First image: clearing rainforest to grow soya beans for vegan hipsters, 2nd picture: a polar bear shedding his last season fur as all bears have done since start of time...
No please Explod
We all agree humans are screwing the planet but stop with propaganda leaflets


----------



## Ann (22 April 2019)

More of GW/CC political agenda....

*climate change heart of darkness*

_George Monbiot appeared recently on Frankie Boyle's far-left political chat show, "New World Order." A columnist and environmental activist, Monbiot explained how we have to save the planet. And boy, does Monbiot have some ideas.


The easy things we need to change, Monbiot said, are to end air travel flying and cease consumption of meat. If that doesn't sound easy to you, then you're not alone. Indeed, those ideas are so destructive of modern life, economics, and the pursuit of happiness, that they could justifiably be regarded as insane.


But Monbiot was just getting started. Next up, he took us down the intellectual river, into the heart of activist darkness.




"We have to overthrow this system which is eating the planet: perpetual growth," Monbiot declared. And the writer pulled no punches. Annual economic growth targets of 3% represent "madness," he said. The columnist reached his crescendo. "We can't do it by just pitting around at the margins of the problem; we've got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it."  More..._


----------



## Ann (22 April 2019)

....and now a little light relief.....

video of an 8-year-old girl mimicking and mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

Dementia at work !!

When one disputes ice bubbles ... with CO2 levels dating back a million years ... its pointless to give such brilliance the last 40 years of ground station or satellite data.

Dementia at work !!   ...everything is NEW .... or a conspiracy.

Have you worked out where Cape Grim is yet ? Or that no ice cores are there ? That would be new ... for all of us !!


----------



## basilio (22 April 2019)

Moving away from the comedy and looking at the reality of CC risks. 

*What lies beneath: the understatement of existential climate risk (report)*





This latest Breakthrough report argues for an urgent risk reframing of climate research and the IPCC reports. What Lies Beneath is the inside story of how climate policy-making has become embedded in a culture of failure and scientific reticence. The report brings together the voices of some of the world’s leading scientists.

Written by: David Spratt & Ian Dunlop
Foreword by: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

Download


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Do you make deliberately absurd posts just to bait me into responding? If so, well done I guess




So NOW .... your latest theory is that the oceans were 120 metres LOWER ... recently. But they were 120 meters higher and how YOU measure things ... ignoring Tectonics .... only referring to the astrology section ... and spoke at length about YOUR THEORY ... on grasshoppers from central Australia. WHERE ... there was an INLAND sea, so YES levels were higher in the past, Fossils can be found of marine life near Alice Springs.

So they rose 120 meters then FELL another 120 meters ...  A total ocean movement .. of 240 metres ... and this was because the earth is hollow ? Or was it the Lizard people who live inside the hollow earth drinking all the water ?

I am not sure a degree in Astrology is a SCIENCE degree. I just paid $29.99 to a nice Pakistani man over the phone for my degree ... and it seems my account just got drained. Education is so expensive when this occurs, but I do now have also a doctorate in divinity along with a masters in Astrology.


----------



## Sdajii (22 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> So NOW .... your latest theory is that the oceans were 120 metres LOWER ... recently. But they were 120 meters higher and how YOU measure things ... ignoring Tectonics .... only referring to the astrology section ... and spoke at length about YOUR THEORY ... on grasshoppers from central Australia. WHERE ... there was an INLAND sea, so YES levels were higher in the past, Fossils can be found of marine life near Alice Springs.
> 
> So they rose 120 meters then FELL another 120 meters ...  A total ocean movement .. of 240 metres ... and this was because the earth is hollow ? Or was it the Lizard people who live inside the hollow earth drinking all the water ?
> 
> I am not sure a degree in Astrology is a SCIENCE degree. I just paid $29.99 to a nice Pakistani man over the phone for my degree ... and it seems my account just got drained. Education is so expensive when this occurs, but I do now have also a doctorate in divinity along with a masters in Astrology.




Literally none of that makes any sense or even vaguely represents anything I've said.


----------



## rederob (22 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Sea levels have risen over 120m since the lows. That means they were previously lower than now. They would have to have fallen 120m since the highs to have previously been 120m higher.



People have tried to explain that sea levels are affected by other parameters over time, so your proposition is naive.





At million-year time scales Late Cretaceous sea-levels have been estimated at a maximum of 170 metres 82 million years ago, although with an error margin taking it over 265 metres. 
Although interesting to know, what we need to be concerned with today is how the rate of warming will impact future sea levels.  In this regard plate tectonics will not be in any equations as the these movements over geological time have no impact at decadal time scales.


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> but you seem fixated on saying I claimed the sea level was 120m higher than at present. I actually said it was previously 120m *lower*. Big difference.




*Your words* ... you spoke about grasshoppers ... inland Australia when their was an inland sea ... AND much HIGHER sea levels ... YOUR words ... Not mine. Now you refute you said either...

It is a quote off your own post the above ... as to your pet theory as an Astrologer about extinction of insects when the inland sea in  Australia drained is, amusing, and the water NOW was NOT higher ... but lower and in fact 120 metres LOWER than NOW  ....  that's how we had an inland sea ?


_*Gondwana and the Eromanga Sea*
The Australian continent has not always been the same shape or even in the same place. It was once part of the much larger Pangaea landmass, then the great southern land of Gondwana. By the time of the dinosaurs, it was attached to Antarctica and home to the giant inland Eromanga Sea.
https://www.nma.gov.au/learn/kspace/prehistoric-australia-110-million-years-ago/kids
_
NOW ... it did not exist  ? Sea levels were 120 metres LOWER ... not higher ?

I don't have today's Horoscope out of the paper ... and the Astrology section so I must have missed this. Do you have any more conspiracy theories you wish to share ? More hollow earth ? Lizard people ? Cape Grim and Ice caps and cores there today ?
_

_


----------



## Sdajii (22 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *Your words* ... you spoke about grasshoppers ... inland Australia when their was an inland sea ... AND much HIGHER sea levels ... YOUR words ... Not mine. Now you refute you said either...
> 
> It is a quote off your own post the above ... as to your pet theory as an Astrologer about extinction of insects when the inland sea in  Australia drained is, amusing, and the water NOW was NOT higher ... but lower and in fact 120 metres LOWER than NOW  ....  that's how we had an inland sea ?
> 
> ...




You can twist my words if you want. You can continue to flip around in tantrums insisting I meant something I didn't even after I unambiguously clarify if you want.

This merely serves to clearly show you don't have any arguments of actual substance to use, and must resort to insisting I said something I didn't in order to attack that.


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

I sadly am not having a tantrum ... quoting your absurd theories and conspiracies.

I am neither angry, nor sad. Amused I think, at your clinical pathology and conspiracy theories.

Since I quoted, directly your words,* I cannot twist a quote verbatim record of your words.*

I am not being insulting, nor attacking, just amazed and agog. You deny a direct quote on sea levels now magically 120 meters lower at some stage, according to you,  whilst at another 120 meters higher.

Or are you disputing 120 plus 120 equals 240 metres ?

Substance or arguments are irrelevant as we have found, presenting science to such delusions and conspiracy theories, is pointless.  You refute and believe each of 21 common conspiracy theories are correct. All of them ... and even have a long list of your own.

240 metre sea range ? Boy ... its a goodie.


----------



## Sdajii (22 April 2019)

Oh, and perhaps when I said the grasshoppers were isolated you assumed I meant WA was underwater and the populations were on literal land islands surrounded by water? Nothing like that. The area was intense desert (they are arid zone specialists) and the climate was so hot and extreme that the desert became basically hot, dry sand, which almost nothing can live on. As the climate became less extreme their host plants grew and they were able to recolonise the land.

This is not my personal theory, this has been very well studied, it has happened in a lot of different species (including at least one plant) which were all restricted to the same habitable areas. I was only directly involved with the research on the grasshoppers (although their origins, history, etc were well studied and understood before I came along and I was just one of the people continuing one branch of the research), I was also peripherally involved with one of the parthenogenetic reptiles (Heterenotia sp) and interestingly, one of the host plants of my grasshoppers also evolved asexual reproduction at the same time in a very similar way (research I had absolutely nothing to do with). All these species are arid zone specialists, they were isolated by inhabitable desert, not water.


----------



## Sdajii (22 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I sadly am not having a tantrum ... quoting your absurd theories and conspiracies.
> 
> I am neither angry, nor sad. Amused I think, at your clinical pathology and conspiracy theories.
> 
> ...




You know, it's possible to quote out of context, just as you've done here.

I have never said the sea level was 120 metres above where it is now, that has never happened.

I said it was 120m lower, and it then rose 120m bringing to to around where it is now.

That's a 120m range.

If you are still confused, let me bluntly, unambiguously say, that I do not claim the sea level has ever been 120m above where it is now. It has been lower. It has gone down from around current levels then up. I do not claim a 240m range. If you ever say otherwise after reading this unambiguous statement, you are being either deliberately disingenuous, or incredibly stupid.

You can continue to pretend I said something else, you can quote out of context, you can distract from anything of substance, you can throw tantrums and deny it, you can claim and even believe you are correct, but it doesn't do anything other than make you delusional.


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

But ... you talked so lovingly about grasshoppers and the inland sea.

I might add your time-frame was 100,000 years ago, NOT when it occurred, 100 million years ago.

I just read Trumps Tweets and he quoted FOX news as his source 15 times in a  row.


----------



## rederob (22 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> If you are still confused, let me bluntly, unambiguously say, that I do not claim the sea level has ever been 120m above where it is now.



Your claims have no science to them:
*"By assimilating marine geophysical data into reconstructions of ancient ocean basins, we model a Late Cretaceous sea level that is 170 (85 to 270) meters higher than it is today."*
So you really just guess what you talk about on climate.


Sdajii said:


> I do not claim a 240m range. If you ever say otherwise after reading this unambiguous statement, you are being either deliberately disingenuous, or incredibly stupid.



But if it was 120 metres lower, and also 170 metres higher, then the range is substantially more than your "*unambiguous statement*."
You appear to be unambiguously wrong on both your claims referenced above.
Keep up (or is it "down") the good work.


----------



## Sdajii (22 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> But ... you talked so lovingly about grasshoppers and the inland sea.
> 
> I might add your time-frame was 100,000 years ago, NOT when it occurred, 100 million years ago.
> 
> I just read Trumps Tweets and he quoted FOX news as his source 15 times in a  row.




I never spoke of an inland sea.

You are connecting two unrelated things I said. One had a timeframe (the grashopper speciation etc), the other didn't (the sea level). I wasn't relating the two together, they are two entirely different things, I made no attempt to put them in the same context. 

You continually just imagine I say and mean things I have never said or thought, and the run with it, regardless of how many times I say no, I never said that and I don't believe it.

Why would you mention Trump and his tweets?


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> The sad reality is that we're screwing the planet (and again, climate change isn't the big problem)




I would agree in the context of species destruction, but totally disagree the climate change is NOT the biggest long term problem.



Sdajii said:


> The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change



 You ignore 50% more acid in the oceans, levels rising the most in 5,000 years and 1 metre by 2100 v 1900 is the IPCC estimate. 20 metres without action by 2200



Sdajii said:


> The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).



 You have and it ignores ICE cores going back 1 million years with tiny air bubbles with CO2 gas showing we were in the 200 to 370 PPM CO2 for a MILLION YEARS. You ignore the sun and earth going around the sun every 41,000  years has a wobble at its extreme and less sun Hits the surface. You ignore all fossil records of past events. And seamlessly tie events from 100 million and even 600 million years ago as occurring in the past 10k or 100k years to suit your dogmas.



Sdajii said:


> Looking only slightly further back, we see such extreme climate change that within very short periods of time, the climate changed so much that sea levels changed so much that you could literally walk from Australia to PNG on dry land



 I did point out the last ICE event occurred and I agree not CO2 related but during a WOBBLE of the earth around the sun that we KNOW via ICE BUBBLES ... when CO2 levels due to MEGA fauna ... were near 1 million YEAR LOWS. Less irradiance, less stopping it from getting out of the atmosphere ... the HEAT  ... called CO2 ... and as such ... ICE TIME. Oh and the sea levels when one looks DID NOT FALL 120 metres. LAND as tectonic plates hit and forced whole continents to rise and fall . Mountains where they were once seabeds. If one IGNORES this as you seem to .. come up with absurd rises ... AND falls of 120 meters in SEAS. Anything is possible.



Sdajii said:


> Do you need any more of an obvious slap in the face to alert you to the reality that you are allowing yourself to be controlled by the media?




Yes conspiracy theory number 22 !! Thanks ... next.



Sdajii said:


> It presumably didn't happen within decades, but entire cycles of going from one state to another extreme and back (like, sea levels higher than current to low enough to join major land masses and all the way back up within 1-2 thousand years, and perhaps much much faster, and it seems most likely to have been much much faster but no one was there taking measurements more than a couple hundred years ago).



 Yep the 41,000 year cycle around the sun ... the extremes tend to do that. So too ICE ages and short ones wiping out Oxygen producing regions covered with ice and the CO2 balance goes from one end of the 200 to 380 range ina  short period. WE. ... are clearly outside that NOW .... first time in a million years. But you of course dispute this as being any concern, or the ocean acidity up 50% in 40 years, as it tries to absorb CO2 or the carbon and nope fossils of past events, even white layers of dissolved calcium carbonate from previous massive CO2 driven events, not relevant to your theories.

Don't know when that will, if ever occur. Your views changing.

Meanwhile the Great Barrier Reef 25% of the 1980 size due to extreme temperature events on the main, and YEP a bit of the human sort for the 700 out of 3,000 reefs closer to land, we have all 3,000 reefs, all of them 100% of them with Bleaching and death ranging from extreme in the North, less effected by human stuff, they are all in extreme BLEACH and death mode ... to the southern ones now with a 100% bleaching on a lessor level.




Sdajii said:


> 120,000 years ago the sea level was about 5 metres higher than today. 20,000 years ago it was about 120 ***METRES*** lower than that




Sadly delusional  ... a gem ... since I visted recently the Rock Art near Karatha in WA the oldest rock carvings and also Seas shell mounds dated 25,000 to 40,000 years old. Located on the seashore ... Near the current Pluto Gas plant if your looking ... did they walk 50 km to the level of the seas your alluding to, bring the shells back and deposit them  ?



Sdajii said:


> Celestial impacts have occurred many times to varying levels of severity before. I'm not even bothering to hypothesise about future ones, I was talking about previous ones which have done extreme things to the climate, and the climate then returns to normal. The point, which you somehow missed despite it being completely obvious, which was in direct response to the explicit question, was that after it has happened (as in, the actual examples which have already occurred), the climate returns to the normal range. Honestly, I'd struggle to pretend to miss the point as much as you actually do.




Last one was 65 million years ago ... lowest estimate on the recovery was 800,000 Years and it took about 35,000 after the meteor struck to make over 50% of species extinct. We pass the latter milestone in a mere 200 years of modern man, and 800,000 years involved massive CO2 capture naturally the last time via plants being trapped which are NOW oil and COAL deposits.

*Then again, You don't believe CO2 or carbon is an issue ... past OR present. *



Sdajii said:


> *since accurate records began... decades ago - yes, it is changing more rapidly than at any point in the last century, but while we don't have any accurate records, it probably isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 1,000 years (climate scientists are divided on this point) and it definitely isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 10,000 years (the vast majority of climate scientists agree on this and the only ones who don't are a very small number of exceptionally obvious shills).




Gee are ICE bubble of trapped air inside ICE cores going back a million years NOT a very good record ?



Sdajii said:


> Of course there are no records of correlation between two things prior to the 1970s when records weren't being made! There are literally billions of years of history in this planet and we have a few decades of that type of data.




Yes life began in the 1970's !! *DISCO* ... like most all records pre 1970, are to be denied. Being able to measure the type of CARBON in a  fossil has been possible for 50 years and dating a fossil and seeing the MIX of the type of carbon .... IS TO BE IGNORED. Even the fossil record... too !!



Sdajii said:


> I agree that we should take care of the planet. We are rapidly destroying it. Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the biggest issue, and by focussing on it we're ignoring the actual important issues.




Important issues, whilst I agree Humans and their impact on plant and animal life are impossible to ignore. Houston ... we have a problem ... CO2 at levels not seen for a million years and in fact with great confidence ... which you IGNORE carbon dating, the last time we had it at 400 PPM seas were 20 meters higher and half the world was UNINHABITABLE ... then again humans were not around.



Sdajii said:


> The one big point I disagree with climate scientists on is how important CO2 is.




This is my favorite .... all time favorite ... earth had issues ... 5 known die offs. extinction events. ALL CARBON RELATED. Eventually, Carbon got captured sometimes by Seas of vegetation being buried, CARBON capturing ... or massive deposits of limestone ... go to the Nullabor Plain and HAVE a look ... its lime stone,  but NOPE ... we have CO2 highest in a million years and in fact many millions of years, all covering your last 120,000 year theory ... NO ... not a problem. Really ? The ocean in 100 years at current rates of ocean acidity change, ignoring feedback loops, will dissolve .... DISSOLVE shellfish and their outer shells. Its a chemical reaction.

NOPE CO2 is not important !! If you like living.



Sdajii said:


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its relative importance has been overplayed.




Well as a cure ... I suggest its use .. for special people. We burn things, that stopped very old carbon events. Under an electron microscope they can identify WHAT various oil deposits were formed from. CARBON CAPTURING things, algae and for coal buried forests compressed over time.

We humans, now burn them ... and NOPE not a worry !! Well not too much in my lifetime.



Sdajii said:


> 1,000 years happened completely naturally over the last 100,000 years quite a lot of times, and no scientists dispute this




Yes to SOME extent ... NOT where we are NOW ... NOT ocean acidiifcation which has been unseen for 59 million years !! NOR CO2 levels ... if one is NOT living with a delusion that all records pre 1970 are to be ignored ... ICE bubbles in ICE cores buried over a million years .... SHOW CO2 to even a reasonable person have never been above 380 PPM and we hit 410 PPM and rising faster and faster !!



kahuna1 said:


> *The Milankovitch Cycles and their effect on Climate Change*




Known since 1690 ... the Earht and its orbit around the sun and its tilt ... every 41,000 years ... and output dips ... IGNORED to fit your theory.

Bloody hell !!



kahuna1 said:


> LOSS of 6% IRRADIANCE is about the norm ... basically a winter upon a winter ... the cycle 41,000 years, and another the earths actual cycle and its orbit ... again measurable ... two extreme periods ... one is where the TILT is at its maximum irradiance and the other extreme ... oblique and heliun furthest from the sun and MINIMUM solar irradiance.




Ignored as to cause of last dips and ice or colder events ... next one due 10,500 years from now and to be exact ... last one hit 30,000 year or so ago, with ULTRA low CO2 in the air, mega fauna and massive trees and hit with a massive fall in the suns output  ?



kahuna1 said:


> An *"appropriate context* is that your opinion, on science, in about 30 different fields, from ocean acidity to Ocean temperature, to atmosphere to permafrost, to Arctic Shel and Ocean sediment and on and on ... possibly 50 different quite unique and complex scientific fields where 50,000 or so scientists, professors and others operate, and agree, all 50,000 of them, and 200 Nobel prize winners, who peer review and discuss the topics and have been 100% accurate over a very long time ... their findings are ... only to be taken in what you deem to be ... *"appropriate context*.... that being all of them are wrong.
> 
> You have displayed this .... calling their work ... incorrect verses your own, and theirs must be taken in *"appropriate context* ... which is yours. Which the appropriate context is they are wrong, and you are right.
> 
> Interesting and you have shared your view on virtually all of the 16 topics covered in the two videos and ignored all written responses of the same .. for your own *"appropriate context*.




I sadly said it before ...

I am not twisting your words ... or being insulting or even rude.
I quoted your theories, listened to them. Examined the science.
As did 5 or more others on this thread, far more knowledgeable than me. That is not hard !!

We all found your theory, not supported by either fact or science to be incorrect.

You insistence and ignoring all scientific facts, past records that did NOT suit your theory whilst presenting such absurd ones ...  MEDIA controlled ? Or Scientists are all wrong ? and your right ?
*
Can I express my disbelief ?* Without being insulting to someone who clearly has a religious belief they are right ? Or is it an illness ? Dementia or Alzheimer's or just Narcissism and not able to an error or even open to the possibility that you are wrong ?

I spend more time KNOWING I am wrong and DON'T know a bloody thing !! More time than I do being right or even thinking I am. Its refreshing, and a learning experience and everything IS potentially NEW as I go through life learning from others.

Or for say very ill people like Mr Trump who lies and lies on tape and then denies he lies. It is what it is. Or they claim they did ot say that ... and accuse others, as has been the case here of PROJECTION ... or GASLIGHTING because we don't agree ? Best form of defense is attack, and if cornered accuse, minimize and maximize, things are black and white ....

You just did that when I quoted out of your own posts. Not twisting words or ideas. Merely quoting them and I am supposedly the issue ?  Take a deep breath ... and think.

Of the 21 Conspiracy theories about climate change, above, I have directly quoted your VIEWS on 17 of them. All to you, are factual. All to you are real. No possibility of say ICE core air bubbles being correct exits. everything started in 1970 in terms of records. Fossils are irrelevant. On and on and on and on it goes.

Must run. Internet from the Earth Is Hollow, and I am inside Hollow Earth, another conspiracy theory ... is timed and I have used my quota according to the Lizard people, another conspiracy theory ... and have to get off.


----------



## wayneL (22 April 2019)

50% more acid in the oceans?

Got a cite for that @kahuna1 ?


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

PH Levels will have risen 50% ... impossible to stop another 120% PH move ON TOP of the already 50% MOVE ...  by 2100.

See I am wrong ... and sadly right. *PH is a measure of acidity .*..

PH is a logarithmic measure of PH and yep since MODERN irrefutable records, ignoring fossils exist,

*So far, ocean pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 since the industrial revolution, and is expected by fall another 0.3 to 0.4 pH units by the end of the century. A drop in pH of 0.1 might not seem like a lot, but the pH scale, like the Richter scale for measuring earthquakes, is logarithmic. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6. If we continue to add carbon dioxide at current rates, seawater pH may drop another 120 percent by the end of this century, to 7.8 or 7.7, creating an ocean more acidic than any seen for the past 20 million years or more.*
https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

Nope sadly ... PH 120% FURTHER PH  change by end of century and THAT I might add is without any feedback loops which are sadly assured to occur via Arctic Ice removal and Permafrost melt and CH4 frozen Methane seabed issues under the Arctic ice.

We go too far, and well limestone starts to dissolve, releasing Carbon trapped ...  but that's post 2200 ... and by then even the most ardent of deniers will be convinced via other effects.


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> 50% more acid in the oceans?
> 
> Got a cite for that @kahuna1 ?




I think the ABOVE covers this infringement ... sorry.

*For tens of millions of years, Earth's oceans have maintained a relatively stable acidity level. It's within this steady environment that the rich and varied web of life in today's seas has arisen and flourished. But research shows that this ancient balance is being undone by a recent and rapid drop in surface pH that could have devastating global consequences.
*
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

Such evidence indicates that current atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentrations and ocean pH levels are at unprecedented for at least the last 800,000 years.

https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/ocean-chemistry/ocean-acidification/

Because the pH scale is logarithmic (a change of 1 pH unit represents a tenfold change in acidity), this change represents a 26 percent increase in acidity over roughly 250 years, a rate that is 100 times faster than anything the ocean and its inhabitants have experienced in tens of millions of years.

From above ... source and on a 2002 study ... its now 50% in 2019  .. increase. Welcome to climate denial !!


----------



## rederob (22 April 2019)

Although I cannot get 50% for AO, the trend is what is relevant, and it's directly linked to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.


----------



## wayneL (22 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I think the ABOVE covers this infringement ... sorry.
> 
> *For tens of millions of years, Earth's oceans have maintained a relatively stable acidity level. It's within this steady environment that the rich and varied web of life in today's seas has arisen and flourished. But research shows that this ancient balance is being undone by a recent and rapid drop in surface pH that could have devastating global consequences.
> *
> ...



Forgive me, I am not an expert in this area. My reading indicates that the ocean pH is on the base side, having putatively moved from 8.2 to 8.1.

Can we claim that a substance having become slightly less base, be termed more acidic? On the face of it that seems a little bit disingenuous to me.

But as I said, I'm not an expert and will do more reading on this as time permits


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

Yep. 

Ocean acidity, like CO2 prior levels debated. CO2 not seriously due to ICE core samples .... Pre a million years ago, despite carbon dating ... still some debate.

An aside.
Ocean acidification samples collected from 1850, of seawater. They, well according to some are irrelevant and to be ignored. FINE.

Some serious ones post 1960 collected are NOT. But some ignore.

Since 1999 even greater efforts show some very serious treads and post 2003 when Argo started, the bouys at sea that sink to 2000 meters and rise measuring both PH and Temp, the evidence is not possible to be questioned. I would mention satellite data since 1981 on the surface temp as well, but that too would be ignored.

What the most recent levels show, other than A PH the ocean has not seen in 800,000 years is a very clear and the post 2003 till 2019 current moves show an exponential INCREASE in the fall of PH and acidity RISE. Much like the recent ... 

*Exponential RISE in the rate of CO2,  
Exponential RISE in the rate of Methane CH4, 
Exponential RISE in the rate of sea rise
Exponential RISE in the rate at which Arctic Ice is decreasing in volume ...
Exponential RISE in the rate at the fall in PH and increase in acidity is occurring.*

Not able to be seriously questioned, as its being now measured by impartial identical ... satellites or probes ... the issue is the exponential nature of it which, well if you deny even CO2 is an issue, or the rate of say sea rise is now 150% of what it was not so long ago, 50 years ago, or the ACIDITY level of the ocean the same ... 50% different ...

Sorry must correct myself .... RATIONALLY QUESTIONED would be closer to the truth. 

All is well.
The flip side, IPCC does capture SOME of this exponential increase, in their Models,  BUT A LOT ... is discard and ignored and discounted more for political reasons and what the USA and Canada and Saudi Arabia refusing to sign off on their estimates till its dumbed down. What is released is chilling enough. 

I would add, NOT one feedback loop such as Permafrost melting likely in the 2050-2070 period in earnest and releasing 1.8 trillion tons of capture CO2 is in any model. Nor is Arctic frozen ice below the Arctic ice sheet, and an at best estimate is minimum 2 billion tons which the atmosphere will have a cow and best estimate is 100 times more effect than CO2, and top end ... just Arctic methane seabed, NOT the methane from Permafrost which will be at BEST double that, the at worst number is 30 billion tons of it, and since the Atmosphere cant deal with it, at 100 times CO2 impact, the CO2 level and its warming blanket ... not contained ... in any model IPCC due to political nature of it ... lets be optimistic and 2 billion methane via seabed and 4 via Permafrost at 100 times CO2 impact, is a mere 600 billion tons impact of current CO2 emissions of close to 20 years at once .... to worst case ... well ... 50 years 2019 CO2 emissions. 

Over a short period, CO2 ppm goes up either say 150 PPM or 375 PPM and by 2060 an at best it will be starting at say 700 PPM ? 

Boy its depressing ... knowing if it raised sea levels 20 meters at 410 PPM, I do wonder what time  at levels of 1,000 plus PPM CO2 will do or 1,200 PPM and how many more feedback loops occur? 

Then again, exponentially all these things are increasing. NOT just breaking 800,000 year or million year records, BUT rising at a FASTER EXPONENTIAL PACE.

But here, on this thread, as with the USA led media, we have denial of even it breaking a new 800,000 year record; let alone *the change accelerating at even a faster pace*. 

In 2018 USA media reported climate change 45% LESS despite the IPCC report and 4 severe climate related events in the USA.

Must go take some happy pills after this !! Or develop some mental condition that steals what remaining IQ i have left, which is not a lot !!


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Forgive me, I am not an expert in this area. My reading indicates that the ocean pH is on the base side, having putatively moved from 8.2 to 8.1.
> 
> Can we claim that a substance having become slightly less base, be termed more acidic? On the face of it that seems a little bit disingenuous to me.




Neither am I, and expert,

I did however read the link prior to giving it. It clearly explains HOW and WHAT PH is and its move from 8.2 to 8.1 means, all be it quoting a 2002 data set, NOT ARGO and its 2003-2019 studies and via 3,000 automated buoys in the sea that drop to 2000 metres and measure both temp and PH levels.

I think Smithsonian quotes as of 2002 data a 26% move, to 2019 and now 50%, and Woods hollow is a 55% move in PH levels since 1850-2019.

*Both are either 50 or 55% move in PH and acidity since 1850* if you read their stuff. I did provide the links.

THEY both estimate by 2100, what took 169 years from the year 1850 ... to move 50% in term of PH will move 100%  if not 120% by 2100. That is a mere 81 years verses 169 years looking BACK. *Half the TIME ... DOUBLE the PH move. *

Again clearly stated on their site, and studies of current trends and rates via ARGO.

have fun


----------



## wayneL (22 April 2019)

This may seem a bit of a pedantic point but I think it's quite important.

Let's suppose we have some sodium hydroxide with a ph of 14, and we mixed in some sodium carbonate with the pH of 10 or something like that.

Both are strongly base, but by mixing the sodium bicarbonate in with the sodium hydroxide we will have significantly reduced the pH from 14, but we'll still have a really quite strongly basic mixture, somewhere around 12 on the face of it. ( that is assuming that we don't blow our faces off by not knowing what the hell we're doing).

Can we really say that we have made that mixture more acidic? Really?


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

Not pedantic ...

Its fair enough ...

Please read the SITE .... the data and ...


*Because the pH scale is logarithmic (a change of 1 pH unit represents a tenfold change in acidity), this change represents a 26 percent increase in acidity over roughly 250 years, a rate that is 100 times faster than anything the ocean and its inhabitants have experienced in tens of millions of years. 
https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/ocean-chemistry/ocean-acidification/


Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is the world's leading, independent non-profit organization dedicated to ocean research, exploration, and education. 

I tend NOT to question *the planets leading institution on  simple PH and acidity levels.

CO2 which *we emit at close to 40 billion tons per year* via human activity, it ends up in the OCEAN for more than 60% of it, if not 70% of it.It tends to do wonderful things adding carbon to various types of rocks and the chemical nightmare.

Once dissolved in seawater, CO2 reacts with water, H2O, to form carbonic acid, H2CO3: CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3. Carbonic acid dissolves rapidly to form H+ ions (an acid) and bicarbonate, HCO3-(a base).  Seawater is naturally saturated with another base, carbonate ion (CO3−2) that acts like an antacid to neutralize the H+, forming more bicarbonate. The net reaction looks like this: CO2 + H2O + CO3−2→ 2HCO3-

As carbonate ion gets depleted, seawater becomes undersaturated with respect to two calcium carbonate minerals vital for shell-building, aragonite and calcite. Scientific models suggest that the oceans are becoming undersaturated with respect to aragonite at the poles, where the cold and dense waters most readily absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide.  The Southern Ocean is expected to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite by 2050, and the problem could extend into the subarctic Pacific Ocean by 2100..

It is mere chemistry how and where the CO2 ends up and causes the change. NOT open to debate or even interpretation as if we do it a billion times, the experiment, the outcome will not alter. The volume we EMIT and add is not either in question, the total. BLOODY big acid kit we have going on, but that's post 2100 and likely 2150 where it really hits.

OOH depressing ... But lets escape to the Hollow Earth with the Lizard people !!

If only that conspiracy theory was TRUE !!


----------



## wayneL (22 April 2019)

I'm not disputing the science,  I don't know enough about the same, but I am disputing the language.

If the ocean has moved from 8.2 to 8.1 it has become less basic by 0.1. That means that pH can move another 1.1 before we even get to Neutral, not acid, neutral.

The term "acidification" then, just seems alarmist to me,


----------



## cynic (22 April 2019)

"Less alkaline" just doesn't have the same alarming ring to it!


----------



## kahuna1 (22 April 2019)

Alarmist ?   the word ACIDIFICATION ? Your kidding ?

Well ... if it goes much further, even near neutral; let alone acidic and dissolving shells instantly or over an hour, a change to what will be 2150 PH  levels and Crabs will not be able to FORM shells easily if at all. Again. Factual and if you read further.

Alarmist ? A crab, without a shell ?

Ocean acidification
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

*acidification* to be exact, and pedantic is *"The action or process of making or becoming acidic.:*

This process, is measured, by changes in PH levels.

Calling it alarming ? Seriously ? 

It is what it is called !! The PH level is either rising or falling, becoming more acidic, NOT ACID .... but ACIDIC ... at the extreme end of the scale, acids YES but before you get even mildly acidic, put a copper coin in Coke overnight and then get back to me tomorrow about how a poor crab will feel in 2150.

Reality is, what it is. Being alarmist describing a process, of becoming more acidic is NOT claiming its going to be bloody acid next week. NOR next century.

Stephen Hawking, his view, prior to his death was eventual acid storms and earth much like Venus. Not sure if the have published his works yet, but he was not being alarmist and smarter than me he was. many many times smarter.

If the process were RISING PH levels, becoming more ALKALINE I am not sure, but I think rising Alkalinity is that alarming ?

Not going to debate English or so I thought.

Alkalinification ?  Making something more Alkaline, IS NOT ... that ... but its something called ....
*basification*
(ˌbeɪsɪfɪˈkeɪʃən)
_n_
the process of making something alkaline

Use that next climate change denial meeting  and claim the ocean is under basification and not rising PH levels called Acidification.

Win the door prize with that quip !!

Door prize being a loss of 50 IQ points for being there in the first place.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 April 2019)

How soon will the "Extinction Rebellion" mob establish notoriety in Australia? The Australian mob will need to do some outdoors activities such as sleeping on the road. 





Or playing dead.


----------



## rederob (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Use that next climate change denial meeting and claim the ocean is under basification and not *rising *PH levels called Acidification.



Common trap when not careful, but it's a *declining *pH level which leads to acidification.

Next, what is an "alarmist"?
So often used but never explained as a valid concept in science.
In forums it appears to be used by people who simply do not know anything about their subject, so they become victims of their own abuse of science.  As in, if I add some water to a glass of vinegar, the mixture is still acidic, but the process was called *basification*.  And that  sounds "alarmist"?
Sounds more like comedy.
This thread is full of it.


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

Worked in chemical manufacturing for the last 30 odd years (instrumentation / electrical) measuring most things analytical including pH.

The terms used are no different than what you see discussed.

In general terms acidic / neutral / alkaline are the states with neutral rarely getting a mention.

Regardless of the pH measured it would be normal to discuss the direction to not from i.e. more alkaline or more acidic.

I would expect acidification  to be the correct description and hadn't given it a thought whether it was  "alarmist" I guess use what ever you need to confirm your bias.

As mentioned its a log scale and worries me far more that CC "alarmist" temperatures warming changing rain fall patterns it will be the end game for humans.

But as a good mate of mine points out the earth will carry on happily with out us


----------



## wayneL (23 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Worked in chemical manufacturing for the last 30 odd years (instrumentation / electrical) measuring most things analytical including pH.
> 
> The terms used are no different than what you see discussed.
> 
> ...



Like I said, am in no way au fait on this. 

So... If we took some sodium hydroxide with a ph of 14 and added just enough sodium carbonate, itself a base, to raise the solution to 13, are we to describe that process as acidification? Even though no acidic substances at all were added?

Likewise if we have some hydrochloric acid to which we add some acetic acid to increase the ph, are we said to be alkalizing (basifying?) that solution?


----------



## rederob (23 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> So... If we took some sodium hydroxide with a ph of 14 and added just enough sodium carbonate, itself a base, to raise the solution to 13, are we to describe that process as acidification? Even though no acidic substances at all were added?



Acidity is determined on the basis of hydrogen ion concentration.
Any mixing of solutions which raises the initial hydrogen ion concentration is *acidification.
This is a process outcome descriptor *and is independent of the input descriptors.  That's because different concentration levels of sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate could be mixed to reduce the initial hydrogen ion concentration. 


wayneL said:


> Likewise if we have some hydrochloric acid to which we add some acetic acid to increase the ph, are we said to be alkalizing (basifying?) that solution?



If the mixture results in a solution with more hydroxide ions than hydrogen ions then *basification *occurs.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Use that next climate change denial meeting and claim the ocean is under basification and not rising PH levels called Acidification.
> 
> Win the door prize with that quip !!
> 
> Door prize being a loss of 50 IQ points for being there in the first place.




I think YOU missed the word *QUIP *...

this thread 500 posts has been ... well conspiracy theories and QUIPS or so I thought.

ICE is increasing in the Arctic when its in fact retreating ..... 
CO2 is from Volcanoes when the nearest relevant one to Cape Grim is 16,000 KM away ...

Temperatures are Falling ... when satellites are impartial and clearly show RISES ...

So my Quip ...
a  clever or witty remark or comment
a  sharp, sarcastic remark
a witty or funny observation 

Or better still .... a clever usually taunting remark

Was to speak of Acidification and that is I agree FALLING PH levels as I clearly set out .... but turn it around and claim rising PH levels.

Not a mistake ... a quip to the climate deniers next meeting for the door prize.

Sadly not a good joke but relevant to this thread and discussion.

It is with regret I have been awarded the door prize and LOST 50 IQ points for the QUIP ... and now have a negative IQ ...

For NOT picking up it was a quip ....  but yep seeing the error ... well done. A quip is a quip.

Not sadly a good joke.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 April 2019)

It is I think like the tide .... the climate debate, trying to stop the sheer stupidity of some views.

When science is ignored and we have today .... the Liberal National Party ...

_Mr Rennick last month accused the weather bureau of "rewriting weather records to fit in with the global warming agenda!" 
"Our public servants are out of control," he said on Facebook.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...erard-rennick-bom-climate-conspiracy/11036404
_
What relevance the BOM has to say NASA satellites that measure the global temperatures is absurd ... let lone the Europeans with two shiny NEW satellite that measure a whole host of things ... the BOM is well irrelevant ..

Even Better ... _

Identical idiotic dogma ... and NOT a joke or PUN or QUIP ...

Pauline Hanson quoted a top 10 of idiotic conspiracy theory myths on the climate .... and believes them ALL ..._
*Pauline Hanson says humans are not behind the causes of climate change ...

the same shifts in climate that caused the extinction of dinosaurs are behind changes the world is experiencing today. *
_
I thought a meteor the size of Mount Everest traveling at 20 times the speed of a bullet started the last extinction event ... and the BLOODY big hole and vaporized fossil remains .... caused the start of that event, but stuff me ... _
*"If climate change is happening it is not because man is causing it to happen."*_
_
Lizard people ? Or did a bloody big rock hit we all missed ? _

*volcanic eruptions and oceans caused more carbon emissions than man-made pollution*.
_
Sadly, the Facebook myth ... on volcanoes is still alive and well ... and since Oceans ABSORB 60-70% f the CO2 and produce over 50% of the oxygen ... what a bloody idiot she is !! 

She did go on and on ... talking about Queensland and ignored the sad fact the great barrier reef is 25% of the size it was in 1985 due to BLEACHING of coral which is ... temperature related and now seen in 100% of the 3000 Reefs. She seems to have missed that ...
_
https://www.news.com.au/national/br...e/news-story/c6e1e36be5fd9b3f7d324b52bfaa79aa
_
A spokesperson thought Pauline was under attack and ... well the Utube of his comments referring to a TV show ... and how Orange haired people are attacked and NOT evil is ... perplexing.

Such is the state of the climate change issue. 
Here is her spokesperson gibbering on about south park ... Well worth a watch ... _


_
I sadly found the Utube more amusing than reality.

this one on the Myths she touched upon along with the Liberal Party make me feel, concerned ... 

here is the U tube ... 

_
_
To hit every single MYTH ... and believe some weird conspiracy theory, is hard ... but heck its Pauline and surprising the Liberals to come out and do the same rather than the covert way they usually do.
_

Take care


_


----------



## rederob (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> For NOT picking up it was a quip ....



I didn't miss the quip, but it was achieved on *terminological* role reversal and needn't have included any reference to a directional trend of pH levels, which ended up turning the sentence into a nonsense. Not that I could be accused of pedantry here.


----------



## wayneL (23 April 2019)

I can only get through about a quarter of your posts @kahuna1  before they become impossible to read, due to rolling eye syndrome.

It's a shame,  because the approximately 5% of the time you actually have a point, is probably missed.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 April 2019)

Good,


wayneL said:


> approximately 5% of the time you actually have a point, is probably missed




Always refreshing to see your lack of education/intelligence on display.

Even admitting it more amusing !!


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Like I said, am in no way au fait on this.
> 
> So... If we took some sodium hydroxide with a ph of 14 and added just enough sodium carbonate, itself a base, to raise the solution to 13, are we to describe that process as acidification? Even though no acidic substances at all were added?
> 
> Likewise if we have some hydrochloric acid to which we add some acetic acid to increase the ph, are we said to be alkalizing (basifying?) that solution?




At the extremes of scale you put up the discussion would be about the fall / rise / change in pH and makes no difference whats added.

As the ocean pH is 8 ish next to 7 neutral and moving  lower for a general population explanation alkaline / acid to me would be used in the description.

In my day to day work with process / chemical engineers / chemists some with PhD's also dealing with the various government departments that did the regulatory audits etc this would be normal. 

Rederobs exact explanation is what you would use if you were siting exams or writing a research paper. 

If you want to claim its propaganda go for it.

Nice distraction from the fact its happening,  causes are well understood (basic science no models required) not aware of any fossil fuels money backing distention and no plans to stop.

Like I keep saying its end game, CC is SFA in comparison and alarmingly its not that far to cross the line of no return.


----------



## wayneL (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Good,
> 
> 
> Always refreshing to see your lack of education/intelligence on display.
> ...



I think my insult was better. No prize for second go,  mate


----------



## rederob (23 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> At the extremes of scale you put up the discussion would be about the fall / rise / change in pH and makes no difference whats added.



Not strictly true.
Concentration levels of respective solutions affect each outcome, so in each case - using the solutions in WayneL's examples - the the results could have been the opposite.  However, his examples did include the pH direction, so you are otherwise correct.


----------



## wayneL (23 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> At the extremes of scale you put up the discussion would be about the fall / rise / change in pH and makes no difference whats added.
> 
> As the ocean pH is 8 ish next to 7 neutral and moving  lower for a general population explanation alkaline / acid to me would be used in the description.
> 
> ...



I have Red blocked,  not interested in what it has to say. 

But you misconstrue my intention dprobably intentionally>. My intention is to understand,  but also understanding for people not up on the vagaries of ph.

The average schmuck believes the oceans have become acidic, via the acidification terminology. This is not the case.  

This is similar to the extreme weather narrative , which (at this point) a load of old cobblers. 

Perceptions are important and easily manipulable.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Always refreshing to see your lack of education/intelligence on display.




And again ...

*The average schmuck believes the oceans have become acidic, via the acidification terminology. This is not the case.
*
I did think PH falling was becoming more acidic.  Not in your case ... apparently.

I am falling off my seat ...


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I have Red blocked,  not interested in what it has to say.




Shame .....you are in a echo chamber then Red is one of the more astute and accurate posters here at least he must be I agree with his premise almost entirely


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

"The average schmuck believes the oceans have become *more *acidic, via the acidification terminology. This is not the case. "

Afraid they have (helped you out there with "more" for the sake of accuracy )and they will be acidic some time in the future of course humans will be long gone before that point is reached.


----------



## Sdajii (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> And again ...
> 
> *The average schmuck believes the oceans have become acidic, via the acidification terminology. This is not the case.
> *
> ...




This whole topic is basically just irrelevant semantics (the issue of acidification/alkalinity reduction is important, but that argument about the semantics is stupid).

Whatever you call it, it's a bit of a concern.

He does have a bit of a point, the public is being lead to believe the ocean is acidic (most people probably assume it was/should be neutral). I personally wouldn't even think about complaining about the term 'acidification' for the mechanism causing the reduction in ocean pH though. If a strong basic solution was diluted with a weaker basic solution and the pH dropped, I'd think maybe there was validity in complaining about it being called acidification, nit picking as it is, but with the current chemistry going on, yeah, it's fair enough to call it acidification and it's the word I would choose to describe it.

Arguing over terminology and getting all smug pretending to fall off your seat or whatever is pretty pathetic though.

Technically, pH lowering while still being alkaline isn't becoming more acidic. It's closer to being acidic. To say something is more acidic means it is actually acidic. Acidification through the production of carbonic acid as the ocean absorbs atmospheric CO2 can legitimately be called acidification in my opinion, but you can't correctly say it's becoming more acidic until it actually becomes acidic.

Either way, it's a silly point to split hairs over.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Technically, pH lowering while still being alkaline isn't becoming more acidic




What is it becoming if NOT closer to the acidic end of the scale ?

dazzle us ?

Can a crab form a shell at a PH level below 7 ? 

In say 2150 ? even at a mildly acidic state ...  Coke at PH of 4 ... overnight takes away the top layers of a penny ... overnight. How about living in yes milder PH levels but ALL the time ??


----------



## wayneL (23 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Shame .....you are in a echo chamber then Red is one of the more astute and accurate posters here at least he must be I agree with his premise almost entirely



I disagree with you there. 

I hate to split hairs again, but an echo chamber does not admit any contrary thought.  I have him blocked, not because I think his intellectual points are unreasonable (even if I think some of them are wrong), it is because of the excessive and unreasonable ad hominem and unreasonable debating style.

I would point out that Komrade Red is the only one blocked.  You, bas, kahuna, and all the other commies here are not. 

That is not an echo chamber.


----------



## Sdajii (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> What is it becoming if NOT closer to the acidic end of the scale ?
> 
> dazzle us ?




Less alkaline.



> Can a crab form a shell at a PH level below 7 ?




Yes. Crabs and other crustacea do live in acidic water. But if you are asking if hypothetically an actually acidic ocean would be catastrophic, then yes, it would be catastrophic. There's no one saying that's at all likely though.



> In say 2150 ? even at a mildly acidic state ...  Coke at PH of 4 ... overnight takes away the top layers of a penny ... overnight. How about living in yes milder PH levels but ALL the time ??




I'm not sure if you're naive or deliberately trying to misrepresent the chemistry. I strongly suspect the former.


----------



## wayneL (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Can a crab form a shell at a PH level below 7 ?




That would actually be pretty cool. Shelling crabs is messy and a pain on the 4ss.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> You, bas, kahuna, and all the other commies here are not.




Now I am communist !! Brilliant.

From the Smithsonian ... by 2100 ...
Generally, shelled animals—including mussels, clams, urchins and starfish—are going to have trouble building their shells in more acidic water, just like the corals. Mussels and oysters are expected to grow less shell by 25 percent and 10 percent respectively by the end of the century

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

let alone 2150 ...

but who cares ? 

Soft shell crabs year round or a feat for things in the sea that like crab meat !!


----------



## rederob (23 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> ...it is because of the excessive and unreasonable ad hominem and unreasonable debating style.



When he really means that whenever asked for *evidence *for his claims, he can't offer it.  As these very claims he makes are also without evidence... unless he claims his opinions as *facts*.


Sdajii said:


> He does have a bit of a point, the public is being lead to believe the ocean is acidic (most people probably assume it was/should be neutral).



Most people are not good at science.
Most people do not know that rain (precipitation if you prefer) is slightly acidic.
Most people would not know which of the major food groups were basic or acidic.
Most people think that  drinking a glass of milk can relieve heartburn, whereas milk fats are acidic and can stimulate the stomach to produce more *acid.*
Most people won't put their unfounded ideas in writing.
But some posting regularly here make claims that have been shown to be false, and repeat them ad nauseum in their blissful ignorance.


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I disagree with you there.
> 
> I hate to split hairs again, but an echo chamber does not admit any contrary thought.  I have him blocked, not because I think his intellectual points are unreasonable (even if I think some of them are wrong), it is because of the excessive and unreasonable ad hominem and unreasonable debating style.
> 
> ...




Haha clearly I m not trying hard enough 

We grow a lot when we can deal with those things that irk, note its more about us than the irker.

Remember its just black writing on a screen nothing more.


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Now I am communist !! Brilliant.




Mark the scale for this is any one who criticises Trump or is politically left of Genghis Khan or has a social conscience is a commie........wear it with pride  you are normal.


----------



## rederob (23 April 2019)

kahuna1 said: ↑
What is it becoming if NOT closer to the acidic end of the scale ?
dazzle us ?


Sdajii said:


> *Less alkaline.*



Except that this may not be true.
Basification and alkalinity are very different chemical features.
Given we were talking about oceans, then absorption of CO2 leads to a lowering of pH, but also actually raises the alkalinity by causing dissolution of carbonates.


wayneL said:


> My intention is to understand, but also understanding for people not up on the vagaries of ph.



That would be difficult.  You do not understand chemistry.
And you do not understand climate, as per this:


wayneL said:


> This is similar to the extreme weather narrative , which (at this point) a load of old cobblers.



You could, of course, offer evidence for this claim.
But like most of your posts, they are rubbish.


----------



## qldfrog (23 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I disagree with you there.
> 
> I hate to split hairs again, but an echo chamber does not admit any contrary thought.  I have him blocked, not because I think his intellectual points are unreasonable (even if I think some of them are wrong), it is because of the excessive and unreasonable ad hominem and unreasonable debating style.
> 
> ...



I have to say Redor.. was one of the person i ignore the fastest.
I have no will whatsover to ever meet him/her and discuss anything with that person not based on his her ideas but on the overall attitude
I am pained at the positions of others fallen prey to propaganda or over reading of negative guardian garbage, and enjoy reading more scientific input of others.


----------



## qldfrog (23 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Mark the scale for this is any one who criticises Trump or is politically left of Genghis Khan or has a social conscience is a commie........wear it with pride  you are normal.



Or you are a muppet who may one day learn to think by yourself?
But for the time being, enjoy following the masses..can not go wrong and feel so good


----------



## wayneL (23 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Mark the scale for this is any one who criticises Trump or is politically left of Genghis Khan or has a social conscience is a commie........wear it with pride  you are normal.



You guys actually made the rules, you know. Vis a vis, anyone to the right of Pol Pot is a Nazi.

It is now at the stage where everyone is either a commie or a Nazi...

...or both, like I've been called at various times.


----------



## rederob (23 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I am pained at the positions of others fallen prey to propaganda or over reading of negative guardian garbage, and enjoy reading more scientific input of others.



It's good that you learned to read.
Shame your claims are shoddy on most topics here.
At least you and WayneL plus a few others don't have to worry about *evidence *for anything you say, because it would turn you into a pack of liars.  And we don't want that, do we?


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Or you are a muppet who may one day learn to think by yourself?
> But for the time being, enjoy following the masses..can not go wrong and feel so good




Wayne you complain about this

"unreasonable ad hominem and unreasonable debating style."

Then support  the above

Really


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> You guys actually made the rules,




Rubbish


----------



## Sdajii (24 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Basification and alkalinity are very different chemical features.
> Given we were talking about oceans, then absorption of CO2 leads to a lowering of pH, but also actually raises the alkalinity by causing dissolution of carbonates.




Amazingly, you've actually pulled me up on something which I was actually wrong about, and corrected me. After all your stupid attempts, you did get something right.

Credit where it's due, you've actually, legitimately done it. You may have been nit picking to the extreme and it doesn't excuse all your other nonsense, but yes, you are correct, I should have said 'less basic' rather than 'less alkaline'. Base and alkaline are often used synonymously, and I was guilty of that here. Guilty as charged. Congratulations, give yourself a point.

But hey, if you want to get to that level of ridiculous nit picking, you have to accept our friend's complaint about calling something "more acidic" when it is not actually acidic at all.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2019)

From a discussion which took place in the offline world - "the biggest problem preventing resolution of this problem is not technical or economic but the ideological pursuit of perfection".

Sums it up pretty well in my view. There's an awful lot of argument which amounts to the pursuit of perfection and the end result is nothing gets done since one side won't improve on what they see as already a big step forward and the other side won't accept it because it's not totally perfect.

That plays out pretty much everywhere when it comes to solutions. Always someone looking for problems and finding some reason why it's not perfect rather than embracing a leap forward.

We'd still be living in caves pending the invention of a 100% perfect house if that attitude had prevailed historically.

A pragmatic approach is sadly lacking in all this. If the issue is real then that lack of pragmatism, not a lack of knowledge or technology, is what will end up cooking the planet.


----------



## Sdajii (24 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> From a discussion which took place in the offline world - "the biggest problem preventing resolution of this problem is not technical or economic but the ideological pursuit of perfection".
> 
> Sums it up pretty well in my view. There's an awful lot of argument which amounts to the pursuit of perfection and the end result is nothing gets done since one side won't improve on what they see as already a big step forward and the other side won't accept it because it's not totally perfect.
> 
> ...




I don't think it's a search for perfection. That is never a driving force in big global trends. Relating it to your point, if it was, we'd still be living in caves.

Whether or not you want to consider humans to be the primary cause of the current change in climate, and whether or not it is portrayed accurately or it is exaggerated, it is human nature (and indeed the nature of all living things) to look after one's self first, then close kin, then the wider group, then one's own species, then the overall system. You can cherry pick aberrations in that overall system, but that's the way living things operate.

If a puddle is capable of supporting 100 tadpoles, each female lays 50 eggs, and there are 10 females wanting to spawn, they don't have 8 volunteer not to breed, they all go for it and they all fail. If there is a finite amount of sugar, the yeast doesn't find a system to use it sustainably, they all eat and reproduce as fast as possible until the sugar runs out and all the yeast starves. Other than an aberrant few, you're not going to have people giving up their lifestyles so others can have theirs. The majority of people are going to use resources as much as they can, and admit it, you and I are the same. Ever flown overseas just for a holiday to have fun? Ever driven a car just for fun? Do you buy clothes even though your old ones are still wearable? Honestly, how much food do you throw away and do you eat basic, locally-grown staples or fancy wine, beef, seafood, food imported from all corners of the globe, or whatever your fancy is? Do you but birthday presents you're not entirely sure people will keep? Do you receive presents like that? It goes on and on. We are wasteful, we consume resources greedily. It is the nature of life.

I don't by any stretch think climate change (whatever is driving it) is our biggest threat. Even if the doomsday climate predictions are correct, there are much bigger threats coming to hit us much sooner. Our lack of action is due to our selfish, greedy nature, not because we are perfectionists, and we are not perfectionists anyway.


----------



## qldfrog (24 April 2019)

Agree @Sdajii so my endless cry to wake up when i see the west producing less than a 3rd of CO2..supposed ti be the great threat to the world asking for ever more effort and self blaming from its citizens while china and india, but overall the rest of the world pressing ahead at madness pace.
This is where ideology rules
The greens should be in the street asking for chinese and indian product boycott and oil sanctions against them etc
Whether or not GW/CC is or not the greatest threat to the planet, it is without doubt used as a manipulation of western population as far as i see  it by the globalist anti western movement.
In a year+ in China have I ever heard of global warming mentioned?
Nope :not in papers or in conversation with chinese colleagues.they have electric vehicle to fight city air  pollution yes..but powered by coal stations in the countryside
GW is not on the agenda of the biggest industrial powerhouse of the world and we are fighting on terminology on sea water PH?
Seriously?
First reduce overpopulation and then we can start maybe somewhere on CO2 emissions, in the meantime get a life,cause you have to realise that you, us or our country can and will not  change a thing


----------



## qldfrog (24 April 2019)

And pragmatism is also realising our limits.is climate changing.yes..so prepare for it
More floods more droughts more heatwaves
There are solutions for these and maybe real jobs for our barista economy


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Mark the scale for this is any one who criticises Trump or is politically left of Genghis Khan or has a social conscience is a commie........wear it with pride  you are normal.




Thanks for that. I must get rid of my conscience and lots of lack of tolerance for liars like Trump.



qldfrog said:


> Or you are a muppet who may one day learn to think by yourself?
> But for the time being, enjoy following the masses..can not go wrong and feel so good




Well isn't that a nice thing to say ? * Strange, that a person who rarely follows the masses, clearly thinks outside the box and for themselves IS such a threat to your little world and beliefs.*

Strange, given the last quote, I have learnt a lot even on this thread from far more knowledgeable people. I have had to examine my own understanding of a complex list of topics relating to the climate. All of it good.

Well most of it.
I entered with a view that irrespective of what humanity does, we got to 1,000 PPM CO2 plus within 100 years. I entered with a strong view that feedback loops one and two occur and three as well, the ocean not being in a good state in 50 years let alone 100. Similar views on temperature and a long list of other contributors.

Presented with, dogma, fantasy, myth and even here, on the ability of a bloody crab to form a shell when PH goes close to 7 , let alone below it ... and Calcium Carbonate I know very well dissolves in any even slightly acidic water, some person tells me, crabs live in acidic water ? The Smithsonian, and the worlds other leading authority on oceans disagree ... yet someone ... on the internet .. claims chemical reactions are SUSPENDED, in their little world.

I say with regret. We as a species, are likely stuffed beyond 2050, not that it ends there, the climate and weather related impacts exponentially are going to rise. NOT one doubt about this I have having had to just examine all of it again. Arctic ice and blue ocean sometime in the pre 2060 period, permafrost starts to melt, Arctic seabed ice and methane released as well pre 2100 and ... well ... the Great Barrier Reef even now under extreme pressure is unlikely to be 10% of the 1985 size by 2050, and ITS NOW 25% of the size it was in 1985. NOW !! TODAY !!

Debating its fate is irrelevant. Its not a debate how a chemical reaction goes, or is here in the minds of some. Debating if the Great Barrier Reef looses another 15% when its already lost 75%, is really just stupid.

NO NO NO its all fake ... no amount of evidence, empirical, clinical or otherwise is possible to be presented to those WITH closed opinions and minds. I was, actually hoping, my even mild case for the future, was wrong. *IT is after close examination, more than likely absurdly optimistic.*

All this to cries, your a moron, or a Nazi or an imbecile. Strange the people who I openly shared my disgust at their anti Islam hate filled rants in the wake of Christchurch, and the made me want to vomit, are BACK for some, on this thread.

Am I on a white supremacy site ? If so, please, someone tell me ? 

Whist ASF is a stock site, climate change and impacts I believe will dictate investing for the next 100 years. DICTATE ... and buying say land in New Orleans as your global headquarters will be amusing post 2050. Miami spending 500 million to pump sea water out in 2018 at high tide, what does it do in 2050 with 25 cm higher oceans ?

I do question the modern world, and now, myself set up as a charity after a gifted life, not that I am too old even now, at times I question why I bother to try and leave the world a better place before I leave. The sample of some of the human species being displayed, is at times, one which makes me wonder if its not a good thing, what will occur more than likely.


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Wayne you complain about this
> 
> "unreasonable ad hominem and unreasonable debating style."
> 
> ...



Yes, really. The difference in style is stark.


----------



## PZ99 (24 April 2019)

I think the last few pages confirm what we already know.

Global Warming has become unstoppable in this thread


----------



## rederob (24 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> But hey, if you want to get to that level of ridiculous nit picking, you have to accept our friend's complaint about calling something "more acidic" when it is not actually acidic at all.



I continue to show your claims to be inconsistent with science.
You pretend this most recent aberration is a first.  Yet after all that you then go on to say:


Sdajii said:


> ...you have to accept our friend's complaint about calling something "more acidic" when it is not actually acidic at all.



Sorry, in science we commonly refer to the direction of the trend (as in, "the experiment *caused it to become more* *x*") and, in the case of oceans, that trend is towards acidification.  That's why we don't have a theory of AGLC (where LC = less cooling)!
Because you are not good at explaining science it is a false claim to suggest that scientists describe the ocean as acidic.  I have never read that they do, and I read a lot of science. The science of increasing ocean acidification is well confirmed.  The science of an acid ocean - ie ph of <7.0 - does not yet exist.
Let's now drum down to what the average schmuck thinks.
A pH of 5.6 is scientifically accepted for rainwater (it's the lowest pH that could be produced by carbonic acid if pure water were in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide at 25 C: Barrett and Brodin, 1955).  People drinking rainwater do not believe they are drinking an acid.  People leaving their car out in the rain for years do not believe the paint will be affected by its acidity. 
Conversely, people swimming in the ocean are going to be concerned about its saltiness rather than its pH content, which I suggest nobody other than scientists ever give another thought.
My point is that until science gives people a reason to be concerned, they won't worry about things like leaving their car out in the rain.  
That story would change completely if you lived close to a chemical plant and *acid rain* was the norm - you would visibly notice paint degradation if you left your car in the rain, and you would stop doing it.
The other point to this long post is that if you do not understand the science, accept what they can provide as evidence - or the best available explanation - rather than misrepresent what you do not know about.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I don't by any stretch think climate change (whatever is driving it) is our biggest threat. Even if the doomsday climate predictions are correct, there are much bigger threats coming to hit us much sooner.



Each time I ask you to elaborate, you change the topic.
Please quantify these other threats which are so much "bigger" than AGW.


----------



## basilio (24 April 2019)

Full text of Greta Thunbergs speech to UK Parliament.
In my view it captures the CC issue, the current situation and what we have to do if we want any sort of chance to survive this century.

*You did not act in time': Greta Thunberg's full speech to MPs *

My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 16 years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations.
I know many of you don’t want to listen to us – you say we are just children. But we’re only repeating the message of the united climate science.
 Many of you appear concerned that we are wasting valuable lesson time, but I assure you we will go back to school the moment you start listening to science and give us a future. Is that really too much to ask?

In the year 2030 I will be 26 years old. My little sister Beata will be 23. Just like many of your own children or grandchildren. That is a great age, we have been told. When you have all of your life ahead of you. But I am not so sure it will be that great for us.

I was fortunate to be born in a time and place where everyone told us to dream big; I could become whatever I wanted to. I could live wherever I wanted to. People like me had everything we needed and more. Things our grandparents could not even dream of. We had everything we could ever wish for and yet now we may have nothing.

Now we probably don’t even have a future any more.

Because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard.

*Is my microphone on? Can you hear me?*

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it. That is unless in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale, inventions that are supposed to clear the atmosphere of astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas escaping from rapidly thawing arctic permafrost.

Nor do these scientific calculations include already locked-in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity – or climate justice – clearly stated throughout the Paris agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale.

We must also bear in mind that these are just calculations. Estimations. That means that these “points of no return” may occur a bit sooner or later than 2030. No one can know for sure. We can, however, be certain that they will occur approximately in these timeframes, because these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.

These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC. Nearly every single major national scientific body around the world unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC.

*Did you hear what I just said? Is my English OK? Is the microphone on? Because I’m beginning to wonder.*

*During the last six months I have travelled around Europe for hundreds of hours in trains, electric cars and buses, repeating these life-changing words over and over again. But no one seems to be talking about it, and nothing has changed. In fact, the emissions are still rising.*

When I have been travelling around to speak in different countries, I am always offered help to write about the specific climate policies in specific countries. But that is not really necessary. Because the basic problem is the same everywhere. And the basic problem is that basically nothing is being done to halt – or even slow – climate and ecological breakdown, despite all the beautiful words and promises. 
The UK is, however, very special. Not only for its mind-blowing historical carbon debt, but also for its current, very creative, carbon accounting.

*Since 1990 the UK has achieved a 37% reduction of its territorial CO2 emissions, according to the Global Carbon Project. And that does sound very impressive. But these numbers do not include emissions from aviation, shipping and those associated with imports and exports. If these numbers are included the reduction is around 10% since 1990 – or an an average of 0.4% a year, according to Tyndall Manchester.*

And the main reason for this reduction is not a consequence of climate policies, but rather a 2001 EU directive on air quality that essentially forced the UK to close down its very old and extremely dirty coal power plants and replace them with less dirty gas power stations. And switching from one disastrous energy source to a slightly less disastrous one will of course result in a lowering of emissions.

But perhaps the most dangerous misconception about the climate crisis is that we have to “lower” our emissions. Because that is far from enough. Our emissions have to stop if we are to stay below 1.5-2C of warming. The “lowering of emissions” is of course necessary but it is only the beginning of a fast process that must lead to a stop within a couple of decades, or less. And by “stop” I mean net zero – and then quickly on to negative figures. That rules out most of today’s politics.

The fact that we are speaking of “lowering” instead of “stopping” emissions is perhaps the greatest force behind the continuing business as usual. The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels – for example, the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports as well as the planning permission for a brand new coal mine – is beyond absurd.

This ongoing irresponsible behaviour will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind. 

People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at.

Every time we make a decision we should ask ourselves; how will this decision affect that curve? We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases. We should no longer only ask: “Have we got enough money to go through with this?” but also: “Have we got enough of the carbon budget to spare to go through with this?” That should and must become the centre of our new currency.

Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?

The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.

“So, exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us – the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say: “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”

Then you say: “That’s not an answer!”

So we say: “We have to start treating the crisis like a crisis – and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”

“That’s still not an answer,” you say.

Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.

We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.

You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.
*
Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.*

*Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfil something, we can do anything. And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable: we can still fix this. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long. We must start today. We have no more excuses.*

We children are not sacrificing our education and our childhood for you to tell us what you consider is politically possible in the society that you have created. We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us, and tell us that you really admire what we do.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

*I hope my microphone was on. I hope you could all hear me.*


----------



## rederob (24 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Whether or not GW/CC is or not the greatest threat to the planet, it is without doubt used as a manipulation of western population as far as i see it by the globalist anti western movement.



Conspiracy theories are *not *science.
Every scientific organisation in every country of the world accepts the science of climate change.
Science does not affect any of your fanciful ideas.
Maybe crackpottery could be investigated by science, but how would you ever get the crackpots to believe their worlds were merely delusion?


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Maybe crackpottery could be investigated by science, but how would you ever get the crackpots to believe their worlds were merely delusion?




Debating its fate is irrelevant. Its not a debate how a chemical reaction goes, or is here in the minds of some. Debating if the Great Barrier Reef looses another 15% when its already lost 75%, is really just stupid. A debate for imbeciles. 

Opinions as to that, are as they say, like assholes, everyone has one, an opinion and like assholes, everyone else's stinks.


*Albert Einstein: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.*

Debating, as is often the case whether Einstein first wrote this comment or Mark Twain, is irrelevant. *What is NOT, is SCIENCE and the truth of it.
*
Over and over the debate questions chemical processes, or measurement, or experiments conducted billions of times and DISMISSED. Dismissed, minimised and ignored processes that, well, occur 100 times out of 100, a trillion times out of a trillion times when conducted.

Nope, opinions have more validity than science. 
I am not going to sit, and wait for an experiment conducted a billion times, with the same results, every time and expect another result to occur.

The stupidity, in fact insanity, of this course of action, would make a genius who know their limits, questions their own conclusions and beliefs, be compared to someone who has no limits and* there is no limit to stupidity*, NONE ... Sitting with drooling open mouth disputing chemical reactions that occur the same way, every time and expecting some other result ? 

I think that's called *Infinite Stupidity*. Don't ever short it or underestimate it!! You will go broke or waste time debating when it will stop. Infinite stupidity, is what it is.  Lets wait for that experiments results to change !! 

Crazy is far better than stupidity. Crazy following science and well documented processes, instead of debating with stupidity is a common pastime over the ages. Being called crazy for an idea which is typical, being debated or questioned by stupidity, the normal I suppose. 

Thankfully. In the past humanity has passed its own inherited stupidity of some and evolved. 

This time it seems less likely.


----------



## IFocus (24 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Yes, really. The difference in style is stark.




This is school play ground behaviour i.e. little boy stuff.

Neither here nor there in regards to myself as I never feel that I am a victim, its a privilege that I get to participate in a forum like this with a group of incredible, intelligent  and passionate individuals no matter what incoming I get nasty or other wise.

Up to you on how you conduct yourself but like me you are no innocence.

Last time I'll waste my time in such a discussion


Short life.....long death.


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2019)

The barrier reef has lost 75%?

Can you cite that please @kahuna1


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

Oh ... Great barrier reef ... Coral Bleaching ... aka its DEAD ...

read back a few pages.

That is assuming possibly too much.

Links and data and source on the topic already given. Even pictures !!

No relevant when dealing with, well ...  as I said before, people awaiting a different outcome of heating in this case Coral to Temperatures that kill it before it can recover.

Possibly placing a pet ... in the microwave and on high for 5 mins might get some understanding of the process .... OR NOT.

Maybe a shower, with ONLY the hot water on may bring some to their senses. To understand the process ..... going on ... *Or likely not.*

Sadly dealing with stupidity and displayed stupidity, and at times infinite stupidity ... in the case of heating something to beyond its tolerances, is to be debated. *
*
Get back to me after your nice WARM shower.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I think the last few pages confirm what we already know.
> 
> Global Warming has become unstoppable in this thread



If a relatively small number of people of reasonable intelligence voluntarily discussing the issue with presumably no major vested interest in the outcome beyond that of an ordinary citizen can't agree then there's your answer to much of it.

Business will do whatever makes them money. Politicians will do whatever gets them elected. Every industry, trade and professional body will promote whatever's good for that industry, trade or profession. CO2's on the agenda only if it benefits the other objectives.

Those on the "green" side will likely take exception to my comments but fact is that the world is hitting new highs in emissions. Nothing done over the past 30+ years of mainstream awareness has been sufficient to fix the problem. Actually fixing it thus requires a different approach.


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Those on the "green" side will likely take exception to my comments but fact is that the world is hitting new highs in emissions. Nothing done over the past 30+ years of mainstream awareness has been sufficient to fix the problem. Actually fixing it thus requires a different approach.




Its not possible to fix something that, well is denied. There is no problem. Asking Phillip Morris the cigarette company in 1970, about smoking, is where we are in 2019 on Climate Change.

Technically, and sadly I say this, at present even now our ability to avoid or change a lot of things is NOT possible. One cannot stop a lot of the things, especially if they are not recognized.

Does it make me a greenie ? Or Nazi ? Actually studying this and a few other seemingly irrelevant topics which, well, are in many cases, the ONLY topic. Commenting about USA healthcare and its appalling state, is till you get sick, an aside. In this case, until I suppose a king tide in 2100 a meter ocean ...  higher wipes out Miami, if one lived there, it becomes relevant.

If it happens to someone else, its a shame, if it happens to YOU ... its a tragedy !!

Must run, microwave just beeped and managed to get the neighbors cat inside for a 5 minute session.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If a relatively small number of people of reasonable intelligence voluntarily discussing the issue with presumably no major vested interest in the outcome beyond that of an ordinary citizen can't agree then there's your answer to much of it.



What we say or believe is not the real issue.
It's about what the science tells us.
I don't care if people do not accept it - that's for them to resolve.
But to pretend to understand what is happening, and posting rubbish to sustain their pretense, gives us all clues to the deeper problem.
Whatever their motivations, it has nothing to do with being credible.


----------



## Struzball (24 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Oh ... Great barrier reef ... Coral Bleaching ... aka its DEAD ...




Is it?


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

After being bleached a couple of times in 5 years, yes ! It is dead.

https://theconversation.com/how-muc...eat-barrier-reefs-worst-bleaching-event-69494

66% was gone then ... in 2016 ,,, it just got cooked AGAIN.







This was 2016 .... NOT 2019 ... after 2018/19 event which was ... WORSE than any ever seen. This is what is left ... 100% now of 300 Reefs have coral bleaching, the further north one goes its worse.


----------



## Struzball (24 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> 2018/19 event which was ... WORSE than any ever seen.




Was it?  
I haven't heard of the 2019 bleaching event.  Particularly strange since you say apparently it's worse than the 2015/16 event which was caused by the 2015/16 super El Niño.


----------



## explod (24 April 2019)

Struzball said:


> Was it?
> I haven't heard of the 2019 bleaching event.  Particularly strange since you say apparently it's worse than the 2015/16 event which was caused by the 2015/16 super El Niño.



Not strange at all as such news is bad for big business which has the greatest control over the press,  and with an election on the right wing press are vehemently downramping.


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

Well ...

If you do 40 hours research ... use google  ... OR .. look back on this thread, as was suggested, with sources, you will find all out about it.

If you look at the above pretty picture ... it comes from the *GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AUTHORITY* .... which is one source then a few others like the Universities and so on used as  the source. Google their website and read.



Take care

PS, someone on this thread, no matter what is said ... demands source ... but when given source, evidence and so on .... ignores it totally. I was Naughty ...  on this thread and one link, the first one ... was on dealing with dementia delusions and not a peep out of them, so I do know ... its rarely ever followed up upon. Even if you do take the time to share source. I already have, in this case, on this thread.


----------



## basilio (24 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If a relatively small number of people of reasonable intelligence voluntarily discussing the issue with presumably no major vested interest in the outcome beyond that of an ordinary citizen can't agree then there's your answer to much of it.
> 
> Business will do whatever makes them money. Politicians will do whatever gets them elected. Every industry, trade and professional body will promote whatever's good for that industry, trade or profession. CO2's on the agenda only if it benefits the other objectives.
> 
> Those on the "green" side will likely take exception to my comments but fact is that the world is hitting new highs in emissions. Nothing done over the past 30+ years of mainstream awareness has been sufficient to fix the problem. Actually fixing it thus requires a different approach.




Crazy isn't it ? Smurf teases out the political "reality". Business will only be interested in money. Politicians are only interested in being elected.  All the other industry/trade/professional  groups will only promote what is "good" for their interest.

And so we come to a seemingly inevitable conclusion don't we?  The* fact* that the planet is rapidly heating and the *fact* that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the extra GG gases humans have produced is the cause for this situation is .... irrelevant. 

The *fact* that life on earth will become impossible for most current species unless we radically reduce GG to somehow slow down these temperature increases is also... irrelevant - at least according Smurfs analysis.

The* fact *that around the world we are watching a rapidly changing climate thaw our icecaps, melt glaciers, heat the ocean to the point that coral reefs are dying around the world ectera , ectera is just Not. That. Important.  Not Really. 

This morning I posted the address of  Greta Thunberg to the UK parliament. She is just 16 Years old and no genius. Her capacity is recognising the reality of what is happening in the world and the fact that unless the current crop of leaders are forced to treat CC like the unfolding catastrophe it is *she has no future.*

Neither of course do the other 7 billion people on earth and in particular her contemporaries. Us old xarts can somehow  hope we  fall off the perch before  the merde truly hits the fan. 

I agree with Smurf that ASF is a microcosm of the world.  Our inability to collectively recognize this truly desperate situation for what it is reflects the bigger picture. Perhaps something to think about ?


----------



## Struzball (24 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> If you do 40 hours research ... use google  ... OR .. look back on this thread, as was suggested, with sources, you will find all out about it..




I did look back on the thread, for 10 pages or so, but all I could find was you saying 75% coral death between 1985 and now.  It's not really going to add any value to the world if I just quote some guy from a stock forum called kahuna1.  So I wanted to know what source, or what metric is used to determine that sort of coral mortality.  I don't know what the methodology for determining reef coverage was in 1985, or if anybody even measured it.

I have no doubt that year on year bleaching events kills coral.

I'd be interested in reading more about long term GBR health studies.

Particularly interested in coral bleaching event in 2019, and what caused it, without the 2015-16 super El Niño.


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

Marine park authority as suggested.

2019 event ... and being pedantic was flooding .. in case you missed it ... a storm . and a few on the scale seen once in 250 years. Normally runoff only hits about 700 out of 3000 of the Reefs but a bit more this time. 2018 after last survey in 2016-17, got hit again over the head ... via temperature ...  this was all over the media when released in 2019 or so I thought and this was the 2016/17 survey. *New York times declared the reef dead* as was contained in the 2016/17  paper and its results, it came out by the way early 2019  the paper on the 2016/17 survey of coral reefs.

Right now a survey half way through ... like the 2016-17 one and results unlikely till late 2020 of NOT 2021 !!  Lizard Island reports the reef as being in a shocking state from the research station there. 

But who cares, its all ... fake .... Pauline Hanson told me !! 

It takes over 5 years and in fact 15 to recover from an Elnino event, or ultra hot water temp. When its occurring seemingly every 2-3 years, the likelihood of the Reef Being 10% of its size in 2050 v 1985 is not great. Then again, what does the Great Barrier Reef Authority know ? Or Cook University and a list of others easily found.

I find on a simple search of Great Barrier reef and bleaching the report, the findings of 3 universities and 20 odd media articles about the 2016.17 survey.

Good luck


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

Struzball said:


> I don't think it's a hoax, I think it's entirely political. Scientists can't do science without money.
> Somebody has to be willing to pay them for some reason.






Struzball said:


> If you look back 10-50 million years, then yeah, the Earth's temperature is generally in a steady decline.




Why ... why did I bother replying ? Your views, are similar if not identical  to Pauline Hansons. Possibly you are the carrot headed one ? Why did you put out that video ?

here is the earlier version and video of her spokesperson.



He is proud to be a Ginger !!

It is worth repeating ...

Nope, opinions have more validity than science.
I am not going to sit, and wait for an experiment conducted a billion times, with the same results, every time and expect another result to occur.

The stupidity, in fact insanity, of this course of action, would make a genius who know their limits, questions their own conclusions and beliefs, be compared to someone who has no limits and* there is no limit to stupidity*, NONE ... Sitting with drooling open mouth disputing chemical reactions that occur the same way, every time and expecting some other result ?

I think that's called *Infinite Stupidity*. Don't ever short it or underestimate it!! You will go broke or waste time debating when it will stop. Infinite stupidity, is what it is.   Lets wait for that experiments results to change !!

Your clearly held view is that science does not matter ... *its all a conspiracy*.


----------



## Struzball (24 April 2019)

*Update 10: 1 March 2019*
While we are now into March, we will continue to keep a close eye on the Reef and publish these updates over the coming weeks. It is still possible to have warmer sea surface temperatures causing thermal stress and it is still the cyclone season.

As we move from the end of summer,* there’s been no significant coral bleaching on the Reef.*

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-health/reef-health-updates-summer-2018-19

I guess GBRMPA are all gingers then, because they say there's no significant coral bleaching this year.


----------



## basilio (24 April 2019)

Struzball said:


> *Update 10: 1 March 2019*
> While we are now into March, we will continue to keep a close eye on the Reef and publish these updates over the coming weeks. It is still possible to have warmer sea surface temperatures causing thermal stress and it is still the cyclone season.
> 
> As we move from the end of summer,* there’s been no significant coral bleaching on the Reef.*
> ...




Or perhaps they have a broader view of the impacts on the reef ?
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change


----------



## kahuna1 (24 April 2019)

*Heat related* .... dummy ...

Did they have a storm ? a flood in 2019 ? I do think so !!

Then again, your view is that storms seen once every 250 years are NOT climate related even when they hit twice in 10 years. I did read your posts from the Fake News climate change blog ...
*Flood plumes*




_Tropical cyclone Trevor caused substantial flooding in several river systems in the far northern management area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Some rivers, like the Normanby and Pascoe rivers, reached their highest flood height on record (since 1960s).

Satellite imagery shows plumes reaching mid-shelf reefs around the Lockhart River region, and significantly lower than average salinity levels were recorded by the Marine Monitoring Program at mid-shelf reefs off Cooktown._

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

If you had a brain ... and googled ...

*Summary for 2018 report .... *

Coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has continued to decline due to the cumulative impacts of multiple, severe disturbances over the past four years, including coral bleaching, cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks.
Reefs in all regions of the GBR (North, Central and South) were affected by different disturbances at different times.
T*rends in mean hard coral cover on reefs in all three regions now show a steep decline; this has not been observed in the historical record. *

https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2017-2018

_Mean coral cover *declined from 22% in 2016 to 14% in 2018.*

As of early 2017, coral cover on the AIMS survey reefs in the Northern GBR was less than half of what it was in 2013, due to mortality caused by two severe cyclones, an ongoing crown‐of‐thorns starfish outbreak and severe coral bleaching in 2016
*The Central region*
2018 found coral cover had declined to 14% due to coral bleaching in 2016 and again in 2017
The geographic scale of recent bleaching means that breeding populations of corals have been decimated over large areas, reducing the potential sources of larvae to recolonise reefs over the next years. It is unprecedented in the 30+ year time series that all three regions of the GBR have declined and that many reefs have now very low coral cover._

*I personally think ... 14% ,,, IS a pretty awful number !!*

How about YOU ?

Stating its at 25% or so ... is factual and backed UP. If anything ultra conservative.

Then again, not that it will matter. Any and all scientific evidence even from source is too be ignored.

As I said, Northern corals reefs are in *very serious trouble*, if not extreme trouble and runoff followed by what appears to be every 2 years very hot water, does WONDERS for Coral or is a cover of 14% WITH severe bleaching, as of 2018 .... not dead, but ... well after some runoff  in 2019 will it be ? I don't know.  It needs 15 years of NO hot water to have any hope of recovery and that seems as likely as you will accept there is any issue with climate change.

Debating whilst Rome is burning ? Not that we can stop this event, its deny deny deny their is any issue at all !! Stuff me ... 14% cover and that was bleached prior to having to deal with runoff this year. Golly are the Northern coral reefs that bad ? IT seems to be the case according to

*The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) is Australia’s tropical marine research agency.*

Apparently YOU do know more than them .... prey tell ... I cant wait ... hold on a sec ... have a cat in the microwave still !!

Please inspire us all.

What does 14% mean ? Of that severely bleached mean ? And at 14% cover verses base of 100%  ?

What does this mean ? *not been observed in the historical record.
*
Do you think storm runoff in 2019 will help things ? Apparently so.
*
thanks for the public display  of  how correct my theory in the previous post is. 

*
I leave with this* .... corals have been decimated over large areas .. *sounds good !! *
*


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Crazy isn't it ? Smurf teases out the political "reality". Business will only be interested in money. Politicians are only interested in being elected.  All the other industry/trade/professional  groups will only promote what is "good" for their interest.



It's a perspective that isn't how I'd like the world to be but it's how things are.

As a case in point, AGL.

The company is Australia's largest coal user, they also mine the stuff, and has total CO2 emissions more than twice as high as anyone else.

Now AGL do have a plan and that plan is to cease using coal completely by 2048. In doing this their plan is to close 25% of the company's coal-fired power generating capacity in 2022 rising to 66% by 2035 and the rest by 2048.

Given it's a for-profit listed company, overall I'd say it's not a bad response. They're supposed to be making money for shareholders not losing it and from an environmental perspective it's a major step forward.

Practical reality though is the whole thing has brought nothing but conflict.

On one hand there has been opposition from the sillier elements of the environmental movement to the company's plan to invest $200 million improving fuel efficiency and output at the Bayswater plant which they intend to operate through to 2035. Those opposed wanted a far more costly improvement which, given the intent is to close the plant 12 years after completion of the upgrade, just doesn't stack up as a business proposal.

On the other hand government has given the company one hell of a bashing publicly for doing too much to reduce their use of coal, threatening all manner of things going as far as forced sale of assets.

In view of all that, well it's not hard to see why there's a lot of sitting on hands and saying nothing going on across the industry. Someone "big" sticks their head up, announces a major plan funded entirely at private expense, and gets whacked by everyone from environmentalists to government for doing so.

My own view is quite simple really. If the biggest emitter in the country is saying they're going to get out of coal completely by a set date, and are going to do a quarter of it within 5 years, then I'll take that as being a big step forward and won't quibble on whatever imperfections I happen to notice about their plans. They're a business, they need to make money, and there's a lot of different aspects to balance in all of that and if those imperfections are how they're saving or making money then I'll live with them yes.

Ideology is what stops progress on all this. Ideology from a government that wants to burn coal for the sake of burning coal and ideology from supposed environmental groups who object to any plan that isn't 100% perfect rather than accepting real progress when it's offered.

Much the same could be said for plenty of other things. Ideas rejected because they don't suit whatever ideology despite being a big step forward. End result is not much gets achieved.


----------



## qldfrog (24 April 2019)

So True Smurf, and we should all remember that the only reason we do not have a carbon pricing of some sort in Oz is that the greens thought the Labor scheme was not enough during the Rudd/Gilliard years...
Had they had any clue, we would have a framework in place [however full of flaws it was in my opinion], and it would have provided some direction for power generators and industry, and reduce our CO2 output.
Next time you have a blackout down South while we are still belching CO2 like Chinese, thanks the greens...
Looking convoluted? maybe but I think from an impartial look, this is sadly true
Greenpeace might get some likes on FB but WWF does some real environmental work


----------



## rederob (25 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Looking convoluted? maybe but I think from an impartial look, this is sadly true



No - just looking typically ill informed, as are most of your comments.
The Coalition could have supported carbon pricing, but *they did not*.
Your blaming of the Greens and China for just about everything you spout shows how narrow minded some in Australia can be.
The industrial revolution kicked off a few centuries ago but China only came to the party in the 1980s. its gross emissions only exceeded the USA's for the first time in the 21st century.
Blaming a country with 4 times the population of the USA and a lesser level of per capita CO2 emissions, which has been outspending the USA for about 10 years in renewables - at a rate presently near$3 to $1 - is only something a person of deficient intellect would be doing.  And despite being linked information to show that claims such as yours are not sound, you nevertheless persist.


qldfrog said:


> Next time you have a blackout down South while we are still belching CO2 like Chinese, thanks the greens...



Next time there is load shedding in Oz, blame the politicians who have been steadfastly rejecting carbon pricing, and have stymied national energy policy such that there can be no certainty for potential investors.


----------



## chiff (25 April 2019)

When you consider George Pell and his faithful acolyte Tony Abbott,both believe in God but not in climate change.For one you have evidence and for the other you do not-it is a matter of faith.Go figure?


----------



## kahuna1 (25 April 2019)

A quick footnote to the 40 ... hours I spent on just the Great Barrier reef ...  likely 100 hrs  or more.

The Marine Park Authority I knew dumbed down and downplayed the impacts. It on one hand is used for TOURISTS and on the other, does some publishing of results.

So I decided to read, the latest and then go through the reefs individually. ones NOT altered by runoff or crown of thorns, ones basically in the outlying region.

I shared some above, but ... for the vast MAJORITY .... sadly the say 1980 Coral cover is NOW around the  12-14% in 2019 for virtually every single reef, ALL OF THEM .... the Southern Ones do better but lack the diversity and when a Reef, depending on where it is, will go from say 60% to 4% Coral cover and the average cover was 60% in the whole of the 1980's average and its now 4% is NOT usual. Some very very popular tourist destinations and names, cover is ... well ... *unlikely .. EVER ... EVER to recover* even NOW, let alone by 2050.

Sobering when one reads the source as I gave when I knew giving the politically correct GBMA would of course have doubters, v the actual source of their politically correct watered down stuff,  when a Reef has gone to 12.5% of what it was ... and the cover, due to where it is was never great, and its down to 3% COVER, verses 24% ave for the 1980's and same for 1990;s and same for 2000-2010 period then hit over the head ... three times for some  ... twice for others via being warmed, its ... unlikely they exist as I said by 2050. and in some cases 2025. 

The overall average as of 2019, and I used the conservative overall 2018 number .... at 75% gone, in 2018, initial reefs in 2019 and findings  looks a LOT WORSE. Those that did not get hit by floods, nor for SOME not hit by heat in 2018/19 but SOME WERE ... *they did not recover or regrow* and regrowing something that's 12% of what it was ... and expecting NO new heat events is bloody unlikely.

Not happy. Just sad. But still deny deny deny ... its not a problem, Vote one Pauline Hanson or Liberal party or Trump !!


----------



## basilio (25 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a perspective that isn't how I'd like the world to be but it's how things are.
> 
> As a case in point, AGL.
> 
> ...




The problem Smurf is that 20-30 years ago we had the opportunity to take a longer view and plan for a move to a carbon free energy future that left minimal stranded assets. 
That time is now past. The reality of how much CO2 is now in the atmosphere, the effect of this on global warming means we have to make a far quicker reduction in emissions if we are to have any chance of avoiding  the worst aspects of climate change.


----------



## IFocus (25 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> A quick footnote to the 40 ... hours I spent on just the Great Barrier reef ...  likely 100 hrs  or more.
> 
> The Marine Park Authority I knew dumbed down and downplayed the impacts. It on one hand is used for TOURISTS and on the other, does some publishing of results.
> 
> ...




Pauline Hanson went the the GBR put on googles / snorkel and declared the reef to be fine vote 1 Pauline.


----------



## kahuna1 (25 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Pauline Hanson went the the GBR put on googles / snorkel and declared the reef to be fine vote 1 Pauline.




Love it ... her spokesperson released another video ... even better than the first one ..



I find I must bring humor into this, reality is depressing. Maybe I join the non scientific or take another door prize and loss of IQ points ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2019)

basilio said:


> The problem Smurf is that 20-30 years ago we had the opportunity to take a longer view and plan for a move to a carbon free energy future that left minimal stranded assets.
> That time is now past.



No argument there but personally I gave up any hope of that one once the big boom in coal use globally took place.

Even just getting back to year 2002 levels, that is just before the boom, seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

If the issue is as bad as claimed then my conclusion is that the planet’s cooked.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> My own view is quite simple really. If the biggest emitter in the country is saying they're going to get out of coal completely by a set date, and are going to do a quarter of it within 5 years, then I'll take that as being a big step forward and won't quibble on whatever imperfections I happen to notice about their plans. They're a business, they need to make money, and there's a lot of different aspects to balance in all of that and if those imperfections are how they're saving or making money then I'll live with them yes.




Yes, they do need to make money, whether in Australia or elsewhere. Global businesses shop around for countries that best suit them. If another country lets them dig up coal dirt cheap and screw money from the masses then that's where they will go.

Really, the government has to be in charge of the energy grid for that reason. Of course they can still deflect and blame others for their failures but at least there is some electoral accountability. I'd say there is a certain amount of pushback by the electorate on parties that sold power assets in the first place, whereas the foreign company that scrapped Hazelwood is not accountable to us in any way.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, they do need to make money, whether in Australia or elsewhere. Global businesses shop around for countries that best suit them. If another country lets them dig up coal dirt cheap and screw money from the masses then that's where they will go.



Yep.

Only way you'll stop it is if company xyz which made goods in country 123 which pays the workers 50c an hour and allows constrained pollution cannot in practice sell those goods in most other places. So long as we have unrestricted trade it's a race to the bottom.

If this was a stock price chart, would anyone here be willing to go short with serious amounts of their own real money?

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/gcp...l-carbon-budget-2014-49-638.jpg?cb=1412128368







The approach taken thus far clearly isn't fixing the problem so there's no point pretending otherwise.

Virtually all coal ever used by humans has been used in the past 160 years. For oil it's about 100 years and for gas just 80 years or one human lifetime with consumption of each fuel prior to that being inconsequential. So it's all incredibly recent really. Emissions from fossil fuel use were just half today's level as recently as the late 1970's.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2019)

Another issue here is conflict between multiple environmental issues.

One example of that is urban air quality. Pretty much any petrol or diesel engine can be tuned to emit less CO2 so long as you don't mind an increase in other pollutants as the downside. So we've cut the smog but in return we get more CO2. 

Burning biomass is another example of that. As long as it's regrown then it's sustainable as such. Terrible for local air quality in most cases though if we're talking about solid fuels. Getting rid of wood as a fuel source in homes and industry has cleared the air but at the expense of more CO2.

Another example is things like nuclear and hydro which between them have accounted for most non-fossil electricity ever generated. There are perfectly reasonable environmental arguments against some hydro projects, and there are arguments against nuclear more generally, but the reality is stark. A nuclear or hydro plant not built due to environmental issues is rarely replaced with an alternative nuclear or hydro plant supplying the same grid. Sometimes that has occurred but more commonly the outcome ends up being replacement with fossil fuels in practice. More CO2.

Hydraulic fracturing is another example. It's not at all popular with environmentalists due to various concerns but in the USA, the country which uses it far more than anywhere else, the reality is rather harsh. Less fracking = less natural gas production = more coal used for power generation = more CO2. 

There are many situations where fixing one problem causes another and the problem is that the downside rather often ends up being the same old story. Fixing whatever other problem results in more CO2 being emitted.

I'm not saying that many of those other things aren't real problems or shouldn't be fixed but if we choose to fix those then we have to accept the consequences of doing so and vice versa.

To throw another one into the mix, well if your only measure is CO2 well then there's a really great material for making things out of which is commonly known as plastic. As has been drawn to attention in recent times it has definite environmental downsides but CO2 isn't really one of them - not much in making it and being so light not much in transporting it either. 

There's a lot of complexity in all this.


----------



## basilio (26 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Another issue here is conflict between multiple environmental issues.
> 
> One example of that is urban air quality. Pretty much any petrol or diesel engine can be tuned to emit less CO2 so long as you don't mind an increase in other pollutants as the downside. So we've cut the smog but in return we get more CO2.
> 
> ...




These are wicked problems.  They are complex. They require thought.  Often there will be compromises that on the face of it are unpalatable.

The alternative is denial of any problem and living or dying with the consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem


----------



## rederob (26 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Another issue here is conflict between multiple environmental issues.
> 
> One example of that is urban air quality. Pretty much any petrol or diesel engine can be tuned to emit less CO2 so long as you don't mind an increase in other pollutants as the downside. So we've cut the smog but in return we get more CO2.
> 
> ...



No complexity at all as the problem would have been solved a long time ago with *a price on carbon*.
Many opportunities to achieve such a mechanism have been presented, and thwarted.
This is an old issue with inaction at government levels, predominantly those who favour free markets - read big profits - and who really have no care about our future generations.
It has taken children marching in the streets to get everyone's attention refocused. 
Hopefully governments might have woken up to the fact that renewable energy is the cheapest immediate option for energy in most countries, creates significant employment, and will overcome the GHG problem if sensible long term policies are put in place.
We have at least a generation to overcome the effects of present GHG levels on climate, even if we act globally today.  But we need not spoil the world for our grandchildren when have known better, and were very selfish in thinking it was never our problem to begin with.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2019)

rederob said:


> No complexity at all as the problem would have been solved a long time ago with *a price on carbon*.



A price on carbon provides an economic incentive to take action but does not of itself constitute action.

It provides an incentive to change but that's all, it won't magically remove some body corporate that doesn't like solar and it doesn't change the laws which prioritise reducing PM, HC, CO and NOx emissions even if doing so increases CO2 (which I'm not saying is good or bad, just noting the trade-off due to technology and that CO2 has thus far been deemed the lower priority).

I do agree with the basic point of your post though, I'm just pointing out that it's the physical action that actually cuts emissions assuming we don't intend to simply sit in the dark etc (which I note nobody is seriously suggesting).


----------



## wayneL (26 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> A price on carbon provides an economic incentive to take action but does not of itself constitute action.
> 
> It provides an incentive to change but that's all, it won't magically remove some body corporate that doesn't like solar and it doesn't change the laws which prioritise reducing PM, HC, CO and NOx emissions even if doing so increases CO2 (which I'm not saying is good or bad, just noting the trade-off due to technology and that CO2 has thus far been deemed the lower priority).
> 
> I do agree with the basic point of your post though, I'm just pointing out that it's the physical action that actually cuts emissions assuming we don't intend to simply sit in the dark etc (which I note nobody is seriously suggesting).



It also does not prevent (encourages in fact) the export of emmisions (along with economic activity) to some other country. 

...and probably overall increases both co2 emmisions and other pollition


----------



## rederob (26 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> It also does not prevent (encourages in fact) the export of emmisions (along with economic activity) to some other country.
> ...and probably overall increases both co2 emissions and other pollution



Another post without a scintilla of evidence.
You just make up what you want to believe because you are not particularly good at much.
A price on carbon would have made extraction of coal the most expensive energy alternative, and in the immediate term given the price edge to gas.  While gas was hardly the solution, were that to have happened, we would be many years ahead of where we are now with renewables, and with a significantly lesser global CO2 footprint.
In plain English it would have meant that CO2 at 400ppm was never going to happen, and the hottest years of the modern temperature era would have occurred largely last century.
Evidence for the power of global action on climate was best evidenced when ozone layer depletion was remedied by getting rid of CFCs.  There were always alternatives to CFCs, and it did not take much to put them in place.
Yes, let's keep finding someone else to blame, and keep making up excuses for our greed.
Or we can begin to show real leadership, progressively price fossil fuels out of the market, and build our economy on the cheapest sources of energy available.
It's only as hard as ignoring the obstinate, ill informed and greedy.


----------



## bellenuit (26 April 2019)

rederob said:


> A price on carbon would have made extraction of coal the most expensive energy alternative, and in the immediate term given the price edge to gas. While gas was hardly the solution, were that to have happened, we would be many years ahead of where we are now with renewables, and with a significantly lesser global CO2 footprint.
> 
> In plain English it would have meant that CO2 at 400ppm was never going to happen, and the hottest years of the modern temperature era would have occurred largely last century.




I agree 100% with the first of these 2 paragraphs (assuming the "we" means Australia only) and 0% with the second.

Although it would certainly have meant that coal would have been uneconomic as an energy source in Australia, it would not have had any effect on many of the main coal using countries such as India and China. In fact, it may have increased CO2 pollution as these countries would have sourced their coal from dirtier sources.

Unless China, India and the US are on board, what we do in Australia will have no impact on CO2 levels. If you believe the science *and understand the politics*, it is inevitable that many of the dire predictions will take place to the degree forecast or to a lesser but still catastrophic extent. The question is then, how should we Australia prepare for that scenario. Destroying our economy as a token gesture is just plain foolish. When the proverbial sh*t hits the fan, we want to be in a position to alleviate as much as is possible the hardship that will occur and particularly be in a position to protect the limited resources (water, food production etc.) that we have. But having driven ourselves into poverty, we will be at the mercy of countries like China who will have continued to strengthen during this transition period by only complying with international carbon or whatever climate agreements may come into place to the extent that it doesn't hurt *THEIR* economy. And you can be sure that China, in view of its aggressive non-compromising stance in the South China Sea, would have no qualms about securing Australia's resources for its own people if there was no other alternative.

I agree we should try and lessen our footprint on planet earth as much as is feasible, but not to the extent we start weakening ourselves to serve the god of tokenism. Driving our industries overseas does nothing from a global pollution (not just CO2) perspective. It just shifts the source from us to somewhere else, but more importantly, it weakens us while strengthening others.


----------



## rederob (26 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Although it would certainly have meant that coal would have been uneconomic as an energy source in Australia, it would not have had any effect on many of the main coal using countries such as India and China. In fact, it may have increased CO2 pollution as these countries would have sourced their coal from dirtier sources.



I have been talking a global perspective, although a national perspective still would have achieved a lot in terms of Australia globally leading in renewables, and we are not far off it on a per capita basis.  That's occurred in spite of having no national direction on a renewables policy. 
Your ideas that we, as a nation, would have been the poorer for it is totally unfounded.  Have a look at what Denmark has achieved for itself: Vestas (wind power behemoth) alone has a workforce of almost 25k,  while the total Australian coal industry employs less than 55k. And Denmark has a population of less than 6m compared to our 25m.
We have chosen to be spectators  - you know, those who pay to watch rather than those who are well rewarded by playing the game.
I think you need to have a good look at some data before you make the comments you do.


----------



## bellenuit (26 April 2019)

> I have been talking a global perspective...




Taking a global perspective is pointless if it is not reality based but simply wishful thinking. It is the duty of our government to assess what is likely to happen and based on the more probable scenarios make decisions that will best serve Australians. There is nothing likely to happen within the next 20 years that will stop us heading towards some sort of climatic disaster. Countries like China and Russia and the US under the present administration will either resist taking effective action or, in the case of the first two, will pretend they are taking effective action but it will be unverifiable. They will purely act in their own self interest which is clearly aligned to a weakened West.



rederob said:


> Your ideas that we, as a nation, would have been the poorer for it is totally unfounded. Have a look at what Denmark has achieved for itself: Vestas (wind power behemoth) alone has a workforce of almost 25k, while the total Australian coal industry employs less than 55k. And Denmark has a population of less than 6m compared to our 25m.




Each country has certain advantages. We in Australia are blessed with various natural resources. If we stop exporting coal we are hurt. That is not unfounded. That is just obvious. And it does nothing to lower CO2 on a global scale, as our supply will be replaced by other coal producers. Comparing us to other countries that do not have the same natural resources doesn't make sense. 

There is nothing stopping us emulating Denmark where it is feasible. In fact the returns from coal exports will allow us to invest in alternative energy sources. 

Putting a carbon price on coal to make it more expensive comparatively is just removing an advantage that we have over other countries. Yes, use renewables where it makes sense and gives us a competitive advantage, but don't deliberately increase our costs. So long as China and others continue to use coal, then let's export it to them and take their dollars rather than let some competing country do it. It makes no sense for us to provide cheap energy to our competitors while denying the same to our manufacturers.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> It is the duty of our government to assess what is likely to happen and based on the more probable scenarios make decisions that will best serve Australians.



Climate change has been about since the 1970s.  We are up to IPCC AR5 and these are *intergovernmental, *so what exactly has our government been doing to mitigate the impending dire consequences of inaction?  Certainly nothing like they should have or could have.
China is the greatest CO2 emitter, but not  on a per capita basis.  It also happens to be moving into renewables at a greater rate than any other nation, but I see you are making lame excuses rather than dealing with facts.


bellenuit said:


> Each country has certain advantages. We in Australia are blessed with various natural resources. If we stop exporting coal we are hurt. That is not unfounded. That is just obvious.



So to is the very obvious impact of burning fossil fuels.
But what you are really saying is that we are fine to f@ck over farmers and the community at large because if we do not then our living standards will decline.  I do not deny some truth to an impact to living standards.  But that's just because we are prepared to sacrifice our future generations.
You can twist your ideas any way you like but it boils down to our generation's gains for our children's/grandchildren's pains.


bellenuit said:


> There is nothing stopping us emulating Denmark where it is feasible. In fact the returns from coal exports will allow us to invest in alternative energy sources.



I hope you understand that this boat sailed and we were not on board.
And your idea about using coal revenue to invest in renewables is pie in the sky.  Exactly where has this been mooted politically, or acted upon.  Instead we have had massive government investment in failed carbon capture technologies to support the oxymoronic concept of *clean coal*.


bellenuit said:


> Putting a carbon price on coal to make it more expensive comparatively is just removing an advantage that we have over other countries.



So what?  You don't own a coal mine do you?  
The big players include BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance  (BMA is Australia's largest producer) and BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal, Glencore, Anglo American, Vale and the prospect of a massive Adani mine.  So most profits from coal mining head offshore.
So we are not talking a "country" advantage at all, given the profits overwhelmingly do not stay in Australia.


bellenuit said:


> It makes no sense for us to provide cheap energy to our competitors while denying the same to our manufacturers.



First, gas is cheaper.  We have not unlocked gas for our local energy market.  Just ask Australian manufacturers.
Second, renewables are now cheaper. 
Thirdly, energy is a small part of the overseas equation for our "competitors".  Labour costs are where we lose out.

I get where you are coming from.
However, it's truly a mentality of burying one's head in the sand.
Worse, it's a game of "chicken," except nobody wants to even start the game so everyone loses.
The biggest tragedy for Australia is that we could have been global leaders in renewables policy and practice.  We are instead a global laughing stock, renown for sitting on our hands.


----------



## bellenuit (27 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Climate change has been about since the 1970s. We are up to IPCC AR5 and these are *intergovernmental, *so what exactly has our government been doing to mitigate the impending dire consequences of inaction? Certainly nothing like they should have or could have.




I did not say our governments past and present have done enough.



> China is the greatest CO2 emitter, but not on a per capita basis. It also happens to be moving into renewables at a greater rate than any other nation, but I see you are making lame excuses rather than dealing with facts.




What are the lame excuses? They are still burning coal and if we do not export to them they will source it elsewhere. Do you think they will suddenly decide that if one potential source of coal supply dries up for a planned power plant, they will simply decide say oh just build a solar or wind farm instead in that location. They will buy the coal elsewhere.



> I hope you understand that this boat sailed and we were not on board.
> And your idea about using coal revenue to invest in renewables is pie in the sky. Exactly where has this been mooted politically, or acted upon. Instead we have had massive government investment in failed carbon capture technologies to support the oxymoronic concept of *clean coal*.




I didn't say it has been mooted politically. But it is revenue that will be available to us should the powers that be decide to use it wisely. Throwing that revenue away doesn't make sense.



> So what? You don't own a coal mine do you?
> The big players include BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA is Australia's largest producer) and BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal, Glencore, Anglo American, Vale and the prospect of a massive Adani mine. So most profits from coal mining head offshore.
> So we are not talking a "country" advantage at all, given the profits overwhelmingly do not stay in Australia.




Profits are just part of the equation. The cost of the actual production and export of coal provides income to Australia. Salary and wages of all those directly and indirectly involved and material demands from other sectors.



> First, gas is cheaper. We have not unlocked gas for our local energy market. Just ask Australian manufacturers.
> Second, renewables are now cheaper.




Great. That is what we should use. I didn't say we must use coal locally. I said we should use what is advantageous to us. If we can replace coal locally by a cheaper energy recourse then we should do it. But artificially increasing the cost of coal to make it appear more expensive is not the way to go.



> Thirdly, energy is a small part of the overseas equation for our "competitors". Labour costs are where we lose out.




It is never just one item that makes one more competitive against another. With some companies managing to maintain export volume by being just slightly more competitive than those overseas, the margin that cheaper energy provides could be all that's in it.

You do not throw away your advantage for tokenism.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> What are the lame excuses?  They are still burning coal and if we do not export to them they will source it elsewhere. Do you think they will suddenly decide that if one potential source of coal supply dries up for a planned power plant, they will simply decide say oh just build a solar or wind farm instead in that location. They will buy the coal elsewhere.



So is the USA, and Australia and a lot of other countries.
It's a lame excuse because because it relies on the mentality of "if they can do, why can't we"?
It's also devoid of seeking alternatives that are smarter.


bellenuit said:


> I didn't say it has been mooted politically. But it is revenue that will be available to us should the powers that be decide to use it wisely. Throwing that revenue away doesn't make sense.



Exactly where is this apparent revenue, in that it has been there for decades and *not* used or considered for your idea?
Truly pie in the sky!


bellenuit said:


> Profits are just part of the equation. The cost of the actual production and export of coal provides income to Australia. Salary and wages of all those directly and indirectly involved and material demands from other sectors.



It mostly provides jobs, not revenue.
It provides about 2% of all jobs.
Renewables delivers jobs in spades.  A flow on from renewables projects is the supply chain/infrastructure.  Billions of dollars are needed to just get the infrastructure in place for EVs, and that will provide more new jobs in coming years than the entire mining industry, not just coal.


bellenuit said:


> But artificially increasing the cost of coal to make it appear more expensive is not the way to go.



That's not a smart sentence.  Coal is the worst option and should be avoided at all costs because its long run costs are never factored in to present prices.
Indeed, it's the type of thinking that has us where we are today, facing an impending climate that will cost global economies trillions of dollars every year.  And that's separate from the ecological damage that the planet continues to suffer ach day.


bellenuit said:


> With some companies managing to maintain export volume by being just slightly more competitive than those overseas, the margin that cheaper energy provides could be all that's in it.



Except that we are using the most expensive energy option, and it's legacy costs keep making it more expensive.  On the other hand, renewables keep getting cheaper on every metric except labour (and that's a factor common  to both).


bellenuit said:


> You do not throw away your advantage for tokenism.



Ummm..what advantage is that?
The advantage we provide to foreign multinationals who pay exceptionally low rates of tax?
The advantage of completely missing the boat on a renewables industry?
The advantage of an energy network that has pandered to fossil fuels at the expense of renewables policy?
The advantage of high electricity prices because we have failed to plan for a renewables economy?
The advantage of water crises, prolonged droughts, land degradation, and more extreme fire events, all due to changing our climate at an unprecedented rate?
I am sure I missed some, so please fill me in.


----------



## Sdajii (27 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Climate change has been about since the 1970s.




LOL!!! HAHAHA!


----------



## basilio (27 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> LOL!!! HAHAHA!



Wake up Sdajii..
(The concern about) climate change has been about since the 1970's.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> LOL!!! HAHAHA!



The first ever Science Show in 1975 (Radio National) had a segment on global warming and greenhouse gases.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAGegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0UGVEeZzpv5W6sJr8T4Gui


----------



## rederob (27 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> LOL!!! HAHAHA!



In the 1970s climate change was able to be determined as a phenomenon no longer due to chance.
Prior to that we knew the role of GHGs, but being able to prove that natural variability was no longer a driving force, given that irradiance was reasonably correlated with decades of warming trends, was a difficult ask: especially as aerosols played a role in suppressing the trend in the 20th century.
I realise these ideas are difficult for you to come to grips with, such is your unfamiliarity with climate science.


----------



## Sdajii (27 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Wake up Sdajii..
> (The concern about) climate change has been about since the 1970's.




Even if you want to move the goalposts as you guys constantly do, that's not at all correct either. The first person to express concern about it did so in the 1800s. In wasn't until about 40 years later that it started to become more spoken about, and in the mid to late 1980s it became more of a topical issue (along with environmentalism in general), but it didn't in any sense start in the 1970s.

If something goes with your narrative you guys accept it without question. 'Evidence' doesn't need to be backed up. Anything going against your narrative is dismissed by whatever means you see fit, and you're happy to use ad hominem and distraction techniques, or whatever else you feel like.

Sadly, the first part (acceptance of the agenda being pushed and rejection of real evidence) is often true of the other side too.

Anyone being genuine will reject and accept aspects of both sides, but as soon as any of it goes against their own side they are attacked irrationally.

Neither side can be taken seriously, which is why the sceptics exist. Both sides have failed to hold integrity, so neither can be believed. Climate science is partially to blame for this, because it is their job to be genuine and unbiased, a task they have failed. The mainstream media totally ruins it with massive exaggeration, and laymen blindly believing it and demanding that everyone unconditionally believing the nonsense creates the other side. This fuels a legitimate reason to question the narratives (once they are exaggerated, they can be legitimately shot down) and the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.

Dogmatic, irrational bleating isn't working, you may have noticed.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2019)

Total rubbish again:


Sdajii said:


> The first person to express concern about it did so in the 1800s. In wasn't until about 40 years later that it started to become more spoken about, and in the mid to late 1980s it became more of a topical issue (along with environmentalism in general), but it didn't in any sense start in the 1970s.



You really are out of your depth here.


Sdajii said:


> Neither side can be taken seriously, which is why the sceptics exist.



No!
Sceptics exist because they are people who demand evidence.
You are a classic!
You cannot produce evidence and are a regular laughing stock given you keep claiming to have scientific knowledge.


Sdajii said:


> Climate science is partially to blame for this, because it is their job to be genuine and unbiased, a task they have failed.



Where did they fail?
Please provide evidence.


Sdajii said:


> Dogmatic, irrational bleating isn't working, you may have noticed.



Except that it is you who are making a lot of noise drumming a very empty vessel.
You are to science as Pauline Hanson is to politics.


----------



## Sdajii (27 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Total rubbish again:
> You really are out of your depth here.
> No!
> Sceptics exist because they are people who demand evidence.
> ...




Your post signature is very appropriate.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Your post signature is very appropriate.



Yes, you are its embodiment.
Thanks.


----------



## kahuna1 (27 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Your post signature is very appropriate.




Said by a person with .... theories that two studies have at less than a million to one chance.

Even NASA cooks who think no one went to the moon seem sane.



I know you will not watch ... nor the other well people who deny even a temperature change or that 75% of the Great Barrier Reef IS GONE ... All of them .... all 55 Organizations on this are wrong.

Well according to some PS read the last line of my post script .... below ... not poor ... just Paranoid and delusional ..


----------



## bellenuit (27 April 2019)

rederob said:


> It's a lame excuse because because it relies on the mentality of "if they can do, why can't we"?
> It's also devoid of seeking alternatives that are smarter.




No. We can do both. The money that we would be throwing away can be used to seek alternatives.



rederob said:


> Exactly where is this apparent revenue, in that it has been there for decades and *not* used or considered for your idea?
> Truly pie in the sky!




It doesn't matter. It has been used for other purposes. Throwing it away is not an answer to anything.



rederob said:


> It mostly provides jobs, not revenue.
> It provides about 2% of all jobs.
> Renewables delivers jobs in spades. A flow on from renewables projects is the supply chain/infrastructure. Billions of dollars are needed to just get the infrastructure in place for EVs, and that will provide more new jobs in coming years than the entire mining industry, not just coal.




Again, they are not mutually exclusive. And jobs do provide revenue to the country in two ways: taxes on wages and salaries and a reduction in social welfare costs (which makes more revenue available for other purposes).



rederob said:


> Coal is the worst option and should be avoided at all costs because its long run costs are never factored in to present prices.
> Indeed, it's the type of thinking that has us where we are today, facing an impending climate that will cost global economies trillions of dollars every year. And that's separate from the ecological damage that the planet continues to suffer ach day.




I agree. But not exporting our coal will not reduce coal consumption, which is what my main argument has been. Coal will still be used by those who buy it, but it will more likely be from a dirtier source than what we produce.



rederob said:


> Except that we are using the most expensive energy option, and it's legacy costs keep making it more expensive. On the other hand, renewables keep getting cheaper on every metric except labour (and that's a factor common to both).




If our energy producers continue to use coal when there are cheaper options then they are doing their shareholders and customers a disservice. That still does not mean we should not export coal to those who want it or use it ourselves in those situations, where through geographic or other factors, it is cheaper. 



rederob said:


> Ummm..what advantage is that?
> The advantage we provide to foreign multinationals who pay exceptionally low rates of tax?




A complete non-sequitur to my argument.



> The advantage of completely missing the boat on a renewables industry?




Again a non-sequitur. Both are possible.



> The advantage of an energy network that has pandered to fossil fuels at the expense of renewables policy?




Another non-sequitur. We could have had a renewables policy and still used and exported coal. China has a renewables policy and is a major coal user. 



> The advantage of high electricity prices because we have failed to plan for a renewables economy?




That is because we failed to plan for renewables, not because we use and export coal.



> The advantage of water crises, prolonged droughts, land degradation, and more extreme fire events, all due to changing our climate at an unprecedented rate?




Which brings us back to where I entered this argument. NONE of these would have been prevented had Australia stopped using or exporting coal. 



> I am sure I missed some, so please fill me in.




Plenty. Coal is just one factor. We have an abundance of other minerals that the world doesn't have and exploiting these by mining them and exporting them either as raw materials or finished product also adds to CO2 production. Should we stop that too? 

Apart from minerals, we are also a big agricultural producer. We know cattle produce high amounts of methane and it would obviously mean Australia could reduce our methane production if we stopped breeding cattle and just planted trees. However, there are plenty of countries that can fill the void our absence would create. On a global scale it wouldn't reduce methane produced, just shift where it is coming from.

Any way I am tired of this argument. The point I am trying to get across is that politically (globally) there is no will to get CO2 levels down to the level needed to stop a climate catastrophe of sorts. That being the case, we should do everything possible to strengthen our economy so that we are able to protect Australians and our resources in the event that there is a conflict of sorts (which is predicted should the s*** hit the fan). Throwing away the advantages we have when we know that they will have zero or negligible impact on CO2 or other pollutants globally does nothing but transfer jobs overseas and weaken our economy.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> No. We can do both. The money that we would be throwing away can be used to seek alternatives.



The money has been available and so have the alternatives, so you are just drowning in your own non-argument.


bellenuit said:


> Again, they are not mutually exclusive. And jobs do provide revenue to the country in two ways: taxes on wages and salaries and a reduction in social welfare costs (which makes more revenue available for other purposes).



Jobs provide tax, not revenue to the nation.  Please learn economics.


bellenuit said:


> I agree. But not exporting our coal will not reduce coal consumption, which is what my main argument has been. Coal will still be used by those who buy it, but it will more likely be from a dirtier source than what we produce.



You cannot use what there is not.  But your response ignores the real point of there never being a price on carbon.


bellenuit said:


> If our energy producers continue to use coal when there are cheaper options then they are doing their shareholders and customers a disservice.



That makes no sense at all as it is a policy framework that determines how the market operates.  Please learn about the NEM.


bellenuit said:


> A complete non-sequitur to my argument.



You should study logic as you seem unaware of what a non sequitur is - and there certainly cannot be in the form of questions.


bellenuit said:


> Which brings us back to where I entered this argument. NONE of these would have been prevented had Australia stopped using or exporting coal.



Except it is just your claim.
And it again ignores that we did nothing to put a price on carbon.


bellenuit said:


> Throwing away the advantages we have when we know that they will have zero or negligible impact on CO2 or other pollutants globally does nothing but transfer jobs overseas and weaken our economy.



This attitude sums up where we are and why.
It is the ideology of selfish greed from those who lack of care for those who come after us, couched in a series of excuses that ignore science, economics, and sustainability.


----------



## bellenuit (27 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Except it is just your claim.




As I said I am done arguing the point, but if it is your belief that if Australia had stopped using and exporting coal we would not have had "water crises, prolonged droughts, land degradation, and more extreme fire events" than I can see we are poles apart in our understanding of the effect of CO2. If Australia's contribution to CO2 through coal usage and export can alone cause those events, then the climate change group needs not only to reduce it's CO2 targets but reduce global CO2 production to significantly less than what Australia on its own currently produces. In other words, pretty much stop everything.



rederob said:


> Jobs provide tax, not revenue to the nation. Please learn economics.



.

Oh dear oh dear. If (using a hypothetical breakdown) we sell $100 of coal overseas, that $100 is revenue to the nation at the top line. If $40 of that is profit before tax, then we should expect about 30% of that (assuming no carry forward losses), ie. $12, to become bottom line revenue to the government as company tax. Part of the remaining $28 will also flow to the government as revenue depending on how it is distributed (dividends locally and overseas, retained earnings) and how the dividend recipients are taxed. If another $30 of the top line $100 goes in salary and wages of the coal producers employees, a portion of that too will flow to the government as bottom line revenue again depending on how the recipients are taxed on their income. The remaining $30 might be to pay for materials etc, and a portion of that too will also end up as bottom line revenue to the government (through GST and the income taxes of the supplier's employees among other things). So top line export revenue of $100 becomes bottom line government revenue almost exclusively through the tax system at various levels along the way.

There is a reason the US equivalent to the ATO is called the Internal *Revenue* Service.



> You should study logic as you seem unaware of what a non sequitur is - and there certainly cannot be in the form of questions.




Yes it can if they are rhetorical in nature, as yours were. But if you feel you need to go to that level, you might want to rephrase that sentence for obvious grammatical reasons. I have no intention of joining you there.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> If (using a hypothetical breakdown) we sell $100 of coal overseas, that $100 is revenue to the nation at the top line.



I'm no accountant but I'm aware of roughly what the costs are for certain manufacturing industries (energy-intensive ones) and ultimately most of the $ that come from sale of the product overseas are spent in Australia.

Most of the production cost is incurred locally either directly or via contractors etc. Some imported inputs in some cases but they're relatively minor in % terms.

If the company is foreign owned then what goes overseas is the profit but there's still a net gain to Australia given that 100% of the money came from overseas sales and most of it doesn't end up as profit.


----------



## rederob (28 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> As I said I am done arguing the point,....



And then continued to argue it.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of global action.
And you don't have any idea what national action looks like: - granted we never put it in place, so that's what we have now and you think it has given us some "advantage"...really????


bellenuit said:


> Oh dear oh dear. If (using a hypothetical breakdown)....



I can guarantee you that when Glencore or Anglo American, or even BMA sells that coal your figures look like a train wreck.
"In 2014, Glencore made $23.7 billion in revenue (more than Australia’s second largest listed company, Westpac) and made $296 million in profit.
This figure represents about $1.30 in profit for every $100 in revenue. It paid tax of $55 million on its profit."​The tens of billions of corporate profit from multinationals which leaves Australia each year trickles a meagre few percentage points tax revenue.


bellenuit said:


> Yes it can if they are rhetorical in nature, as yours were.



You cannot reinvent principles of logic to suit your case, and rhetoric excludes the prospect of your points having any merit.
However, you never showed what these *advantages* were that you claimed.
Your entire argument is a rerun of flawed thinking.


----------



## kahuna1 (28 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm no accountant but I'm aware of roughly what the costs are for certain manufacturing industries (energy-intensive ones) and ultimately most of the $ that come from sale of the product overseas are spent in Australia.
> 
> Most of the production cost is incurred locally either directly or via contractors etc. Some imported inputs in some cases but they're relatively minor in % terms.
> 
> If the company is foreign owned then what goes overseas is the profit but there's still a net gain to Australia given that 100% of the money came from overseas sales and most of it doesn't end up as profit.




Complex one, hate to admit I have both undergrad and post grad accounting. Not an accountant as such and never practiced to public. Have tax qualifications as well along  with a lot of other useless paper.

I would agree with virtually all you said. This debate about manufacturing is one about labor costs being the factor in WHY manufacturing is mainly overseas. Labor intensive things are overseas for a reason, and paying someone $2- an hour verses $25-. Call centers same things. Lines, not in your post Smurf get blurred in this distinction. Blurred for ideology and to make the case.

Making shoes or clothes or call centers where humans are needed, will NOT come back via any power issue.

Energy intensive industries, the position of some is that by going Green some cost is incurred. I see this dogma and idiocy in the above arguments. It is akin to John Howard's claims that by going green we are in some way lumbering a higher COST per KM or MW hour upon ourselves. Trump does the same to support his massive donations via coal and gas industries. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

The economics of power generation ARE and have tipped the other way. Yes when Mr Howard was not so senile about 20 years ago, cost of generation say for Nuclear was even cheaper than most others if one ignored other issues. Solar was horribly expensive and so too other green forms.

Australia in its wisdom sold off its power transmission grids. Sold them overseas and sold them to owners now operating out of tax havens. We pay nearly the highest COSTS for these power lines globally, yet they DECLARE no profits here, claim losses and as such we get buggered both ways. Tax for multinationals is OPTIONAL right now in Australia right now. Tax SHOULD be paid on profits made here, but is often NOT. Apple sells 8 billion here, makes over 25% margin  on sales so 2 billion here, profits, all we ask for is a small tax portion of that 30%, since the money to buy their crap came from here, leaving them to take 70% back home, but nope ... they instead of paying 600 million tax pay less than 50 million. It is however better than the power lone owners !! Origin even seems to pay no tax.

There is of course some issues with power when the sun doesn't shine, higher costs for say a solar thermal heat system that DOES operate 24 hours a day ... but taking out TRANSMISSION costs and line costs .... WHYALLA a steel plant is going 100% GREEN .... and it is ENERGY intensive in the EXTREME. If it can commercially produce steel, IN A HIGH COST LABOR economy, steel that is ECONOMIC and generates a profit, the discussion about Green power is ABSURD as to its economics not being viable.

On this thread, idiotic ideals have been put forward time and time and time again by what I would call idiotic if not bizarre claims. Conspiracy theories so insane that is makes people who believe we never went to the moon and 100,000 people involved at NASA in that mission and 400,000 in all the Apollo missions are lying. In 50 years not one has come forward to say its fake.

There are so many of these type of simply stupid conspiracy theories in evidence here, ones that CO2 in an atmosphere DOES not warm it. A simple experiment that conducted a billion times results in the same outcome, yet denied, by some here time and time again. Inf act 22 myths, stupid ones, idiotic and scientifically destroyed by irrefutable which is a word for impossibly to be challenged by anyone with an IQ over 40, are questioned and denied.

As to power storage and when the sun does not shire or wind not blow, solar thermal stores it for 24 hours via molten salts .. so an aside. Wind same thing, One DOES NOT rely upon one source and Hydro DOES NOT CARE ... if its used and the water flows when its DARK or light. Backup base load via GAS which is a bit quicker than COAL to get going, is IGNORED by zealots for one side. It is ignored that overall in the EU 20% of power is being generated via WIND, and if that is NOT blowing ... then Nuclear or Hydro or GAS or COAL is used. So if wind and solar mi provide power for 15 out of 24 hours, is that producing MORE or less CO2 ? If the alternative is coal fired and its used 9 hours instead of 24.

On this thread, one side, is debating with the other, and it is like debating with 14th century doctors about modern medicine. With ideas that, defy logic. Not being rude but when someone tells me CO2 cant be measured pre 1970 when ice cores have tiny bubbles of air trapped in them giving records back around a million years, I ask myself about sanity or am I dealing with internet trolls, mentally unsound people or just idiots or lobby groups for oil and gas interests.

Questioning satellite data since 1978 measuring say the suns output, the ice cover in arctic and antarctic, is really beyond any sane or rational denial. Yet here, alive and well, inside the modern world, it is to be ignored. IRREFUTABLE data from over 20 OTHER sources, in 20 other nations measure CO2 and Temperature and have done so for decades all with similar results and less clinical but still valid measures going back 150 years on temperature are to be ignored. One cant I thought ignore a machine in a satellite and its data for 40 years, not with any impartiality question it, and now 3 nations with similar satellites, or  EU one is on behalf of 28 nations, so we have 20 PLUS  measurements all saying similar if not identical things, and its ALL A CONSPIRACY. All of it.

Heating water, a simple experiment, is ignored, that it EXPANDS .... hence rising seas one way. Creates more water vapor, again greenhouse causing, ignored. EMPIRICAL  and IRREFUTABLE experiments only the insane would, question, but alive and well the denial.

Even CO2 measured via satellite now, but one station I mentioned, with winds blowing over 16,000 km of SEA, and ALWAYS blowing over the sea doe to gulf streams and ways winds blow, somehow their results for 40 years to be ignored due to bush fires 4,000 km away or Volcanoes the closest relevant one is 17,000 km away as the wind blows.

I suppose, the modern internet gives life to it. I sadly as seen on a few pother threads, where Smurf followed, one guy worships one set of beliefs and in fact, I read his posts and he follows a guy who is an educator. I read his CV, I in fact KNEW and KNOW him. I would not post this on the thread as it would further annoy and possibly make him explode. This guy, whilst I am all for education, and not being too cruel, his CV and since I was the guy or one of them the largest customer of the company he worked for  he was the LUNCH boy in effect, but his CV claims he was doing my job !!

Similar here, the myths of climate change, and I have examined over the years all 30 or so of them. Shared the research here, with a decent impartial guy who did the same, found the source, looked at the facts, looked at the background and then the science and in that impartial science and time and time again we are easily able to refute without breaking a sweat these claims. A political science major or a media degree, does not make you a climate expert. I am not that, but, when presented the case by 50,000 scientists as I shared, I tend not to listen to Facebook for science or Instagram or wherever the hell the other stuff comes from.

Economics of electricity generation via Green sources ONCE was more expensive, NOT the case today. In the USA they are NOT  building wind farms for any goverment subsidy. They do so for economic reasons. Issues over reliability in a system with a mix of generation types is somewhat idiotic. If Hydro and release of water does not give a damm, a pun, if its on at night, or day, the same amount of water is available for release either way and of its releasing 20% of capacity whilst sun and wind work and 100% when its NOT working, the argument of the economically illiterate is that it DOES NOT WORK. Or a coal station or gas one working 8 hours a day instead of 24 is NOT saving CO2 ?

My question would be, does it hurt to be that stupid ? Even suggesting their is NO NET CO2  saving ?

I would ask John Howard or Trump, or anyone who claimed jobs are lost when per KW hour they compete and COSTS are even falling. Does it hurt ? Badly ? Or is it a fog they live in ?
Donald Dementia is very very very smart and knows all about it ... he told me via twitter !!

I might add, battery storage of Wind and solar power costs is falling and I expect within 10-15 years to be able to STORE excess power at a low per KW cost in batteries that last 50 plus years at ULTRA LOW per KW cost overall.

This is the future and the breakthroughs in battery storage are stunning of late and I expect at some stage within 20 years, community based power grids via rooftop installations to be common. No more long transmission lines for a lot of it. But what do I know, its all fake ... fake economics, fake news and I am stupid being on the side of 50,000 scientists in the climate change debate.

tax wise ... I note the above post as I typed ... Australia like the rest of the world has an issue of tax theft and evasion. GLencore is a disgrace as is Chevron here, Apple I mentioned ... Microsoft books 600 million of 3.6 billion on sales here and avoids 3 billion in GST so 300 million tax wise .,. then instead of paying tax on 900 million NET profit or 270 million tax pays about 20 million, Theft of 550 million a year ... thanks mr Gates ... you dick.

Glencorp, comparing it to RIO or BHP via turnover and similar profit margins if not identical, it pays 10% ... YES 10% of the tax here they do. I would strip it of all mining leases and assets. Tax office is on the way to doing this, and one of my pet areas of helping them. But they dodge and defy laws. Same for the Tech ones and Google books most sales via Singapore and avoids both GST and company tax on profits.

Some or their lobby groups argue they have intellectual property or whatever ... being USA based allows them to rape our nation to the tune of 30 billion a year. Since their R+D costs are included in the Net Profit after tax margin of over 25% and we mere are asking for 30% of the profits after all costs and R+D are subtracted ... we get around 3% if not LESS. Power grids ... NO tax ... NONE ... LNG massive export of resources, NOT a cent so far paid in tax here on profits.

It is a topic for another thread. Tax one and economics of it. USA is being propped up by taking 1-2% of GDP of most nations via not paying tax there. Its not helping USA tax its just flowing into the companies hence the s+p 5-- nearly double pre GFC high and ours and most others equities at sucky sucky levels.


----------



## rederob (28 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm no accountant but I'm aware of roughly what the costs are for certain manufacturing industries (energy-intensive ones) and ultimately most of the $ that come from sale of the product overseas are spent in Australia.



Coal mining is not a manufacturing industry.
It's an extraction industry, and there is no value adding prior to export.
And with multinationals it is a *money extraction process* as well as most profits are repatriated overseas.


----------



## bellenuit (28 April 2019)

rederob said:


> And then continued to argue it.




It was a different point. 



rederob said:


> I can guarantee you that when Glencore or Anglo American, or even BMA sells that coal your figures look like a train wreck.
> "In 2014, Glencore made $23.7 billion in revenue (more than Australia’s second largest listed company, Westpac) and made $296 million in profit.
> This figure represents about $1.30 in profit for every $100 in revenue. It paid tax of $55 million on its profit."The tens of billions of corporate profit from multinationals which leaves Australia each year trickles a meagre few percentage points tax revenue.




Far from it, it just proved my point and your complete lack of understanding of government revenue.

I had used hypothetical figures but assumed $40 in profits per $100 in gross revenue to Glencore. Their corporate tax rate for that year was 18.6%. So if all their after tax profits were repatriated, then $32.56 per $100 is repatriated at the corporate level. But it seems, according to your figures, that just $1.06 per $100 in revenue was repatriated at the corporate level.

So the balance, $98.94 per $100 in your case, and $67.44 per $100 stays in the country. There will be leakage from that as some of that will be after tax executive and key employee salaries that might be repatriated overseas if that is where they are based and of course any imports (goods and services) that were directly (though Glencore) or indirectly (through its suppliers) used in getting that $100 in revenue.

The net, after removing the leakage, mostly ends up as Government *revenue* though the taxation system. It will be accrued to the government (state and federal) through royalties (where applicable), GST, employee personal income taxes, payroll taxes etc.  Even employee after tax pay is also not excluded from the accrual as it too is spent on goods and services that attract tax to the government. Also included are external supplies and services used by Glencore in the production of that $100 in revenue. Machinery they buy, though a cost to them, is revenue to the supplier and thus will also have taxation revenue benefits to the government in a similar manner to that supplier as the $100 revenue was to Glencore. None of this is double dipping, but represents the total government revenue attributable to that $100 in Glencore revenue.

You seem to be working on the erroneous assumption that government revenue from that $100 gross corporate revenue is just the corporate tax paid, but it is not. The benefits to the government, its revenue take in other words, is all the tax revenue that flows from the $100, which is considerable. In fact better than I had assumed by using your figures.


----------



## Struzball (28 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *I personally think ... 14% ,,, IS a pretty awful number !!*
> 
> How about YOU ?
> 
> Stating its at 25% or so ... is factual and backed UP. If anything ultra conservative.




I agree with you, coral cover is about 25%.  Based on recent AIMS surveys.



kahuna1 said:


> What does 14% mean ? Of that severely bleached mean ? And at 14% cover verses base of 100%  ?




When was coral cover ever at 100%?  That's improbable, if not impossible.

Coral cover at 25% does not mean there has been a loss of 75%, if that's what you believe.
1985 coral cover according to AIMS was about 30%.  So that's a 16.6% loss in coral ((30% - 25%) / 30% = 16.6%) based on those figures, between 1985 and 2017.   Figures are rough, if they can even truly be compared, but they seem to be comparable between surveys, in my opinion.


----------



## rederob (28 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Far from it, it just proved my point and your complete lack of understanding of government revenue.



No, it showed you don't understand tax avoidance.
So as not to pay a reasonable rate of tax (a revenue stream to government), Glencore has continued to inflate its debt by billions of dollars.
In the year quoted for Glencore, it paid less than 2% tax on earnings.
Why not compare what Glencore pays in tax to what BHP pays in tax and you will work out how multinationals repatriate the wealth of nations into their corporate coffers.


----------



## kahuna1 (28 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> tax wise ... I note the above post as I typed ... Australia like the rest of the world has an issue of tax theft and evasion. GLencore is a disgrace as is Chevron here, Apple I mentioned ... Microsoft books 600 million of 3.6 billion on sales here and avoids 3 billion in GST so 300 million tax wise .,. then instead of paying tax on 900 million NET profit or 270 million tax pays about 20 million, Theft of 550 million a year ... thanks mr Gates ... you dick.
> 
> Glencorp, comparing it to RIO or BHP via turnover and similar profit margins if not identical, it pays 10% ... YES 10% of the tax here they do. I would strip it of all mining leases and assets. Tax office is on the way to doing this, and one of my pet areas of helping them. But they dodge and defy laws. Same for the Tech ones and Google books most sales via Singapore and avoids both GST and company tax on profits.
> 
> ...




HOW ABOUT THE REAL NUMBERS ... rather than opinion or NON FACT.

https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-...b443b4-d0bb-4a88-a189-4523dbcd7f15/details?q=

Tax office 2017 TAX numbers.
Glencore via 3 entites 2017 income 16.9 billion .... taxable income 1.7 billion .... TAX PAID ... 11 million

Tax rate ... on 1.7 billion is LESS than 1% ... LESS ...
ATO is not happy and neither am  I.

BHP* Billiton* income ... 37.9 billion ...  profit 11.4 billion and TAX paid ...  3.271 billion PAID ....
or around 30% ON PROFITS ...

On BHP joint sub ... a coal one ... to show how big a crook Glencore is ...
BHP BILLITON MITSUI COAL PTY LTD Income  1.362 billion PROFIT ... 502.4 million TAX PAID ... 148.6 million ... AGAIN just under 30% on profits ...

I don't need to do RIO its the same as BHP ...

A subsidiary of BHP joint venture with 5% of the turnover of Glencore pays 14 times MORE tax.

Speaking from a perch about someones LACK of understanding about goverment finances when you have NO FACTS .... NO IDEA of facts ... is what it is.



bellenuit said:


> assumed $40 in profits per $100 in gross revenue




Oh really .... well from the above its NET profit is close to 33% and GROSS is EBIT ... which I would assume is close to 60% NOT 40%  ...

In the case of GLENCORE ...  GLENCORE INVESTMENT PTY LIMITED
it rapes Australia to the tune of 500 MILLION a year in unpaid taxes via various means.

In this case, a tax haven in Switzerland and a corrupt CEO ... and ATO struggling to deal with their form of theft and in this case, to be exact, Glencore has lumped Australia with a debt for its assets and other things that ... has seen the assets here being charged funding for things at what appear to be INSANE and fake transfer pricing costs into a tax haven with 5% tax. One side you save 30% tax here, stuff Australia and the other side declare a profit at 5% ... to enrich yourself.

*I vote send him to jail. Is that being to exact with data facts and numbers ?* ATO is the source, its their data.

This thread is arguing about irrefutable experiments and data and now tax stuff that ... is available and NOT the subject of someones opinion, conspiracy theory or pet delusion. Some even dispute chemical reactions on this thread.

Stuff me.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Lines, not in your post Smurf get blurred in this distinction. Blurred for ideology and to make the case.




Responding to your overall post I'll note that most of those on the "technical" side of the energy industry / debate tend to see the CO2 issue as a challenge to be resolved. One that's more difficult than the public tends to perceive, it's not simply a matter of building wind farms and that's all there is to do, but one that's certainly solvable and really just a matter of working it out and then getting on with it. Nothing needs to be invented, it's just a design and construction task really.

Those who own existing coal-fired generation are also mostly not an obstacle. There's one or two exceptions but broadly speaking, there's no real opposition coming from the owners of existing assets to the idea that they're going to become obsolete.

What they do want however is to fully understand what's happening and that includes what their competitors are doing and there are both technical and economic reasons for that. Economic because they don't want to blow their money. Technical because having multiple operators exit all at once is a seriously bad idea, it needs to be a staged process aligning with the construction of new things which may not necessarily be owned by the same company. That's where things start to get more difficult since the economic ideologues really don't like that idea although there are workarounds in practice albeit imperfect ones.

Where you will hear most of the screaming coming from is those seeking to play politics as such, mostly they're actual politicians or aspiring ones, or who are seeking to divert attention from other things. Things which could broadly be categorised as either their own stuff ups or the question of where rather a lot of money has gone noting that those two points are related.


----------



## bellenuit (28 April 2019)

rederob said:


> In the year quoted for Glencore, it paid less than 2% tax on earnings.




You seem to be out of your depth in this area. Using your figures:



rederob said:


> "In 2014, Glencore made $23.7 billion in revenue (more than Australia’s second largest listed company, Westpac) and made $296 million in profit.
> This figure represents about $1.30 in profit for every $100 in revenue. It paid tax of $55 million on its profit."




So their earnings were $296M and the tax paid thereon was $55M. Thus, as I stated, they paid 18.6% tax on Earnings. I don't know where you get the less than 2%.



rederob said:


> So as not to pay a reasonable rate of tax (a revenue stream to government), Glencore has continued to inflate its debt by billions of dollars.




Debt is not a tax deduction. Interest thereon is, if the debt was taken on for income producing purposes.

And you still do not seem to understand that Government revenue from Glencore's gross revenue is not just the corporate tax paid, but all the tax upon all the inputs that make up the costs associated with the company's revenue, both direct and indirect through suppliers; employee income tax, payroll tax, net GST, etc.


----------



## rederob (28 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> So their earnings were $296M....



That was their "profit."
Revenue and profit are not the same.


bellenuit said:


> Debt is not a tax deduction.



Debt affects profit calculations.


bellenuit said:


> And you still do not seem to understand that Government revenue from Glencore's gross revenue is not just the corporate tax paid...



Not true at all.
My point was that multinationals expropriate Australian capital, leaving it the poorer.
Internal revenues are exactly that - *internal*.
They were never part of my consideration.


----------



## bellenuit (28 April 2019)

As an additional point, whether specific coal exporters try to avoid tax or not is a separate issue as to whether we should or should not export coal, which was what was being discussed. Tax avoidance, where it exists, should be tackled by stopping loopholes in our tax system and penalising cheats.


----------



## kahuna1 (28 April 2019)

In 2012 ...

verses 1985 .... AIMS said 50% WAS GONE .... of coral verses 1985.

YES some Reefs will have 30% cover .... now 15% ... SOME 80% at 40% .... but of all the reefs ...

50% LESS in 2012 ....

75% LESS in 2018 !!

*To get their data, Fabricius and her colleagues surveyed 214 different reefs around the Great Barrier Reef, compiling information from 2,258 surveys to determine the rate of decline between 1985 and 2012. They estimated the coral cover, or the amount of the seafloor covered with living coral.


 That overall 50-percent decline, they estimate, is a yearly loss of about 3.4 percent of the reef. [Photos of Great Barrier Reef Through Time]

https://www.livescience.com/23612-great-barrier-reef-steep-decline.html
*
TWO BLEACHING EVENTS OF EXTREME TEMPERATURE occurred post 2012, in some areas three ... events 2016.2017 2018 ... others got hit twice by once in 100 year storms .... THREE TIMES
*
This is NEITHER an opinion NOR a conspiracy  theory. It is irrefutable and called SCIENCE and MATH. 
*
_Some reefs, such as around LIZARD island had not A big cover rate to start ... *Carter Reef* started at 24% COVER .... its NOW ... 3% COVER ... that is 13% of 1980's average ...

13% !!  Most in the area ... SAME LEVEL ...  under 15% ... other regions better of course.
_
ONE MORE HEAT EVENT ... next 2 years and 25% will be 15% . Simple as that. Sit inside that microwave and put it on high and for 2 minutes and see how you feel.
*
They adjust for the initial cover and if its HALF or whatever ... its 50% ... if it was say now 20% that is 40% of what it was !! 
*
*Congratulations Humanity
The Great Barrier Reef has lost 75% of what it was in 1985. 
Chances of 10% being left in 2050 are less than 1%.
The First Canary in the Coal Mine is DEAD .... *
*Congratulations Mr Trump, Climate deniers, idiots and non scientific people !! 
*

They did find some local differences, with the relatively pristine northern region showing no decline over the past two decades. in 2012 .... well Lizard Island ... bye bye  ... two heat events ...

all of this is availible if one LOOKS ... searches and follows MATHS ... and Science ... but here ... even simple things ... CO2 and it being a greenhouse gas .... is disputed.
That levels of CO2 for a million years we KNOW were 200 to 280 PPM is disputed ... despite air bubbles.
That current levels ... even measured by Satellite ... at 410 PPM and 20 ground stations well OUTSIDE the 200 to 280 PPM ... range for a million years, like Tobacco in the 1960's was still good for you.

IRREFUTABLE .... evidence, people actually question even chemical reactions. What CO2 does in the atmosphere.

I again ... in disbelief ... respond to science ...

*Congratulations Humanity*
*The Great Barrier Reef has lost 75% of what it was in 1985. *
*Chances of 10% being left in 2050 are less than 1%.*
*The First Canary in the Coal Mine is DEAD .... *
*Congratulations Mr Trump, Climate deniers, idiots and non scientific people !!

This first Canary is dead, likely massive impact on Marine species diversity i  the region. One that took hundreds of millions of year to evolve .... Well done silly HUMANS !
*
Second canary is all but dead. Even satellite data measuring Arctic ICE cover is disputed, even an icebreaker going to the North Pole in summer 2018, at 13 KNOTS .... ice cover THIN and salty .... 

ARCTIC BLUE EVENT coming  less than 15% of ice cover ... ... so too permafrost melt and Arctic Ocean Seabed frozen for a million years, CO2 released no matter what we do and methane enough to compete with Trump and win. 

ARCTIC Blue likely not for 10-20 years, but holy **** when it does. The following 40 years* will release 30 times our yearly CO2  emissions in 2019 and Methane which is worse, I pray its less than 2 billion tons .... the debate ... will be over. Maybe ... *

But lets debate ... deny and ignore science. IRREFUTABLE ... SMOKING IS GOOD FOR YOU .... again !! 

Will humanity as a species still be debating ? Ignoring science ? common sense ? Math as we just saw, is too hard ? Chemical reactions and waiting for a different outcome from a reaction conducted over a billion times ... sitting around waiting for a different outcome ?? INSANITY.

NO way we stop either canary ONE ... or TWO ... NOT a hope in hell. We are at 410 PPM CO2 and Methane being released is off the scale .... in 2019. Cant wait for the second canary die !! PARTY PARTY PARTY

*Congratulations !! Well done. 

PS if your loosing 3.4% a year ... well in 31 years at that rate ... THIS rate ... 10%  left  in 2050 ... v 25% NOW ... is optimistic. *


----------



## Struzball (28 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *Congratulations Humanity
> The Great Barrier Reef has lost 75% of what it was in 1985.*




Saying it so repeatedly does not make it true.
I think the facts speak for themselves, but you choose to ignore the facts, and spout garbage.
It is absolutely your opinion, that the GBR has lost 75% of what it was in 1985, with absolutely no facts to support it.

From a 2016 report by GBRMPA..

"We've seen headlines stating that 93 per cent of the Reef is practically dead. We've also seen reports that 35 per cent, or even 50 per cent, of the entire Reef is now gone.
However, based on our combined results so far, *the overall mortality is 22 per cent *— and about 85 per cent of that die-off has occurred in the far north between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island, 250 kilometres north of Cairns."

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/news-room/...e-facts-on-great-barrier-reef-coral-mortality


----------



## rederob (28 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> ...whether we should or should not export coal, which was what was being discussed.



Not quite.
I have no problem with coal being exported.  I do have a problem with coal not having a price which reflects its global warming potential. And that is irrespective of it being exported.
We are all here late to the party.
Those accepting the science will likely agree that we need mechanisms in place that mitigate warming.
We had the science somewhat clearly outline the nature of the problem in 1990 when the IPCC first reported.
Little wonder children are marching in the street.  15 years before many of them were born we could have put in place policies that were going to reverse the potential for ongoing harm.  15 years later we still haven't done anything.
I am ashamed.
We, the older generations, should know better.  
We have history to tell us that some things are inevitable if left to fester.
But we have learned nothing.


----------



## bellenuit (28 April 2019)

rederob said:


> That was their "profit."
> Revenue and profit are not the same.




At least you understand that. But that is not what you wrote. You said: In the year quoted for Glencore, it paid less than 2% tax on *earnings*. You are confusing Revenue with Earnings, something that has become known as the Emma Alberici school of Accounting.

Although there may be slight industry specific variations in the terminology, for your edification, Revenue is the top line or gross income figure prior to the deduction of costs (in your example Revenue was $23.7 Billion). Earnings is the bottom line figure after costs are deducted (in your example Earnings were $296 million before Tax and $241 million after tax). In general *Earnings* and *Profits* are synonymous, but they may categories them, sometimes in up to 3 different ways, for analysis purposes. So sometimes a company will report *Gross Profits*, which is *Revenue* less *Direct Expenses* (those expenses directly related to the generation of that income). *Operating Profit* which additionally removes *Indirect Expenses*. Finally you may have reported *Net Profit* which reduces *Operating Profit* by interest and taxes.  *Earnings* and *Net Profit* are usually the same (with again very minor industry specific variations) and is the figure used to report Earnings Per Share (EPS).

In your case you simply specified $296 million in profit upon which you said it paid $55 million in tax. That amounts to paying tax at 18.6%. Their earnings would be $241 million (Net profit after Tax). The reason they did not pay 30% is probably because they had tax losses that they were able to carry forward.



rederob said:


> Debt affects profit calculations.




No, the interest on Debt, if it is tax deductible, effects profit calculations. You can have debt whose interest is not tax deductible or on which no interest at all is paid which will not effect profit calculations.



rederob said:


> Not true at all.




Yes, true. I wrote:






I quote you: "_Jobs provide tax, not revenue to the nation. Please learn economics_". Our nation gets almost all its revenue from taxes. The main exceptions being payments by government or semi-government industries (Water Corporations), earnings from the Future Fund when paid and asset sales. 



> My point was that multinationals expropriate Australian capital, leaving it the poorer.




Not worth arguing on a silly statement like that.



> Internal revenues are exactly that - *internal*.
> They were never part of my consideration.




For heaven sake, just because the IRS chose to use Internal in their name, doesn't imply that corporate tax on exports is somewhat different and corporate tax is what your consideration was primarily about. You are clearly showing your cluelessness now. The government collects revenue primarily through taxation. Corporate Tax is just one part of that revenue and other parts are the tax revenue of all the inputs that make up the deductions to arrive at the corporate profit. Corporate tax on profit from exports is not *External*, if you think that is what the internal refers to.


----------



## kahuna1 (28 April 2019)

GBRMPA..  MARINE PARK AUTHORITY ...


Struzball said:


> GBRMPA..




IS the overall BODY one that does tourist stuff. .... which I did MENTION ....

IT is NOT the body doing the RESEARCH.
NEVER HAS BEEN ...


kahuna1 said:


> AIMS




Thats the Asutralian Institute of MArine Scince ...
* Australian Institute of Marine Science is Australia’s tropical marine research agency* established in 1978 .... IT IS THE ONE STUDYING the reef NOT the MARINE AUTHORITY.



Struzball said:


> From a 2016 report by GBRMPA..




Quoting *NOT source data* ... from 2016 PRIOR TO 2 bleaching events and in some reefs cases 3 since then .... is absurd. This is the body that has DUAL ROLES and one is attracting TOURSITS.

IT is so stupid .... a 2016 report ... .. that it defies logic.

Is that plain enough ?

It did say ...

_Based on the results of in-water surveys to date, the average coral loss within each management area is:50 per cent in the Far Northern Management Area (from the tip of Cape York to just north of Lizard Island) 

“We've seen headlines stating that 93 per cent of the Reef is practically dead. We've also seen reports that 35 per cent, or even 50 per cent, of the entire Reef is now gone._


They are referring to the BLEACHING in the Northern Regions 2015/16 ... a single year.

We have had 3 summers since then.
I have accurately quoted SOURCE and time-frame.
I am not suggesting 50% DIES in a year. .... or DID.

75% overall HOWEVER .... since 1985 is GONE ...


CARTER REEF ... I mentioned .... 23% is the 1980 average ... today ... 5% inside reef and 0-5% OUTSIDE ... *less than 15% of 1985 *
http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/reef/14137S

Lets go LIZARD ... reef ... 2% NOW ... was 14% in the 1980s  ... similar *UNDER 15% *

Lets do MACKAY ... inner part was ... 31% in 1980 ave ... out of hard copy ... but if you wish to use the 1990 ave at 28% ... that is FINE ...

BECAUSE ... its *NOW ZERO .... ZERO POINT ZERO* >....  and didn't it just flood there ?

Can I repeat that ? * ZERO POINT ZERO*
 HERE IS THE LINK .. SOURCE DATA  ... Link
http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/reef/16015S

*St Crispin Reef* its an outer reef ...
1980.s ave was 24%... on the link 1990 ave ... is 25% ...

NOW ... 2019  ZERO and even the outer part is 0-5% ... *ZERO .... ZERO POINT ZERO*
http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/reef/16019S

LETS GO VISITING .... more ? or are you unable to follow ?
YES SOME ... rare ones have gone up ... others ... the vast majority are well ... I now am aware are in some cases ... *GONE.*

Expecting a reef even the outer part of the reef still alive ...  still barely there, to have weathered the runoff from the  2018/19 floods is ... being absurdly hopeful.

*Horseshoe Reef*
44% in the 1990's to 5% NOW ...

or outer reef at 24%  to ZERO to 5% ...
IN basic terms *90% gone*.
http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/reef/22104S

If you had followed correct links as given ... the CORRECT people who survey the reef ,,,, and not quoted a 2016 study talking about ONE year impacts ... not 1985 to 2019 as I was ... MAYBE you might get the picture.

*ZERO POINT ZERO* is that good ? I don't want to look at how many are in this state.

I know, I will not get anything for repeating it, correcting it, explaining it  ... showing errors for what they are. And giving links. More than likely it will be denied.

*The Great Barrier Reef is DEAD *... sadly I say this, so too does the 2019 survey for some reefs. Not a mere 10% left in 2050 ... DEAD today for some reefs. 100% dead. 

*I am disturbed and UPSET by this. Profoundly so. 

Every Australian should be. DISTURBED by this. *


----------



## basilio (28 April 2019)

Two minutes summing up the message and impact of Greta Thunberg.


----------



## rederob (28 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Corporate profit from exports is not *External*, if you think that is what the internal refers to.



Go and argue economics elsewhere as I have clearly made the point that multinationals take capital out of the nation.
The information you want quibble about was all available in the link.
Kahana1 has pretty well dealt with your concerns many posts back, so I won't be adding anything else on the topic.


----------



## Struzball (28 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Thats the Asutralian Institute of MArine Scince ...




Yes, I'm aware of that, if you'd bother read my last post about actual data collected by AIMS.
I'd already summarised the results of their surveys since 1985 which you chose to ignore.  And the answer was not 75% as you continually say.

You are welcome to believe 75% of the GBR is gone.
But you can not pretend it is a fact.


----------



## Struzball (28 April 2019)

Reposting in case you missed it, Kahuna1



Struzball said:


> Coral cover is about 25%. Based on recent AIMS surveys.






Struzball said:


> 1985 coral cover according to AIMS was about 30%.






Struzball said:


> So that's a 16.6% loss in coral ((30% - 25%) / 30% = 16.6%) based on those figures, between 1985 and 2017.




16.6% loss, from the source.
Not 75%.
Not cherry picked individual reefs.
Averaged across the entire GBR.


----------



## bellenuit (29 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Go and argue economics elsewhere as I have clearly made the point that multinationals take capital out of the nation.




I wasn't arguing economics. I was explaining simple accounting and taxation concepts to you for your edification, something which you clearly did not understand.

But I am quite happy to leave it there.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

Struzball said:


> From a 2016 report by GBRMPA..






Struzball said:


> http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/news-room/...e-facts-on-great-barrier-reef-coral-mortality



Well the report you cited was dated 3/6/16

YOUR QUOTES
then you refer to 2017 ? When the survey was done 2015/16 ?

What relevance does 2016 have to 2019  ? St Crispin Reef in 2016 survey was 16% Cover ....

TODAY its DEAD .... zero cover !! DEAD. Not cherry picked, it was just surveyed.

http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/reef/16019S

Mackay Reef 2015 had 14% cover, not surveyed in 2016 ....  in 2018 ... it was 18% .... it was 31% in 1980's ave .... TODAY ITS DEAD.

*What is the relevance of a report about 2016 when its DEAD TODAY ? 

Do you understand its 2019 ? 
*
I did point out some extreme events post 2015/16 bleaching, massive storms and runoff .... diabolical to Reef Health, some hit three for three with bleaching.

Cherry picking ? NO ... some and a few are ok, but when not one ... I will NOW look ... how many are DEAD on the current survey.

RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016  cover to zero in 2019
St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019
Opal 2 reef ... RIP ....  22% cover to ZERO ....
Green Island ... RIP ... 0% ...


So far 31 Reefs under survey 2019 ... 5 of them are NEW ...
Of the 26.

IN 2019 ... THIS YEAR .... I count 6  with* ZERO cover, main reef being dead* ...  and scant Outer reef cover ....

Fitzroy Island ... CLOSE a mere 2% verses 32% ...  Not good.

I count TWO ... in a better shape .. out of 26, 6 dead and little hope of recovery as coral left is scant and a mere 2% of what it once was or LESS in volume.

of the remaining 17, *severe to extreme loss v 1985*. I did cover a few on the above post ...

Am I cherry picking 6 dead, one close to dead out of 26 surveyed in 2019 ? When I did share SOME had recovered somewhat ... 2 out of 26 ....* I did report 2 dead NOT 6* ... and a few of the NON selected ones that represent the state in 2019 verses 1985.

Please don't report to me about 2016, then call it 2017 when its as relevant as a building report on Notre-Dame de Paris from last month. It burnt DOWN.

In 2016 these 6 Reefs were alive, and in total ... all 6 are dead, one not far away, and of the 26 and 19 left ... gee 12 out of 19 in serious trouble. Is 18 out of 26 a good total ?

All from source, NOT some cut and paste, their reports as of 2019 ....
https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/reef-monitoring.html

Sadly ... we are in 2019, sadly, even simple dates cannot be read. Sadly, simple reports from 2019 with links provided are ignored over 2016 data, when the PATIENT IS DEAD !!

Give me a break, surely ... *an apology* ? A kiss ? I need a hug after finding out 6 in 2019 and 2018 ... if you insist ... the survey found HOW many others with ZERO cover, or unlikely ever to recover ?

You would ignore even If I shared but its sobering the total !! *SOBERING. *


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *Congratulations Humanity*
> *The Great Barrier Reef has lost 75% of what it was in 1985. *
> *Chances of 10% being left in 2050 are less than 1%.*
> *The First Canary in the Coal Mine is DEAD ....*







kahuna1 said:


> how many are DEAD on the current survey.
> 
> RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
> St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
> ...




*DEAD on the current survey.

RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019
Opal 2 reef ... RIP .... 22% cover to ZERO ....
Green Island ... RIP ... 0% ...*



kahuna1 said:


> *Congratulations Mr Trump, Climate deniers, idiots and non scientific people !!
> 
> This first Canary is dead, likely massive impact on Marine species diversity i the region. One that took hundreds of millions of year to evolve .... Well done silly HUMANS !*




SAD BUT very very correct

I am sure the Turtles which use Green Island as their main hatching ground will LOVE no Coral

Even the dumbest of the dumb can work out some things.  ZERO coral is ZERO alive. DEAD DEAD DEAD

Its wonderful .... Resident Dump ... whoops President Trump. Dumb Donald is 0% still alive ? You had a    hunch !! World leader ... what an idiot along with Pauline and the *Liberal party policies*.


----------



## Struzball (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *Do you understand its 2019 ?
> *




Do you understand the most recent coral surveys were done in 2017?
https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/latest-surveys.html

I can only report data that exist.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> All from source, NOT some cut and paste, their reports as of 2019 ....
> https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/reef-monitoring.html




TODAY ... From source ....  2019
they do surveys every year ...
Can you read ?
http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/reef/16049S

Seriously ..... Can you read ?

*Summary of status and trends*
*Green Island Reef 2019*
*Green Island Reef** 0%  0%*
* 0%  0%  0% 0%  0% 0%  0%0%  0% 0%  0% 0%  0%
0%  0% 0%  0% 0%  0%0%  0% 0%  0% 0%  0%

2019...2019 ... 2019

Reef Surveys
This page lists reefs on the Great Barrier Reef that are surveyed by the AIMS Long-term Monitoring Program. Each reef links to individual pages containing:
http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/
*
Again I ask ...since
since they do surveys every year ... very clearly and easily SEEN ..
*Can you read ?
*
From your link ... Surveys involve a series of *four or five field trips annually *which are reported on soon after their conclusion.
*
Annually ... *hmmm* ... Annually ...What does that word mean ? *
On your planet ... 4-5 trips EVERY year don't exist NOR their DATA ... up to date DATA ...* 
Would that be fair ? Your comprehension of DATA and reports ? Don't exist 
*
I am sure the Turtles which use Green Island as their main hatching ground will LOVE no Coral

Even the dumbest of the dumb can work out some things. ZERO coral is ZERO alive. DEAD DEAD DEAD

Its wonderful .... Resident Dump ... whoops President Trump. Dumb Donald is 0% still alive ? You had a hunch !! World leader ... what an idiot along with Pauline and the *Liberal party policies.
*


----------



## Struzball (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> TODAY ... From source ....  2019
> they do surveys every year ...
> Can you read ?
> http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/reef/16049S
> ...




Yes thanks for that, I'm only looking at the annual summary reports.  
Which say, that as a whole, 2017 coral cover was 16% less than 1985.
Not cherry picked individual reefs.

https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/latest-surveys.html


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

Surveys involve a series of four or five field trips annually which are reported on soon after their conclusion.



kahuna1 said:


> *RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019*
> *St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...*
> *Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...*
> *Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019*
> ...




Ok ... your the expert ... 37% cover from that 2016 .... REPORT .... to ZERO ...

You keep alluding to a 2016 report .... I sadly keep going  its 2019 ... and this is the current DATA ....

I must take a break to think about your 2016 report being valid when 2019 data is available ...  So if something was alive in2016 ... clearly DEAD in 2019 ... we still use 2016 DATA ?

NO its still alive RIB reef and 6 others ... in your MIND ...

26 others surveyed in 2018/19 UNDER 10% of 1985 COVER ... not in your 2016 report but in the reef surveys from above .... CRASHING post 2016 !!

*32 out of 61 Reefs either DEAD ... or under 10% v 1985* .... post 2016 surveys are shocking . LATEST 2018 and 2019 individual reports.

Congratulations it MUST hurt. Really ... seriously ... it must hurt standing in a graveyard debating if the people buried, are still alive.

Look I have the doctors report from 2016 ... it says they are WELL !!


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

Sorry but the above ... denial of any issue climate change  via LNP ... given Green Island NOW in 2019 ... just surveyed *HAD NO HARD CORALS LEFT *....  I am not sure WHAT will wake these climate idiots UP. Green Island has been under survey because its one of the ONLY turtle Hatcheries for Leatherback Turtles ...

It’s easy to see why Green Island Cairns has been on the tourist map for over 100 years – first as a basic lodge (grass huts) for passing fishermen and then as an opportunity for day-trippers to experience the reef first-hand.

In fact Green Island has a long list of firsts:


1st tourist destination on the Great Barrier Reef – 1880s
1st protected coral cay – 1937
1st glass bottom boat experience – 1948
1st underwater observatory – 1954
1st island movie theatre (featuring underwater footage) – 1961
1st crocodile exhibit on a sand cay – 1964

http://www.adventuremumma.com/green-island-cairns-turtle-heaven/
*NEW FIRST ... NO CORAL* ... welcome to climate change ... I note now in the link directly above ... turtle heaven ... is that WITH or WITHOUT Coral ? ... is it heaven or is it hell in 2019 ?


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

Kahuna: You seem to think that by shouting (using CAPS, colours and bold text, etc) you can be taken seriously or something.

Please be polite and use regular text like everyone else. For many years what you are doing has been considered rude, poor internet etiquette. Just like in a face to face conversation, yelling and screaming doesn't make you correct.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

You seem to think ... CO2 is not a greenhouse gas,

but thanks

lets whisper the argest living thin on the planet is on the way out.

Golly 

*Maybe* you like these*  fonts* ?


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> You seem to think ... CO2 is not a greenhouse gas,
> 
> but thanks




Literally no one in this thread and virtually no one anywhere has said that.

Your continued deflection tactics demonstrate your lack of substance, but you have once again successfully changed the topic away from your own shortcomings. It is telling that the alarmists in this thread consistently change the topic and use ad hominem attacks rather than focussing on dissecting the actual issues. Well done.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

I thought I quoted and LINKED ..  one of your theories ... your words ... on a bad day ... about CO2.

Must have been another Sanjjedi poster


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I thought I quoted and LINKED ..  one of your theories ... your words ... on a bad day ... about CO2.
> 
> Must have been another Sanjjedi poster




You are very confused.

I have never said or in any way claimed CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I learned it in primary school and have never been in any doubt since that day.


----------



## rederob (29 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> It is telling that the alarmists in this thread consistently change the topic and use ad hominem attacks rather than focussing on dissecting the actual issues.



Actually you are one of those who do not understand climate science,  changes the subject regularly, uses the term "alarmist," and is unable to show that your claims have merit.
You are so poorly informed that you have never raised the most basic issues of climate science, in countless posts here.


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Actually you are one of those who do not understand climate science,  changes the subject regularly, uses the term "alarmist," and is unable to show that your claims have merit.
> You are so poorly informed that you have never raised the most basic issues of climate science, in countless posts here.




You have a penchant for making false statements, such as all of the above other than the fact that I do use the term 'alarmist'.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> CO2 is not a greenhouse gas





see you just said it AGAIN ....

your view is that it is NOT causing temperature rises ? Or not the guilty party ? Whilst you ignore CO2 spent 800,000 years if not a million between 200 and 280 PPM and now is 408 PPM. Even that you dispute ... ice cores are lying ... measurement is lying ... satellites are lying ... ice cores in Tasmania ? 

So science operates different in your universe.

Did aliens come down and kill those Coral Reefs ? DON'T answer ... 34 theories is my limit.


----------



## rederob (29 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> You have a penchant for making false statements, such as all of the above other than the fact that I do use the term 'alarmist'.



And yet every time I show you have no valid claim, you insist, without any evidence, that you have.
Your claims on sea levels, for example, showed how clueless you were with respect to what drives climate.
The list was long, and your evidence was caught short.
But again, exactly what is it that is the planet's greatest problem, seeing you keep saying it's not GHGs?


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> see you just said it AGAIN ....
> 
> your view is that it is NOT causing temperature rises ? Or not the guilty party ? Whilst you ignore CO2 spent 800,000 years if not a million between 200 and 280 PPM and now is 408 PPM. Even that you dispute ... ice cores are lying ... measurement is lying ... satellites are lying ... ice cores in Tasmania ?
> 
> ...




Riiiight. You've pretty much summed up your style and level of debating technique right there, misquoting my statement "I have never said CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" and "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" without even starting it with a "..."

I'm not sure if you are trolling or genuinely that deranged, but either way you are not worth conversing with and I will likely not bother again.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

Sdajii said:


> CO2 is not a greenhouse gas



yet again ... 

Your view is CO2 is NOT the main contributor to warming. Nor Water vapor, Since 50,000 scientists, real ones ... disagree with BOTH theories, let alone the 33 others ones., you have .... 120 mete falls in sea levels no one ... saw in the past 100,00 years ....  go right ahead.

What killed the coral reefs ?


----------



## Sdajii (29 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> yet again ...
> 
> Your view is CO2 is NOT the main contributor to warming. Nor Water vapor, Since 50,000 scientists, real ones ... disagree with BOTH theories, let alone the 33 others ones., you have .... 120 mete falls in sea levels no one ... saw in the past 100,00 years ....  go right ahead.
> 
> What killed the coral reefs ?




Again, you are misquoting me. I don't have time to give an explanation you will again twist the words of.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

I am not twisting your words.
Nor trying to annoy you.
Nor trying to misrepresent you.
I went through every theory you have postulated a few pages ago on the unstoppable climate change thread ....  and addressed them all.

I found them to be the opposite of scientific evidence I and 50,000 scientists find irrevocable.
Unquestionable. Impossible to question in fact.

I did examine your theories, against at times  chemical and simple exothermic reactions and found their conclusions lacking, bizarre and against the laws of basic science. I confirmed my limited understanding with the IPCC and the peer reviewed by 24,000 scientists paper and 200 Nobel prize winners from late 2017 and, well, I could not and do not accept your theories. Cause and effect were ignored in favor at times of quite impossible ideas and baseless understanding of events.

In the meantime, all sources, even ones that have less than 1 in a million of being even slightly incorrect are assumed to be incorrect, for that potential error and all findings and data dismissed.



Let alone where your theories led you.
I say this with respect, no anger or taunting.

We agree to totally disagree on science and you with  50,000 scientists from the IPCC most of whom signed off on the 2017 peer review paper on the topic.

I find you position on virtually every issue the IPCC raises to be different and as such, amazing would be a polite way to say that.


----------



## basilio (29 April 2019)

New paper has been releases examining the financial risk to Australia from climate change.  
Issue include  stranded fossil fuel assets and the impact of CC on  insurance investments.

*Climate Risk and the Financial System*





	

		
			
		

		
	
 (PDF, 3.49 MB)
*Our new report outlines how Australia can learn from a new wave of global climate policy to create sustainable finance.*

Climate Risk and the Financial System, authored by Chris Barrett, Executive Director, Finance Strategy, at the European Climate Foundation, and Anna Skarbek, CEO of ClimateWorks Australia, sets out the risks to global finance posed by climate change, and how financial systems around the world are responding to these risks and seeking to capture the opportunities. Australia has been slower to grasp this new financial agenda, but its natural resources and sophisticated finance sector provide it with a powerful opportunity to catch up quickly, if it is willing to do so.

https://www.monash.edu/sustainable-...stralia/climate-risk-and-the-financial-system


----------



## wayneL (29 April 2019)

@kahuna1 Did you read the link I posted?


----------



## explod (2 May 2019)

MPs have approved a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency.

This proposal, which demonstrates the will of the Commons on the issue but does not legally compel the government to act, was approved without a vote.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who tabled the motion, said it was "a huge step forward".

Environment Secretary Michael Gove acknowledged there was a climate "emergency" but did not back Labour's demands to declare one.

The declaration of an emergency was one of the key demands put to the government by environmental activist group Extinction Rebellion, in a series of protests over recent weeks.

Addressing climate protesters from the top of a fire engine in Parliament Square earlier, Mr Corbyn said: "This can set off a wave of action from parliaments and governments around the globe.

"We pledge to work as closely as possible with countries that are serious about ending the climate catastrophe and make clear to US President Donald Trump that he cannot ignore international agreements and action on the climate crisis."

*What is a climate emergency?*




	

		
			
		

		
	
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionThousands of Scottish school pupils took part in climate protests last month
Dozens of towns and cities across the UK have already declared "a climate emergency".

There is no single definition of what that means but many local areas say they want to be carbon-neutral by 2030.

Some councils have promised to introduce electric car hubs or build sustainable homes to try to achieve that goal.

It's a much more ambitious target than the UK government's, which is to reduce carbon emissions by 80% (compared to 1990 levels) by 2050.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politic...SK5uPqj1ItheJQBKjcvGVor2OdPFvWmZJ59-su2s4hA38


----------



## rederob (2 May 2019)

explod said:


> Environment Secretary Michael Gove acknowledged there was a climate "emergency" but did not back Labour's demands to declare one.



QED


----------



## HelloU (2 May 2019)

I did not use any fossil fuels today for transport of any kind - i walked. Today was not special. 

prolly better for the climate than some pollie announcing a motherhood statement about saving the planet as they fly around the place. ...... or protestors that drive across the country to inform the locals about the selfishness of mining.  

How much energy did other people use today?


----------



## Sdajii (2 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> I did not use any fossil fuels today for transport of any kind - i walked. Today was not special.
> 
> prolly better for the climate than some pollie announcing a motherhood statement about saving the planet as they fly around the place. ...... or protestors that drive across the country to inform the locals about the selfishness of mining.
> 
> How much energy did other people use today?




I bet y


HelloU said:


> I did not use any fossil fuels today for transport of any kind - i walked. Today was not special.
> 
> prolly better for the climate than some pollie announcing a motherhood statement about saving the planet as they fly around the place. ...... or protestors that drive across the country to inform the locals about the selfishness of mining.
> 
> How much energy did other people use today?




I bet you're wearing clothes made of oil. I bet today you've eaten food made of oil (literally) which was transported to you using oil, from multiple continents. I bet at least some of the electricity you used to put your post on the internet used coal, and I'm sure the electricity I'm using to respond was largely produced using fossil fuels. I also have only used my legs today for transport, but I'm not kidding myself. I have two international flights booked for this month and will no doubt use a variety of ground-based transport this month, most of it powered by fossil fuels, including the electric trains I'll use.


----------



## HelloU (3 May 2019)

Hey
the whole of ur post is indeed my thoughts

2 things often cross my mind...
1.  more and more of those pre-packaged lettuce leaf salad things are appearing in the supermercato, and
2.  those that are telling me that they are saving the future of the planet seem to use an awful lot of energy to give me that message (and that often involves them travelling the world to tell me how they are saving it), and 
3.  nobody walks to the corner shop when they run out of milk.

(I do not have the internet btw, i tried to tell PZ bloke that .....)


----------



## PZ99 (3 May 2019)

You just blew all your credibility with that last line of hot air HelloU


----------



## rederob (3 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> You just blew all your credibility with that last line of hot air HelloU



You will likely find that he/she uses internet cafes.


----------



## HelloU (3 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> You just blew all your credibility with that last line of hot air HelloU



would not dare tell u what to do, or recommend a course of action ........ but relax.
i like to process what peeps are saying, and not focus on what they say. There is a subtle, but quite important difference to me.

and what i mean, of course, is that if peeps take everything literally then they will never understand the difference between a core, and a non-core, promise.

so in that other solar power question - can i assume that there is priority order when supplying for the grid (so when there is excess power it is pre-determined who will miss out)?


----------



## HelloU (3 May 2019)

just out of interest, how many peeps use a wireless router and just use the default settings and codes?


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> so in that other solar power question - can i assume that there is priority order when supplying for the grid (so when there is excess power it is pre-determined who will miss out)?



In ye olde days it was all based on first meeting the technical requirements and then actual costs which naturally favoured full use of anything with no fuel costs (eg hydro).

These days with multiple competing owners of generation the physical dispatch process is based on current asking price subject to meeting the technical requirements.

Whoever asks the lowest price is sure to be dispatched. Whoever asks the highest price is last on the list.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 May 2019)

I note a new fable from the climate deniers ....imbeciles and idiots ... about Arctic ice ... 

Despite pictures ... NASA ... satellite data .... all ignored ...


anyhow the latest for NON FLAT EARTH people. 

*April reached a new record Arctic low sea ice extent*

2019
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

*2018 Arctic summertime sea ice minimum extent tied for sixth lowest on record *
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2811/...nimum-extent-tied-for-sixth-lowest-on-record/

NSIDC and NASA showed that, at 1.77 million square miles (4.59 million square kilometers), 2018 effectively tied with 2008 and 2010 for the sixth lowest summertime minimum extent in the satellite record.

One of the most unusual features of this year’s melt season has been the reopening of a polynya-like hole in the icepack north of Greenland, where the oldest and thickest sea ice of the Arctic typically resides.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
at 1.8 million sq miles verses the 1980-2018 ave of 2.4 million sq miles and all measured via satellite ... ALL OF IT .... 

1.8 is 75% of 2.4 ... 

in other words 25% IS GONE .... v  the ave 

Alarming ? Well its only been stable for around 800,000 years and the permafrost and frozen plant and matter below it ...

25% Gone, the thing keeping it frozen in 30 years .... hmmm 

ONAY 

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Smoking is good for you
NASA did not go to the moon 
The earth is flat ....
and .... we hate science and ignore it .... Climate denial ....

Not sure humanity has the wisdom to change.
I note even the ANTI vax idiot number one, Trump ... now is changing his tune.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 May 2019)

The past four years (2015-18) have the four lowest maximums in the satellite record.

https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/780/SeanbspIce

Sad and delusional to even postulate ice is growing ... yet here we have it I suspect sooooooonnnnnn

Another conspiracy theory comes to life.


----------



## Struzball (4 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I note a new fable from the climate deniers ....imbeciles and idiots ... about Arctic ice ...
> 
> Despite pictures ... NASA ... satellite data .... all ignored ...
> 
> ...




Not denying any arctic sea ice loss, or how rapid the ice loss at beginning of 2019 is..

However just pointing out this is in fact not a record low arctic sea ice.  It’s a record low Arctic sea ice for the month of April.  Yet no mention of this fact on their report.
Also curious why the don’t include the whole year in the graph in the nsidc link, which obscures the extent of summer ice loss in 2012.
Seems a bit disingenuous.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 May 2019)

Tobacco is good for you
NASA did not land on the moon
Asbestos fibres are harmless
A Canadian Icebreaker did not sail to the North Pole at 13 knots last summer ... 2018 ...

Ohh sorry ... did I miss your point ?

The earth is flat ...

A favorite ... a person with a degree in political science telling a Nobel Prize winner in science on climate issues he is wrong.

lets argue about chemical reactions ? SADIJJII where are you when we need you ?

I think everyone can see the RED line in the GRAPH above, and the trend ... that it hit an all time low 2012, does that change 25% is gone ? Or maybe the slope of the direction ?

Why would someone discuss something that my 3 year old cousin just told me was a downward slope ?

Maybe discuss it via PM with other believers in the Flat Earth.


----------



## rederob (4 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> However just pointing out this is in fact not a record low arctic sea ice.  It’s a record low Arctic sea ice for the month of April.  Yet no mention of this fact on their report.
> Also curious why the don’t include the whole year in the graph in the nsidc link, which obscures the extent of summer ice loss in 2012.
> Seems a bit disingenuous.



The data is freely available if you look, and the chart is easily accessible as well:




Note that all data for the past 5 years is lower than the interdecile range for the 1982-2010 median Arctic sea ice extent.
Claims of disingenuity are easily countered with a modicum on ingenuity.


----------



## Struzball (5 May 2019)

rederob said:


> The data is freely available if you look, and the chart is easily accessible as well




Yes, I am aware.

My issue is they are specifically stating as well as suggesting with the attached chart, that it is a record low.  When in fact that the record low was in 2012.  And their attached chart obscures the 2012 summer low.
What they should be more accurately stating, is that it is a record low for April.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> My issue is they are specifically stating as well as suggesting with the attached chart, that it is a record low.  When in fact that the record low was in 2012.  And their attached chart obscures the 2012 summer low.
> What they should be more accurately stating, is that it is a record low for April.



Nothing is being hidden or misrepresented if you understand what is shown, and you appear not to.
The record lows are usually expressed as for either annual average extent (or median), monthly extent, of for winters or summers.
They can also be expressed in term of sea ice thickness.
What you claim and what was linked are actually different metrics, and you seem to not understand this.
Seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extents are given as as daily averages for the years 2007 through 2019 at Figure 5 here.
Not sure why you persist in your ignorance with so much data freely accessible.


----------



## Struzball (5 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extents are given as as daily averages for the years 2007 through 2019 at Figure 5 here.




Yes, I am aware.  I’m simply stating your linked “figure 5” is more meaningful than a graph of January to May, whilst reporting a record low.

Wouldn’t you agree?


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> Yes, I am aware.  I’m simply stating your linked “figure 5” is more meaningful than a graph of January to May, whilst reporting a record low.
> Wouldn’t you agree?



No.
Different metrics are used to indicate specific features.
It is useful to know that sea ice extents in Arctic winter months are in a greater state of decline over most years since 2012. That's because if there were a cooling trend it would be more likely to appear through the winter months.  
Maybe that's not obvious to you?
In any case, climate is more about discernible trends than possible outliers.


----------



## Struzball (5 May 2019)

rederob said:


> It is useful to know that sea ice extents in Arctic winter months are in a greater state of decline over most years since 2012. That's because if there were a cooling trend it would be more likely to appear through the winter months.
> Maybe that's not obvious to you?
> In any case, climate is more about discernible trends than possible outliers.




So we agree that the 2019 record April low is irrelevant to the trend?

Just as I’m sure we would agree the fact that 2019 had the highest maximum winter sea ice extent of the last 5 years, is irrelevant to the trend?

It’s maximum is an outlier, equally as its minimum.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> So we agree that the 2019 record April low is irrelevant to the trend?



No!
It's absolute confirmation .


Struzball said:


> Just as I’m sure we would agree the fact that 2019 had the highest maximum winter sea ice extent of the last 5 years, is irrelevant to the trend?



Again a definitive *NO*.
That's like saying weather is climate.
It's just a foolish "cherrypick" from you.  The month to month variation was from from 5-year highest to lowest in 5 years, rendering your comment irrelevant from a climate perspective.


Struzball said:


> It’s maximum is an outlier, equally as its minimum.



All the past 5 year's winter data are statistical outliers from the presented ranged averages.
You are not too good at this.


----------



## kahuna1 (5 May 2019)

I am currently debating whether gravity exists.

Whilst also a new  member of the flat earth society and about to join the NASA Moon denial group.

It is as always, amazing when discussing this topic about climate change and temperature change and it s impacts, that the forest is ignored whilst looking at the individual trees.

It is of course the whole point for some on this topic.
Ignore that 25% of the ice is gone via area.
Ignore the trend is DOWN and without a doubt down.
Ignore the old ice, is down 80%.
Ignore the thickness of ice is down 70%.
That a Canadian ice breaker steamed at 13 knots all the way to the North pole last summer, is to be ignored. Unthinkable and ice has been surveyed for 70 years mainly via USA navy.
Lets ignore that submarines may want to know how thick it was.  Ignore satellites since 1978 and 2 new great ESA ones. Ignore. ..  dispute ...  deny ... deny ...

Lets discuss gravity and its no  existence ?
A discussion about irrefutable facts, ones beyond even reasonable questioning and this topic about arctic ice is beyond that via satellite coverage since 1978, yet here we go again.

Must run, pushing members of the non gravity club off the cliff and see if their theory works for them. It does work for me however .... the results are NOT what the members expected.

They seem unable to voice or communicate their conspiracies after the experiment !!


----------



## cogs (5 May 2019)

I wouldn't normally participate in such threads, but what is getting at me, is kids demonstrating in cities, crying with fear that the world is going to end very soon. The powers that be who generate the fear mongering (be it true or misleading) have got what they set out to achieve, ie fear.
Now they don't know how to handle the demonstrations, over shot the goal maybe?


----------



## Struzball (5 May 2019)

LOL rederob

So decreasing ice = climate
Increasing ice = weather

Careful rederob, your bias is showing.

By the way. Re-read my comment.  I said it is NOT relevant that 2019 had a 5 year maximum ice extent.  NOT relevant.  Yet you are reacting as if I was saying it countered the trend.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> LOL rederob
> So decreasing ice = climate
> Increasing ice = weather
> Careful rederob, your bias is showing.



You are utterly incompetent here.
Your initial claims were not as stated in the linked report - in other words you have problems understanding the science.
When you make further claims which are not about climate trends you suggest I have a bias.
It is true that I have a bias towards knowing what is obvious from the data.
Except that what is obvious to many here is a foreign concept to you and others in the peanut gallery that think as you do.


----------



## Sdajii (5 May 2019)

cogs said:


> I wouldn't normally participate in such threads, but what is getting at me, is kids demonstrating in cities, crying with fear that the world is going to end very soon. The powers that be who generate the fear mongering (be it true or misleading) have got what they set out to achieve, ie fear.
> Now they don't know how to handle the demonstrations, over shot the goal maybe?




Making people fear that the end of the world is near is an old way of making it possible to radicalise people. If they think the world is going to end, they're much easier to induce to take extreme actions they otherwise wouldn't be willing to do.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Making people fear that the end of the world is near is an old way of making it possible to radicalise people. If they think the world is going to end, they're much easier to induce to take extreme actions they otherwise wouldn't be willing to do.



Except that you are presenting a completely false narrative.
There is absolutely no truth to saying the world will end.
The only people that go about saying this are the very ill informed.
And those who are so stupid as to think we cannot see that there are many who are happy to promote misinformation and lies because they simply refuse to accept what science is showing to be occurring.


----------



## Sdajii (5 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> LOL rederob
> 
> So decreasing ice = climate
> Increasing ice = weather
> ...




Rederob and kahuna are a little off the rails, dogmatic, and use their imagination at least as much as their eyes when reading other peoples' posts.

The arctic ice is clearly on a downwards trend over the last few decades. That's fine, we should all be able to agree with that. But what people like them will do is imply or work on the assumption that since we only have a few decades of data it was virtually constant for the previous few centuries, maybe thousands or millions of years. 

They exaggerate the data. There's no need to, the data does show a legitimate trend in the measured range, but they'll use outliers on the sides they're pushing as legitimate and dismiss any data on the other. Then if anyone points out their inconsistencies they'll descend into ad hominem attacks, bizarre rants such as the gravity one we've just seen, accuse people of saying things they didn't, generally be over the top emotional etc.

I don't think there are many people at all denying that the climate does indeed change and the overall global direction at the moment is warmer. But these people get riled right up, find an example of evidence that something is getting warmer, and use that undeniable fact to show something else, and if anyone questions that to any extent, the ad hominem attacks and strawmen come out. For example, even if humans were the sole driver of climate change, which literally no climate scientist claims, the fact that arctic ice diminishing is not in itself evidence of humans causing it. People like this, though, will throw an irrational tantrum exaggerating something like the legitimate arctic ice data, act like anyone saying anything less than dogmatic unconditional belief in the extreme version of the narrative is unable to see that the sea ice is diminishing at all, say they don't believe in gravity, honestly believe that the person is trying to say that there is no climate change at all or humans are having zero impact, and take the conversation into a bizarre and often off topic direction.

This is the sort of thing which makes having a rational discussion about climate change difficult, and is probably the main reason we see laymen being sceptical of the narrative. The other main this is the mainstream media doing something similar (but less extreme), and then there is the climate science itself being biased (much, much less extreme, but still an issue). But, raise any of these points, or question any detail of the narrative, even the blatantly absurd versions, and they quickly believe you are a 100% climate denier (sic) and go on bizarre rants. It's a similar mentality to religious extremists. It's quite interesting really.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> But what people like them will do is imply or work on the assumption that since we only have a few decades of data it was virtually constant for the previous few centuries, maybe thousands or millions of years.



Completely false claim.
We have over a century of data. Satellite data has been available since the 1970s.


Sdajii said:


> They exaggerate the data.



Another false claim - I link to the data sources, and post charts.


Sdajii said:


> ...they'll descend into ad hominem attacks...



Another false claim.
I clearly state that your claims are mostly rubbish, nonsensical, and stupid!
You could be intelligent - but your posts here do not reflect that.
You are unable to distinguish attacking poor logic, knowledge and stupid commentary from attacking one's character.


Sdajii said:


> For example, even if humans were the sole driver of climate change, which literally no climate scientist claims....



Utterly false, again; 
the majority of climate science consider your claim to be unfounded.
Until you can reflect what climate science shows, you will keep making ill informed comments.
Worse, you suggest it is those who quote and link to the actual science that are unable to debate it.
You really are not up to it here, and to date I have seen few who hold positions like yours to be anywhere near competent regarding the science.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> Just as I’m sure we would agree the fact that 2019 had the highest maximum winter sea ice extent of the last 5 years, is irrelevant to the trend?



And:


Struzball said:


> By the way. Re-read my comment. I said it is NOT relevant that 2019 had a 5 year maximum ice extent. NOT relevant. Yet you are reacting as if I was saying it countered the trend.



It is relevant that 2019 had a maximum sea ice extent, because it reflects a possible intensification of short term seasonality due to *weather *factors.
It may be that future years continue to hold above 14 million square kilometres - we will have to wait and see.
While there is a "trend" towards overall average lower ice extent, the stronger capture of the *warming *trend is the rate of decline from peaks.  This is due to thinner ice, reduced albedo and warmer seas.
The point I was making related to separating weather factors from very clear climate trends.
Your posts continue to confuse many concepts.


----------



## Sdajii (5 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Completely false claim.
> We have over a century of data. Satellite data has been available since the 1970s.
> Another false claim - I link to the data sources, and post charts.
> Another false claim.
> ...




LOL

So much nonsense, it's almost tempting to pick through it.

Ah, what the heck.

Yes, you post links, often biased, then exaggerate it.

Hehe, okay, if using excessive negative emotional words excessively isn't ad hominem attacking, I guess you don't use ad hominem attacks. My mistake.

Hehehehe, you think climate scientists say humans are the only thing causing climate change. Righto!

Enjoy your Sunday afternoon


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Hehehehe, you think climate scientists say humans are the only thing causing climate change.



No.
I do not think that.
That is how climate science define *climate change*.


----------



## Sdajii (5 May 2019)

rederob said:


> No.
> I do not think that.
> That is how climate science define *climate change*.




Clearly, I was using the term 'climate change' to mean 'climate change' rather than 'exclusively human-caused climate change', otherwise it wouldn't even make sense.

Obviously 'exclusively human-caused climate change. that is, the part of climate change which is caused my humans' is exclusively caused by humans.

But the official definition of "climate change" does not rule out the existence of natural climate change. It's just that when people refer to climate change they are often referring to the human-caused part of it.

Would you honestly call someone wrong if they said "Climate change has existed for hundreds of millions of years"? Because according to your claim, it would actually be incorrect.

Yes, the majority of climate scientists claim that the majority of the current change in climate is being caused by humans (they may be right and I'm not arguing). That doesn't mean the definition of 'climate change' is 'exclusively the part of climate change caused by humans'.

Google 'climate change' and you'll get information reflecting this.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Would you honestly call someone wrong if they said "Climate change has existed for hundreds of millions of years"? Because according to your claim, it would actually be incorrect.



Yes.
They would be as ignorant of the science as you continue to be.
That's not their fault - not many people read science every week.
What you are talking about is the general knowledge which we have about climate in that it can and does change.
You are also talking about the people who deny climate change by invoking an argument of the obvious, *not *an understanding of the science of climate.


Sdajii said:


> Google 'climate change' and you'll get information reflecting this.



I prefer to reference the science when discussing climate science.


----------



## Sdajii (5 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes.
> They would be as ignorant of the science as you continue to be.
> That's not their fault - not many people read science every week.
> What you are talking about is the general knowledge which we have about climate in that it can and does change.
> ...




So you openly display that you are willing to stick to semantics in favour of acting as though someone means and thinks what you actually know they mean and think. You will use your own version of the meaning of their words rather than either their own obvious meaning, even if their own meaning is the mainstream way those words are used. This is pathetic. You are not worth talking to. You are either disgustingly disingenuous or mentally deranged. And by your own way of thinking this does not count as an ad hominem because I am simply stating facts directly related to your actions.


----------



## Ann (5 May 2019)




----------



## kahuna1 (5 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Lets discuss gravity and its no existence ?
> A discussion about irrefutable facts, ones beyond even reasonable questioning and this topic about arctic ice is beyond that via satellite coverage since 1978, yet here we go again.




I note conspiracy theorist number one is back .... still room to join the party !!



kahuna1 said:


> Must run, pushing members of the non gravity club off the cliff and see if their theory works for them. It does work for me however .... the results are NOT what the members expected.
> 
> They seem unable to voice or communicate their conspiracies after the experiment !!




Hi sanidijji .... welcome back ... and what lies beneath the Arctic Ice and its been there for a million years, frozen perfectly ... which would seem to make your other stuff you just said rubbish.
Permafrost and a FROZEN record of plants and animals going back a million years.

Since your theory involves some heating period in the meantime, did Santa plant full Mammoths and froze them there recently ? Since i think even the casual person knows they have recovered numerous fully frozen perfectly intact Mammoths 40,000- to 60,000 years old, does this mean your theory about some hot period in the last 100,000 years is rubbish ?

Did Santa plant them there ? Or did they defrost, during your warm period and NOT decay ?

Come to my gravity party ... its one you will enjoy.


----------



## Sdajii (5 May 2019)

For those wanting to take a critical look at the delusion afflicting some of the alarmists, kahuna provides a useful example. Even when people fully agree that humans are making an impact on the climate, anyone who questions the relevance of irrelevant data or the most extreme narratives gets likened to moon landing conspiracy nuts, flat Earth nuts, tobacco health issue deniers, etc. The tactic is not to calmly analyse the data and assess its merits, it is to use irrelevancy, peculiar insults, ad hominem and other emotional-based tactics, and when pulled up on it, of course there's silly denial.



kahuna1 said:


> I note conspiracy theorist number one is back .... still room to join the party !!




Here he begins.



> Hi sanidijji .... welcome back ... and what lies beneath the Arctic Ice and its been there for a million years, frozen perfectly ... which would seem to make your other stuff you just said rubbish.
> Permafrost and a FROZEN record of plants and animals going back a million years.




Here he starts with a childish insult using the corruption of a name. Not anything to do with data, evidence, logic. An attempt at logic is then made, vague as it is. It seems he is trying to make the incorrect assertion that the world is currently hotter than at any time in over a million years, vaguely linking it back to something he of course doesn't want to specify. Of course, in reality, in various ways, things can be frozen and unfrozen without the entire planet's average temperature being directly related. But as we see, the alarmist will use fanciful cherry picked tid bits without even directly making claims.



> Since your theory involves some heating period in the meantime, did Santa plant full Mammoths and froze them there recently ? Since i think even the casual person knows they have recovered numerous fully frozen perfectly intact Mammoths 40,000- to 60,000 years old, does this mean your theory about some hot period in the last 100,000 years is rubbish ?




In his emotional frenzy, basic maths eludes the alarmist. His argument is that since something has been frozen for over 40,000 years, it disproves a warm period in the previous 100,000 years. Even the basic fact that 100,000 years is more than 40,000 years does not stop him thinking this makes sense. As we consistently see, it is only the narrative which is important to these individuals, not things actually making sense. If it supports the narrative, it needs to evidence, logic or analysis. If it goes against the narrative, no evidence, no matter how tangible, reliable or even self evidence is sufficient, there is always a way to dismiss it.



> Did Santa plant them there ? Or did they defrost, during your warm period and NOT decay ?




And again he goes back to this emotional, non sensical strategy.



> Come to my gravity party ... its one you will enjoy.




And this is his closing remark.

When it is pointed out to him that his posts are emotional tantrums, he typically denies it then has an emotional tantrum in the same response post.

Unfortunately, this sort of lunacy being on the 'climate change side' kills the credibility of that side. People are naturally inclined to sit in groups, to find and identify with like-minded people. Many people can not identify with this sort of nonsense and are thus driven to the so-called 'climate denier' side, which painfully, often makes more sense than the alarmist side, despite typically also being absurd. However, since the alarmists are more vocal and prevalent and claim to have the backing of mainstream culture and science despite not sticking to the science, many people are driven to what they see as the only alternative, they distrust the entire narrative and stop taking it seriously.

Because of the natural inclination of people to want to join groups, there is an assumption that all people belong to one or the other, since this issue is so polarised. As soon as someone questions anything at all from the narrative, most people assume they belong to the opposite camp. It is quite interesting to see this happen, with people assuming that someone believes or has even said things which the opposing side has as part of their narrative, even when it is not the case.

Clearly there is a lot of delusion, and of course it does exist on both sides.

Much of this is very much found in many areas where people are polarised, particularly left/right politics, and also there are often assumptions about crossovers. For example, if someone is anti abortion, there is often an assumption that they are also anti gay marriage, or if someone is not willing to follow the extreme version of the climate narrative, there is the assumption that they follow various extreme right wing political stances. We see plenty of examples of this in this thread from posters such as kahuna and rederob (and others).


----------



## kahuna1 (5 May 2019)

Your theories are ...

*Delusional* ... I covered all 26 of them.Already ...

things that are beyond questioning, something that is irrefutable, not able to be sanely questioned get equal billing, in your opinion and world. If anything, the tendency in modern times if for a source, deliberately incorrect or some fantasy, conspiracy or ideology that agrees with your views, opinions and beliefs supersedes irrefutable incontrovertible evidence.

Welcome to Climate denial !! Science and Gravity no longer operate there, in your world. Debating  irrefutable incontrovertible evidence  seems to be your idea of reality.

Yes Santa does live at the North Pole and kept them frozen !!! How long was this warming period ? ... No I will go ask Santa. He kept the 40,000 year old frozen mammoth frozen for the  time it warmed in the last 100,000 years according to you. All its hair still intact, its last meal frozen inside, intact.

Well done Santa


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> You will use your own version of the meaning of their words rather than either their own obvious meaning, even if their own meaning is the mainstream way those words are used.



I continue to use the science of climate change.
You choose to create what you prefer to believe.
You continue to make false claims.


Sdajii said:


> You are either disgustingly disingenuous or mentally deranged. And by your own way of thinking this does not count as an ad hominem because I am simply stating facts directly related to your actions.



This merely confirms how you make up what you want to believe.
I attack what you say.
In relation to climate science you are not well educated.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> Many people can not identify with this sort of nonsense and are thus driven to the so-called 'climate denier' side, which painfully, often makes more sense than the alarmist side, despite typically also being absurd.



Even if that were true that people may not identify with some posters, it defies logic to propose that they would not use their brains to work out what constituted evidence and what did not.
You make repeated claims which are proven false and think nothing of it.
You seldom understand that you post nothing of merit, even after it is shown to have no relevance.


Sdajii said:


> For example, if someone is anti abortion, there is often an assumption that they are also anti gay marriage, or if someone is not willing to follow the extreme version of the climate narrative, there is the assumption that they follow various extreme right wing political stances. We see plenty of examples of this in this thread from posters such as kahuna and rederob (and others).



Yet another example of a strawman argument from you.
Climate science is not related to abortion or gay marriage.
Climate science can be measured, has been measured, and has a theory underpinning it as means to explaining what is occurring.
You fall into the trap of false equivalence, not for the first time.
You epitomise the posters that cannot present the science to underpin their commentary and instead revert to irrelevant distraction.
Because you are unable to be coherent on climate matters you use "alarmists" to refer to an undefined group that is only realised in the ballpark you play in.
At what point do you actually put some science into you commentary?
Or, at least provide evidence to support your unusual claims.


----------



## Ann (5 May 2019)




----------



## kahuna1 (5 May 2019)

Zimov's theory and now he's published dozens of papers in science journals


Dates it 800,000 to a million years OLD .... the permafrost ...

He is even accepted by skeptics as the expert in the field.

Oooh we have them both back ... welcome after your nap !!


----------



## Sdajii (5 May 2019)

...and kahuna continues the demonstration of the irrational, fanatical, dogmatic, emotion-based alarmist. As said, they are prone to emotional tantrums and nonsensical rambling.



kahuna1 said:


> Your theories are ...
> 
> *Delusional* ... I covered all 26 of them.Already ...




It's unclear if he actually counted and tried to categorise them or simply pulled a random number for dramatic effect, but either way, here we see an example of them making unassessable claims with zero evidence.



> things that are beyond questioning, something that is irrefutable, not able to be sanely questioned get equal billing, in your opinion and world. If anything, the tendency in modern times if for a source, deliberately incorrect or some fantasy, conspiracy or ideology that agrees with your views, opinions and beliefs supersedes irrefutable incontrovertible evidence.




More nonsensical tantrum which doesn't even have an attempt at being related to anything specific.



> Welcome to Climate denial !! Science and Gravity no longer operate there, in your world. Debating  irrefutable incontrovertible evidence  seems to be your idea of reality.




Once again we see the alarmist using the tired strawman tactic. Making the accusation of 'climate denial' (sic) despite it having been repeatedly made clear that this is incorrect, and continuing on with bizarre accusations of denial of science and gravity etc. Clearly these are used in place of actual arguments or reasoning ability.

And the conclusion is once again an irrational tantrum, literally talking about Santa Claus, attempting to relate it back to the logically flawed attempted argument in the previous post, with no extra basis other than something about Santa.



> Yes Santa does live at the North Pole and kept them frozen !!! How long was this warming period ? ... No I will go ask Santa. He kept the 40,000 year old frozen mammoth frozen for the  time it warmed in the last 100,000 years according to you. All its hair still intact, its last meal frozen inside, intact.
> 
> Well done Santa


----------



## kahuna1 (5 May 2019)

The age of the ARCTIC permafrost ... is NOT able to be questioned. Carbon dating is quite accurate. The decay of the various atoms ....  Yet you do ...

Evidence and links already provided .... and ignored as per usual.

somehow during your supposed warming period ..100,000 years ago ... . IT DID NOT MELT.

This is your latest theory, NOT mine ..

At the other end of the earth,ANTARCTIC ...  ICE BUBBLES capturing the AIR and CO2 content dating also back in the 800,000 to a million year range ... which I might add 5 nations have drilled ice cores to sample CO2 and other gasses back a million years ....

You also dispute and refute this 

ICE aged 800,000 to a milli0on years at both extremes of the planet, the polar regions and BOTH clearly frozen for nearly a million years and you ...

Deny it ? All date is questioned, even satellite data on CO2 ... all ground stations, even one 16,000 km away from any land ... the wind blowing over the ocean ...

And all data dismissed.

How if there was some warming period did the ICE and PERMAFROST frozen stuff survive ?

Surely even the stupid know the top layers of the Permafrost with the most recent material ... with Frozen Mammoths would have thawed and decayed. not being pristine and still with stomach contents ... woolly fur and even eyeballs preserved. Below the top layers ... deeper you go older it gets ....

Santa ? Aliens ? You seriously must tell us how this occurred. Pristine never been thawed, ergo no warming period of any significance your alluding to ....

But still ... you drool your theories. Something occurred 100,000 years ago ... a magical global warming period ... according to you !!

ICE stopped melting as well ?

BTW this is number 27 of your quite bizarre theories.

Santa cant be two places at once.
Either he lives at the North Pole or South Pole !!


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Sdajii, here's your sole *Page 102* contribution which specifically mentions science:


Sdajii said:


> For example, even if humans were the sole driver of climate change, which literally no climate scientist claims, the fact that arctic ice diminishing is not in itself evidence of humans causing it.



First, if there is climate change, what is its nature.
Second, if there is climate change, who is confirming it?
Third, what theory explains climate change?
Fourth, if climate change is explained by a theory, how is it described?
Fifth, if Arctic sea ice is diminishing, could it be due to "chance"?
Sixth, in probability theory how can a statistical trend be regarded as a "chance"?
Finally, you said: "Making the accusation of 'climate denial' (sic) despite it having been repeatedly made clear that this is incorrect,  and continuing on with bizarre accusations of denial of science...."  Which means you can answer the above questions without contradicting what you claim.


----------



## Sdajii (6 May 2019)

And again, we see the alarmist go on emotional rants (note the frequent use of CAPS etc) and failing to stay relevant or make logical connections. The strawman tactic is used, as usual, and this time the entire post is more or less a strawman.



kahuna1 said:


> The age of the ARCTIC permafrost ... is NOT able to be questioned. Carbon dating is quite accurate. The decay of the various atoms ....  Yet you do ...
> 
> Evidence and links already provided .... and ignored as per usual.




Here we see the emotional use of CAPS, an irrelevant strawman which isn't quite true (it's fine to question the age of the permafrost, but no one here has disputed it), irrelevant reference to the accuracy of carbon dating since no one has questioned it, complaints about something irrelevant not being addressed...



> somehow during your supposed warming period ..100,000 years ago ... . IT DID NOT MELT.




Clear loss of ability to compose emotion, and here we see the alarmist hypocritically make the assumption that the entire world must warm evenly. As we typically see with the alarmists, they will happily point out cold weather or prehistoric warm periods as anomalies or regional exceptions, but when it suits their agenda, a localised example is hypocritically used as evidence for the entire system, no doubt being the cause of the emotional nature of the outburst and lack of sense.



> This is your latest theory, NOT mine ..




Strawman tactic again.



> At the other end of the earth,ANTARCTIC ...  ICE BUBBLES capturing the AIR and CO2 content dating also back in the 800,000 to a million year range ... which I might add 5 nations have drilled ice cores to sample CO2 and other gasses back a million years ....
> 
> You also dispute and refute this






More emotional strawman tactics. Completely irrelevant too. No one disputed it, yet the alarmist for some reason claims it during the emotional rant.



> ICE aged 800,000 to a milli0on years at both extremes of the planet, the polar regions and BOTH clearly frozen for nearly a million years and you ...




The alarmist is presumably oblivious to the fact that many factors such as changing air and water currents, continental drift, localised climates, etc, can cause things to remain frozen or thaw out at times which don't correspond with the average global temperature. It is interesting that the alarmist maintains the capacity to point out the existence of localised temperature anomalies when it suits the agenda but in a tantrum, act like such things don't exist when it suits the agenda. 



> Deny it ? All date is questioned, even satellite data on CO2 ... all ground stations, even one 16,000 km away from any land ... the wind blowing over the ocean ...
> 
> And all data dismissed.




Yet again, the alarmist continues with an irrelevant strawman, making baseless and false assertions.



> How if there was some warming period did the ICE and PERMAFROST frozen stuff survive ?
> 
> Surely even the stupid know the top layers of the Permafrost with the most recent material ... with Frozen Mammoths would have thawed and decayed. not being pristine and still with stomach contents ... woolly fur and even eyeballs preserved. Below the top layers ... deeper you go older it gets ....




As above.



> Santa ? Aliens ? You seriously must tell us how this occurred. Pristine never been thawed, ergo no warming period of any significance your alluding to ....
> 
> But still ... you drool your theories. Something occurred 100,000 years ago ... a magical global warming period ... according to you !!
> 
> ...




The emotional tantrum continues and as is often the case, ad hominem attacks are used. 

Interestingly, the alarmist is so deranged that he concocts a theory imagined in the mind of someone else and adds it to a list he is keeping which he believes came from someone else. Literally projecting his own imagination of a bizarre theory into the mind of another person and literally believing that person came up with the theory!



> Santa cant be two places at once.
> Either he lives at the North Pole or South Pole !!




And as seems to be a pattern, the post ends on a particularly bizarre note.

When some alarmists are behaving like this, and other vocal climate change deniers support them or say nothing, it is no wonder that many people are driven to take a completely contrarian point of view. People do tend to want to belong to groups and see people as being part of one group or another, and many people would not want to be in the same group as someone making such insane posts.


----------



## kahuna1 (6 May 2019)

Not once did you address the fact that there are two massive ice blocks at either end of the earth.
Both clearly 1 million years old.

Your denial of science in favor of a quaint view, that you hold, not any other scientist, that the earth had a massive significant warming period in the last 100,000 years.

I thought you told me that the ocean was 120 meters LOWER as well during this period ? 

Doesn't water expand when heated ? Ice melt when heated ? Or was the movement of the tectonic plates and relative land being pushed up in some cases a factor in this ? 

You cannot explain, as expected how these ice blocks, one at each end of the earth exist. Their mere existence shows the lack of any possibility your bizarre theory, about a warming period of significance in the last million years, has any validity.

Instead of addressing this anomaly, that can only exist in your delusional world, you skipped science.
Nothing new in that.



Sdajii said:


> it is no wonder that many people are driven to take a completely contrarian point of view




That common sense and basic intelligence would lead one to be able to debunk some internet conspiracy theorists view in this case, does not seem to sink in. How is it possible ?

Are you driven to take the opposite view ? Is that what your alluding to ??
You have some weird compulsion to just argue and be the opposite even when it makes you   look stupid ?

My use of CAPS or end of posts in frustration, is driven by sheer disbelief at the absurdity of your theories and displayed utter lack of any concept of science.

UTTER LACK. That we were having to tell you and your co-Hort that ICE cores dont exist on Cape Grim which is in Tasmania I thought was absurd.

Now the existence of ice blocks at earth end of the earth that are around a million years old, is denied.
Your view is that some warming period occurred in the last 100,000 years, so they DON'T or cant exist and as such are to be ignored.

That has been your lack of response of late.

In the real world, the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic is proceeding at an unprecedented rate.
The Arctic permafrost of frozen dead animal and vegetable matter Is 1.8 trillion tons of captured carbon that has existed for a million years.

Its thawing. First time for a long time. The second canary of the planet. I did cover the Great Barrier Reef and its imminent death. Some Reefs clearly already gone, Mackay Reef, Green Reef and so on. A lot of others well under 15% of their 1985 levels.

No response. Its in your world not real.
Thank you for your lack of response, on topic.

Santa in light of your being naughty has decided to send you, a clearly person who will appreciate it, his booby prize for naughty children and that's a Christmas stocking filled with coal.

If you feel compelled to respond, please tell us, how these million year old ice blocks existed in your phantom warming of 100,000 years ago !! I know you believe ice cores exist at Cape Grim in Tasmania so is this in some way related to your new theory ?


----------



## rederob (6 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> And again, we see the alarmist go on emotional rants (note the frequent use of CAPS etc) and failing to stay relevant or make logical connections. The strawman tactic is used, as usual, and this time the entire post is more or less a strawman.



The "rants" are a response to your inability to show that you understand what you are talking about.
What you say about climate science is mostly nonsensical.
But you keep on saying the same stuff.
Unfortunately when you  get caught out you wander off topic  and make spurious claims about about how other posters are presenting their arguments.
It remains that those who cannot argue the science will instead write furiously about other things, and think we do not notice.


----------



## Struzball (6 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Not once did you address the fact that there are two massive ice blocks at either end of the earth.
> Both clearly 1 million years old.
> 
> ...
> ...




We are currently in the quaternary ice age, which began 2.58 million years ago.  

Ice ages are characterised by ice caps at the poles.

We are currently in an interglacial period within that quarternary ice age, called the Holocene, which began 11,700 years ago with rapid warming that raised sea levels by 120 metres.

Interglacials are characterised by receding glaciers.

Human civilisation as we know it has only existed in an interglacial period.

So what else would you expect of an interglacial within an ice age,  but ice caps at the poles and receding glaciers?


----------



## Sdajii (6 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> We are currently in the quaternary ice age, which began 2.58 million years ago.
> 
> Ice ages are characterised by ice caps at the poles.
> 
> ...




If you've read kahuna's posts you'll see how irrational he is. He has a simplistic view of the climate, dismisses any reality which is contradictory to his simplistic idea, even if it is universally accepted by climate science, such as everything you've said in this post, and anything which supports his simplistic view is accepted, even if he imagines it and it has no evidence of any kind. This is likely why he assumes others do the same.

You have, of course, neatly explained the answers to his questions, which of course don't contradict anthropogenic climate change, but he will presumably deny them anyway, partly because he already has, and partly because his concept of climate change is simplistic and the actual data is contradictory to it. He will presumably use the typical pattern of hypocritically accusing you of making up figures with no basis, because your data (which is actually real) contradicts his concepts (which actually are made up). He is so convinced of the narrative and so caught up in the delusion, that he is able to twist the actual reality he sees to fit the fictional reality which sits in his mind. Consistent with people who do this, he projects the insanity on to the people he is conversing with, so the confusion caused by the conflict of his imagined reality and the real one is reconciled by believing that the other person is the one doing the twisting of reality.


----------



## kahuna1 (6 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> We are currently in an interglacial period within that quarternary ice age, called the Holocene, which began 11,700 years ago with rapid warming that raised sea levels by 120 metres.




Yes the aboriginals moved their mounds of shells 50 km ... NOT .

*his has been confirmed by radiocarbon dating 
of marine clay at Sungei Nipa with dates of 7,000 to 8,000 BP obtained from shells and wood at 
depths ranging from 5-10m below modern sea-level ...
*
How did 5-10 become 120 meters ?


----------



## Struzball (6 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *his has been confirmed by radiocarbon dating
> of marine clay at Sungei Nipa with dates of 7,000 to 8,000 BP obtained from shells and wood at
> depths ranging from 5-10m below modern sea-level ...
> *
> How did 5-10 become 120 meters ?




How does sea level being 5-10m below modern sea-level 7000-8000 years ago contradict sea level being 120m lower 11,700 years ago?  
The Holocene had already been underway for over three thousand years at this point.


----------



## Sdajii (6 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> How does sea level being 5-10m below modern sea-level 7000-8000 years ago contradict sea level being 120m lower 11,700 years ago?
> The Holocene had already been underway for over three thousand years at this point.




See what I mean? Strange mental gymnastics are employed to deny well-known and undisputed facts to maintain the peculiar delusions, which oddly, is done to 'prove' the narrative the alarmist believes scientists are pushing.

I often say it, I strongly believe the people on the alarmist side are on average more crazy than those on the other side. It's very difficult to quantify, but one thing is more or less for sure, and that is people like kahuna are very common, while 'climate sceptics' of a similar extent of insanity are much less abundant.

This abundance of insanity on the alarmist side does whip up the whole side into an exaggerated and false state of belief in the issue, and no doubt alienates some into moving to the (I cringe to say it) more rational sceptic side. Of course, if you include those who are simply sceptical of the extent the narrative suggests rather than the issue existing at all, they are often perfectly rational.

The insanity we see typified here, where someone unconditionally believes and extremely warped and exaggerated version of a situation and has come to a state where no amount of evidence will help and the use of logic to see the situation properly, no matter how simple it may be to do so, has become impossible.

This phenomenon isn't unique to the climate issue and we're seeing it in a rapidly increasing number of people afflicted by it. It covers political, social, scientific and other issues. It is quite like the mindset the government in Nineteen Eighty-four sought to create in people. About 10-15 years ago I started noticing people slipping into it. At first I just thought a few intelligent people I knew happened to have literally gone insane, but over the last 5-10 years it has accelerated rapidly and become an obvious pattern.


----------



## kahuna1 (6 May 2019)

We have been down this raod before ....

Land rises or falls as tectonic plates collide. If you wish to NOT take this into account, its absurd.
Karatha just outside it, near the Pluto plant lies the oldest rock carvings dated at between 35,000 and 50,000 years ago, dated and with piles of shells from the sea ....

If your going to suggest it was 120 meters below that as you have, and they carried 35,000 year old sea shells to 100,000 odd rock carvings, well .. its interesting.

Whilst I am not calling you an idiot, your theories are delusional and non scientific. Even simple stuff like air bubbles inside ice cores ,,, your deny and dispute.

CO2 being a cause of climate change ...the main one ...
on and on ... you have gone, now with a new fellow joining you.

You do not even accept satellite data ... nor even pictures ... all of it is fake according to you.

You know better than 50,000 scientists on the IPCC ...  your theories deny 26 things they find beyond questioning.

They are worried but according to you .... its all fake and exaggerated. If you look, *their predictions are falling short of reality and have done so now for 5 years*. Let alone the missing feedback loops not included in IPCC estimates such as what happens when the Arctic melts and the permafrost releases 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 and a lot of bloody methane frozen on the Arctic seabed.

NONE of it in the IPCC estimates which already, are being questioned as absurdly optimistic and this is 2019 not the 2050 or 2100 stuff, is correct according to your delusions. NONE OF IT.

*Do you accept any IPCC prediction say of 25 cm sea rise by 2050 v 2019 or 75 cm by 2100 ? 

Do you accept change in PH by 2100 to  7.7 v 8.1 in 2019 ? 

Do you accept 1.5 degree ... C change if we act NOW by  2100  ? 
*
On this last one ... most of the contributors estimate 2.5 if not 4 degrees and some as high as 8 if Arctic Ice melts which is a given.
*
DO you accept any of their findings ? 

*
You don't accept even a best case .... a very unlikely best case they put forward and this is 50,000 leading scientists and in your view, its all .... hysterical or scientifically incorrect or ... manufactured. I think insanity has you !!

Congratulations.
 delusional and non scientific

The true conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Sdajii (6 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> We have been down this raod before ....
> 
> Land rises or falls as tectonic plates collide. If you wish to NOT take this into account, its absurd.
> Karatha just outside it, near the Pluto plant lies the oldest rock carvings dated at between 35,000 and 50,000 years ago, dated and with piles of shells from the sea ....
> ...




...and here we see the deluded invidual go on a lengthy rant, primarily made up of assertions that someone believes a certain thing, despite literally not one single thing being a claim they have made or refuted. Not only that, but the majority of it is irrelevant to the posts he is responding to, clearly the primary purpose is to distract himself from seeing the reality he is ignoring in a post made by someone else, which he is not directly addressing. It is interesting that he continually makes very bold and specific claims about someone denying things which that person has never even mentioned, all the while clearly in an emotional frenzy.

While the climate change sceptics may also get things quite wrong, unlike the alarmists, we do not tend to see anywhere near the degree or frequency of such unhinged emotional tactics used to ignore facts and logic. They are typically at least able to state their case and have a conversation with which makes some form of sense. There is not the same denial of reality. Perhaps facts and figures may not be accepted due to mistrust of the sources, etc, but we don't typically see the blatant imagination such as kahuna is displaying, where a lengthy post is made, full of imagination that a person said things, and denial of what they actually said. This is clear denial of basic, unambiguous reality, and the creation of an imaginary world in their minds.


----------



## kahuna1 (6 May 2019)

*Losing Arctic Ice and Permafrost Will Cost Trillions as Earth Warms, Study Says*

 Thawing permafrost releases greenhouse gases in a climate change feedback loop that worsens over time, fueling more warming and costly damage around the world. 

It's considered one of the big tipping points in climate change: as the permafrost thaws, the methane and CO2 it releases will trigger more global warming, which will trigger more thawing. The impacts aren't constrained to the Arctic—the additional warming will also fuel sea level rise, extreme weather, drought, wildfires and more.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-climate-change-costs-feedback-loop-ice-study

Its not in any IPCC model .... sadly ....


----------



## kahuna1 (6 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> While the climate change sceptics may also get things quite wrong, unlike the alarmists, we do not tend to see anywhere near the degree or frequency of such unhinged emotional tactics used to ignore facts and logic.




*I asked a few simple questions about what the IPCC and 50,000 scientists believe .*

Are they delusional ?

*DO you accept any of their predictions on temperature ?
Or on sea rises ? *

*Any single issue ? 

Are they alarmists ? The Nobel prize winners in the field ? 

Are they being hysterical ? *


----------



## Struzball (6 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> We have been down this raod before ....
> 
> Land rises or falls as tectonic plates collide. If you wish to NOT take this into account, its absurd.
> Karatha just outside it, near the Pluto plant lies the oldest rock carvings dated at between 35,000 and 50,000 years ago, dated and with piles of shells from the sea ....
> ...




You’re in the wrong epoch now.  The Pleistocene.  There were both warmer and cooler periods during the Pleistocene (but mostly cooler).

Again, the fact they found 35,000 sea shells somewhere does not contradict that they were 120m lower 11,700 years ago.


----------



## kahuna1 (6 May 2019)

*I asked a few simple questions about what the IPCC and 50,000 scientists believe .*

Are they delusional ?

*DO you accept any of their predictions on temperature ?
Or on sea rises ? *

*Any single issue ? 

Are they alarmists ? The Nobel prize winners in the field ? 

Are they being hysterical ? 


PS *the shells were 35,000 years OLD .... not the number of them ... there were millions in various piles along the coast.


----------



## Struzball (6 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *I asked a few simple questions about what the IPCC and 50,000 scientists believe .*
> 
> Are they delusional ?
> 
> ...




Lol, at least I know you actually read my posts, and then ignore them.

Obviously a type error, I know you are talking about 35,000yo shells.


----------



## Struzball (6 May 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> *I asked a few simple questions about what the IPCC and 50,000 scientists believe .*
> 
> Are they delusional ?
> 
> ...




No I don’t accept predictions as fact.

Do you?

Besides, they call them “projections” so they can be taken more seriously.


----------



## kahuna1 (6 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> No I don’t accept predictions as fact.




We are talking about the future, I have designed models, computer models for a very long time.

I am well aware they are NOT facts, merely best science predictions and in this case, watered down ones. 



Struzball said:


> No I don’t accept predictions as fact.
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Besides, they call them “projections” so they can be taken more seriously.




It is NOT about my beliefs, but yours. I asked.

*Do you accept any of the projections, or predictions as presented by IPCC ?* 

Not as being fact, but being based upon best science and literally the best math brains in the world along with computer modelling. 

Do they have any validity in your opinion ? 
Does the science  behind these projections in your opinion pose a problem ? 
Or is it the math behind the computer models ? 

You still have not answered any of my questions. NOT one.  



kahuna1 said:


> *Do you accept any IPCC prediction say of 25 cm sea rise by 2050 v 2019 or 75 cm by 2100 ?
> 
> Do you accept change in PH by 2100 to 7.7 v 8.1 in 2019 ?
> 
> Do you accept 1.5 degree ... C change if we act NOW by 2100 ?*




Simple enough .... projections ... predictions ... based upon rate of change and TIME and MATH. No externals such as feedback loops like permafrost melting are in there ... nor change in PH what it may or may not do to the ocean and its CO2 and Oxygen production ....

Do you accept any of the above may  be close to the outcome ? 



kahuna1 said:


> *DO you accept any of their findings ?*




I asked you, but NO ... with good cause, I am the other side of the predictions that they have been watered down ... a view I might add held by 24,000 scientists in a peer reviewed paper on this topic  ... 

But that is MY view, I looked at the science, then the model, then the papers ... and listened to 100 or so sources ... and agreed that the Models are likely to fall way short of reality. I made this decision prior to the 2017 paper ... and well ... 2019 data is showing it sadly to be correct that the numbers are all well above IPCC estimates for the fiorst time since 1993 and getting worse.

But do you believe or accept any of their science ? Not just you struzzball but Saiji ...

I am fascinated to find if you accept any of it. Any projection or prediction they make. 

Not as fact, but a likely outcome ? Can you even accept that ? A very likely outcome ? 

Temperature change ? Sea level rise ? Even Arctic ice melt ? PH level falling ?


----------



## Struzball (6 May 2019)

It really is of no consequence how likely I consider a prediction.

I honestly have no idea what will happen in the future.

Anybody who does is kidding themselves.  They may as well predict what the stock market will be at in 2050.


----------



## kahuna1 (6 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> Anybody who does is kidding themselves.




Strange ... still no answer. 

Some things have a high frequency of being able to be predicted. A high probability. 

Some things you don't think can be predicted, well ... can .... In this, I am not kidding myself or being delusional. Nor the scientists. 

Charting a stock market ... is quite different than a rock falling from the sky when it reaches terminal velocity .... one can predict with extreme accuracy where it will be when dropped from 10,000 meters PRIOR to hitting the ground.  

So in your case you don't accept any computer model ?

PH levels measured in the ocean with extreme accuracy via 3,000 deep diving sensors and measuring PH levels .... rising and rising and rising at even a faster rate. Its not hard ... 

Same with temperature ... same with ice melting and similar with CO2 levels rising ... 

So in your case you don't accept any computer model ? even a rock falling at 9.8 mt per second per second till it reaches terminal velocity .... the maximum gravity will propel it ... nope we cant 
predict that ? Nor can any scientist, computer geek or even an actuary ...  

I await Anne and Sadiji ... if they would care to share.


----------



## rederob (6 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> Anybody who does is kidding themselves.  They may as well predict what the stock market will be at in 2050.



That's an absurd idea.
AGW is a theory because it uses science to explain how climate changes over time.  
The science relies on basic physics.
Climate science is actually very easy.
If heat is prevented from leaving the planet at greater rates over time, then the planet will warm (assuming minimal changes to irradiance).
If you think that climate science is deficient, what are your grounds?


----------



## Struzball (6 May 2019)

Climate, like the stock market, is chaotic.

A rock falling from the sky is not chaotic.  A rock falling can be predicted with certainty, and experiments can be repeated with expected results.  

There is a very high uncertainty in even the measurement of current global temperature. Let alone the predictions.

What is the global temperature?  What was the average temperature in your city today?
What is the average depth of the entire ocean?

You can give me a single answer to these questions, but it won’t be meaningful or useful.

Anyway, you asked for my opinion, so this is my opinion.  You don’t have to agree, and you can even think it makes me an idiot.


----------



## Struzball (6 May 2019)

rederob said:


> If heat is prevented from leaving the planet at greater rates over time, then the planet will warm (assuming minimal changes to irradiance).




Correct, this is the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.  Let me know when it’s testable, falsifiable and able to be replicated.  
Until then it’s nothing more than a hypothesis.  One I certainly can’t and won’t try to falsify.  However that doesn’t make it fact.


----------



## rederob (6 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> Climate, like the stock market, is chaotic.



If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that there are statistical techniques to account for chaos in systems.
With regard to the role of GHGs in the atmosphere, the outcome can be derived with certainty.  


Struzball said:


> There is a very high uncertainty in even the measurement of current global temperature.



That is false.
Temperatures are being measured with great precision.  
The issue with deriving an agreed global temperature is based on selection and methodology.


Struzball said:


> You can give me a single answer to these questions, but it won’t be meaningful or useful.



That is *true for you*, but not for me.
Science will measure.
Data will accumulate.
Patterns will emerge.


Struzball said:


> Anyway, you asked for my opinion, so this is my opinion. You don’t have to agree, and you can even think it makes me an idiot.



No, it just makes you ill informed, and unaware of how science is carried out.


----------



## rederob (6 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> Correct, this is the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.  Let me know when it’s testable, falsifiable and able to be replicated.
> Until then it’s nothing more than a hypothesis.  One I certainly can’t and won’t try to falsify.  However that doesn’t make it fact.



*False *- it's a theory.
It's a theory because it has been tested, and to date it has not been falsified.
It is clear from your many posts that science is a second language, at best, for you.


----------



## Sdajii (6 May 2019)

It is notable that the alarmists show their lack of grasp on the situation (while of course repeatedly accusing other of what they are guilty of), by stating that we know with certainty and high accuracy what the climate will do, in a chaotic system. We don't even know what the behaviour of humans will do, let alone all of the variables, including a lot of unknowns, which will be driving change, and even if we did, our models are still not anywhere near good enough to predict these things with the accuracy claimed by these people.

It is impossible to test these models. We do not have a control planet. In reality the models have quite consistently overestimated the change we would see (when I was working directly with climate scientists as a scientist myself around 10-14 years ago, they were unanimously predicting massive issues before 2020 and far, far greater issues than we saw before 2015. 2020 is now almost here and I don't think anyone is now currently expecting anything more drastic than perhaps a slightly warmer year than 2019. Back around 10-15 years ago they were all openly acknowledging that they had previously got it wrong and things didn't turn out as drastically as they'd predicted, but they claimed the models had been fixed and they now (at the time) had it right. But as it turns out, they didn't.

If you actually look at the actual predictions being made, they didn't come true, but amazingly, we are now being told that the predictions were not what they actually were, and that they were conservative.

Think about it for just a moment. What we are actually seeing is slightly warmer years on average each year. Do you remember them saying 15 years ago "Oh, by 2020 things will be slightly warmer but there won't be catastrophic effects?" People have such short memories, or perhaps it is more that they have malleable memories. Sea levels were supposed to already have dramatically risen by now, but they haven't appreciably changed. Perhaps marginally measurable, but go to any beach you went to as a kid, even if you are old, and you won't notice a difference (contrast this with quite rapid 120 metres - not mm, not cm, but 120 METRES of entirely natural, quite rapid sea level change before humans were doing anything of consequence).

I would love it if climate scientists would actually set out clear, unambiguous predictions so they could legitimately be held accountable for them - average global temperature rises/changes, sea level changes, and any other data. Consensus view from the global climate science community. Of course, this will not happen, because the fact that they keep exaggerating would be obvious if there was actually a way to keep them accountable. Incidentally, this is not restricted to climate science, and is universal to all predictive science with remarkable consistency.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> It is notable that the alarmists show their lack of grasp on the situation (while of course repeatedly accusing other of what they are guilty of), by stating that we know with certainty and high accuracy what the climate will do, in a chaotic system. We don't even know what the behaviour of humans will do, let alone all of the variables, including a lot of unknowns, which will be driving change, and even if we did, our models are still not anywhere near good enough to predict these things with the accuracy claimed by these people.



These comments reflect your poor knowledge of science.
If heat is trapped then the planet will warm.
We can calculate the amount of heat likely to be trapped, and project that into how temperature at the surface of the planet is  likely to respond.
You claim "*a lot of unknowns, which will be driving change*," so please delineate this area of climate science which apparently is unique to you as the drivers of climate are well known.


Sdajii said:


> It is impossible to test these models



Absolute rubbish - you are clueless.


Sdajii said:


> ...around 10-14 years ago, they were unanimously predicting massive issues before 2020 and far, far greater issues than we saw before 2015.



More rubbish - here's the projection window from 1990 with actual temperatures after the event.

As per usual your post is an unmitigated science disaster.
Stop making up what you do not know.

And here's a real clincher from you:


Sdajii said:


> I would love it if climate scientists would actually set out clear, unambiguous predictions so they could legitimately be held accountable for them - average global temperature rises/changes, sea level changes, and any other data.



Because you do not understand the science of climate, you want "predictions" to be made.  IPCC Reports offer what you ask, but base them on *settings* given that variables can fall within many future ranges.  The IPCC *does not predict* the future, but does forecast the likely climate outcomes if the settings in future fall within the specified ranges.

Now let me turn the tables on your point.  Let's hold those who deny the science and fail to act, personally responsible.  Let's sentence them to the same fate that they have set for the planet.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

Sdajii claims "massive issues" were fore forecast when he was involved in science many years ago, so the below is cut and paste from IPCC's first Report:
*"How will climate extremes and extreme events change?*
Changes in the variability of weather and the frequency of extremes will generally have more impact than changes in the mean climate at a particular location. With the possible exception of an increase in the number of intense showers there is no clear evidence that weather variability will change in the future. In the case of temperatures, assuming no change in variability, but with a modest increase in the mean, the number of days with temperatures above a given value at the high end of the distribution will increase substantially. On the same assumptions, there will be a decrease in days with temperatures at the low end ot the distribution. So the number of very hot days or frosty nights can be substantially changed without any change in the variability of the weather. The number of days with a minimum threshold amount of soil moisture (for viability of a certain crop, for example) would be even more sensitive to changes in average precipitation and evaporation."

Sdajii also claimed that such events were predicted for 2020.  Yet the IPCC's first Report only gave a brief overview of likely projections at 2030 and not beforehand.
While Sdajii is copious on commentary on what he thinks, he certainly is very light on knowledge, but profound on fabrication.


----------



## Struzball (7 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Let's hold those who deny the science and fail to act, personally responsible.  Let's sentence them to the same fate that they have set for the planet.




I already do live the fate I set for the planet.
I use fossil fuels for cooking, keeping my food cool, transport, air conditioning, heating.
You already have the opportunity to live the fate you set for the planet: stop using fossil fuels today.

But it appears you're actually suggesting some sort of concentration camp for those that don't support the green agenda.  Now that is alarming.


----------



## Sdajii (7 May 2019)

It is amusing to see the alarmists bleating such nonsense, and among it, saying the climate deniers should be held accountable for future climate disaster. The ironic thing about this is that somewhat surprisingly, data shows that people who talk a lot about climate change alarmism actually contribute more to CO2 emissions and other forms of pollution than conservatives. As we also see with many other issues associated with the left, it is all about identity politics, virtue signaling, not actual action.

Posting a meme on Facebook or having irrational, emotional rants full of ad hominem attacks doesn't actually reduce your carbon output. I am not sure where my personal level is compared to the average Australian, but I would estimate it to be well below average. The one big way in which I consume more than the average Australian is international travel (I spend about 11 months of the year outside Australia and usually jump country every 2 weeks - 2 months, last year I would have taken around 20 flights, which I'm sure is much more than the average Australian). However, most of those flights are not too far, and other than flying and for the month per year in Australia when I'm driving my car, I use public transport when I get around, I don't commute to a daily job, the majority of what I eat is local and unprocessed, I don't have a house full of stuff, I have very very low electricity usage, I buy very little in the way of disposable goods compared to the vast majority of Australians, I'd be more than willing to bet that I contribute far less CO2 to the atmosphere than rederob or kahuna, I reckon they would each be around 5-10x my impact. So, hey, let's bring on those CO2 accountability measures!


----------



## kahuna1 (7 May 2019)

I still don't have a single question answered.

In the only response, its NOT possible driving at 100km an hour to know with great accuracy that 30 minutes latter you will be 50 km away.

Simple stuff .... rising sea levels .... measured ... rate of change ... increase in that rate of change ... and multiplied by years.

No its impossible .... according to both responses so far.

So glad they have lots of road signs on long trips to tell you how far you have gone. Asked when I would arrive leaving at 2 pm on a 200 km drive, country roads, my response should be .... 

Sorry have no idea, I will call you as I pass road signs.


----------



## kahuna1 (7 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I'd be more than willing to bet that I contribute far less CO2 to the atmosphere than rederob or kahuna,




*Methane ... CH4 is a greenhouse gas and your emissions are astounding.
*
I would prefer you answered the question about IPCC projections rather than emit more greenhouse gasses.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> I already do live the fate I set for the planet.
> I use fossil fuels for cooking, keeping my food cool, transport, air conditioning, heating.
> You already have the opportunity to live the fate you set for the planet: stop using fossil fuels today.
> 
> But it appears you're actually suggesting some sort of concentration camp for those that don't support the green agenda.  Now that is alarming.



I generate more energy into the system than I use, via renewables.
So you are again dead *wrong*.


----------



## Struzball (7 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I generate more energy into the system than I use, via renewables.
> So you are again dead *wrong*.




Oh, so you don't use electricity when the sun goes down do you?
Where do you suppose the electricity is coming from at night?


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> The ironic thing about this is that somewhat surprisingly, data shows that people who talk a lot about climate change alarmism actually contribute more to CO2 emissions and other forms of pollution than conservatives.



There is no such data - why not prove your points rather than keep making up things!


Sdajii said:


> I'd be more than willing to bet that I contribute far less CO2 to the atmosphere than rederob....



That would be a bet you would lose.
I drive my car so little that I did my 3rd fill-up of fuel so far this year.
During the summer we ran our aircon for a total of about 12 hours.
We get paid by our electricity supplier every quarter, and this has been the case for almost 10 years, as we feed our excess into the grid.  On a bad year we earn well in excess of $1000.
We have 2 rainwater tanks.  Our average daily consumption from domestic supply is a tad under 40 litres per day.  Our washing machine uses rainwater.
I walk to the shops and back, and to our friends place.  Those are 7km round trips.
I am still using Makita and Black and Decker power tools I bought around 40 years ago.
In the early 1980s I shipped dual flush toilets from WA and installed them myself, because they were illegal where I lived at that time!
You are so prone to making up what you want to believe it is becoming farcical.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

Struzball said:


> Oh, so you don't use electricity when the sun goes down do you?
> Where do you suppose the electricity is coming from at night?



You have real comprehension problems don't you.
I generate more than I use.


----------



## Struzball (7 May 2019)

rederob said:


> You have real comprehension problems don't you.
> I generate more than I use.




Moon rays?


----------



## basilio (17 May 2019)

This story is amazing and encouraging. A cheap artificial mechanism to encourage ice to regrow in  the Arctic. And so far it works...

*In the warming Arctic, a promising solution to climate change*
https://grist.org/article/in-the-warming-arctic-a-promising-solution-to-climate-change/


----------



## Sdajii (17 May 2019)

basilio said:


> This story is amazing and encouraging. A cheap artificial mechanism to encourage ice to regrow in  the Arctic. And so far it works...
> 
> *In the warming Arctic, a promising solution to climate change*
> https://grist.org/article/in-the-warming-arctic-a-promising-solution-to-climate-change/




This actually touches on a subject I sometimes think about. To whatever extent humans are currently interacting with the climate, whether you believe it is negligible or the only thing causing any change (neither is correct of course), it is definitely unintentional.

Technology is advancing at a furious pace, and it won't be long before we can *deliberately* engineer the climate in whatever way we want, with relative precision and high accuracy. There are various mechanisms we can use to do this, and not only will it be possible to stabilise the climate (which is not naturally stable), it will allow us to improve it, tailor it to our advantage.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

Sdajii said:


> This actually touches on a subject I sometimes think about. To whatever extent humans are currently interacting with the climate, whether you believe it is negligible or the only thing causing any change (neither is correct of course), it is definitely unintentional.



Your claims continue to be a joke.
Humans are knowingly causing the climate to warm.  There is no contrary evidence.
Your idea that it is "*unintentional*" is hilarious.  We have known the cause for a long while and not acted in response.


Sdajii said:


> Technology is advancing at a furious pace, and it won't be long before we can *deliberately* engineer the climate in whatever way we want, with relative precision and high accuracy.



 Some level of geoengineering is technically possible, but is exceptionally expensive and politically fraught with more issues than simple mitigation. 
It's a lie to claim it can be done "accurately" as there will be a raft of unintended consequences.


Sdajii said:


> There are various mechanisms we can use to do this, and not only will it be possible to stabilise the climate (which is not naturally stable), it will allow us to improve it, tailor it to our advantage.



Absolute nonsense.
See my next post and I will go through the principal options and briefly explain their deficiencies.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

(following on from my previous post)
Principal Mitigation Options (and issues):

land-use management to protect or enhance land carbon sinks; Requires all nations to act
using biomass for carbon sequestration as well as a carbon neutral energy source; Requires all nations to act
acceleration of natural geological weathering processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere; Technically challenging, expensive and requires global action
engineered capture of CO2 from ambient air; Technically challenging and expensive - who pays? 
enhancement of oceanic uptake of CO2, for example, by fertilization of the oceans with naturally scarce nutrients, or by increasing upwelling processes;  Technically challenging and  expensive - who pays?
increasing the surface reflectivity of the planet, by brightening human structures (e.g. by painting them white), planting of crops with a high reflectivity, or covering deserts with reflective material; Expensive and requires all nations to act
enhancement of marine cloud brightness (reflectivity); Technically challenging, and expensive - who pays?
mimicking the effects of volcanic eruptions by injecting aerosol particles (e.g. sulphates) into the lower stratosphere; Expensive and unintended consequences may be even more costly again
placing shields or deflectors in space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth; Exceptionally expensive.
Looking at the above, it becomes apparent that we would need incredible investment *and *the agreement of most nations to the various options.  
Given we cannot even get nations to meet their already meagre commitments to mitigation, it's a bit optimistic to suppose geoengineering could be successful.


----------



## basilio (17 May 2019)

Rederob  the examples you gave  of attempting to geo engineer the climate and the problems and costs associated are fair comment, However did you read the particular technology I quoted ? Looks promising, clever and cost effective.

And if it  can reverse the current record melting of Arctic sea ice ... that would be invaluable


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

basilio said:


> Rederob  the examples you gave  of attempting to geo engineer the climate and the problems and costs associated are fair comment, However did you read the particular technology I quoted ? Looks promising, clever and cost effective.
> 
> And if it  can reverse the current record melting of Arctic sea ice ... that would be invaluable



Bas, it was included under the point about increasing surface reflectivity, but I did not propose "beads".
The problem with the Arctic will be that beads cannot subvert ice decreases because ocean heat transfers will be too powerful.  And that would be aside from unintended environmental consequences, and the massive cost.
Geogineering has no silver bullets, but there may be some cheap technological advances in future which can act in tandem with reducing CO2 emissions.


----------



## basilio (31 May 2019)

The inevitability of Global heating and it's consequences  are emerging everywhere - and at the same time.
This story is going to be repeated many times.

*Port Fairy's decades-long push for wall to stop seaside tip spewing rubbish into the ocean to rise from the waves*

Decades of rubbish, faeces, asbestos and medical waste is at risk of spilling into the Southern Ocean if a million-dollar rock wall in south-west Victoria is not built in time.
Key points:

The rubbish tip dating from the 1970s was originally 100 metres inland, but erosion has brought it to within coastal dunes
Council has approved the construction of a $1.1 million rock wall, but admits it is a stop-gap measure
Of nearly 600 landfill sites in Victoria, approximately 43 are located on the coast
 
The seaside community of Port Fairy has been petitioning the Moyne Shire Council for more than a decade to have rubbish from two decommissioned landfill sites, buried within coastal dunes, properly removed. 

The landfill sites were closed in 1998, but coastal erosion over the past 21 years has thinned the sand between beach and rubbish.

By council's own estimates, one strong storm surge could spill waste dating back to the 1970s onto the beach and into the ocean.

"It's a problem that's not going away and we don't want to hand it on to another generation or council in five-to-10 years," said Moyne Shire Mayor Mick Wolfe.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-31/port-fairy-takes-steps-to-fix-old-tip-site/11159736


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2019)

Britain commits to zero net emissions by 2050.

Will it ruin their economy ?

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/11/uk-enshrine-2050-net-zero-emissions-target-law/


----------



## Sdajii (13 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Britain commits to zero net emissions by 2050.
> 
> Will it ruin their economy ?
> 
> https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/11/uk-enshrine-2050-net-zero-emissions-target-law/




They have 30 years to come up with a way to weasel out of today's lip service/virtue signal. It won't be this that ruins their economy.


----------



## basilio (13 June 2019)

Sdajii said:


> They have 30 years to come up with a way to weasel out of today's lip service/virtue signal. It won't be this that ruins their economy.



Quite right Sdajii.  In 30 years the economy will be ruined by rising sea levels that flood London not to mention hundreds of klms of other other seaside areas.  So they can deal with a few million internal climate refugees as well as the millions pouring in from Africa and Spain.
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-climate-change-houston-bangkok-a8569276.html
https://www.climatechangepost.com/united-kingdom/coastal-floods/


----------



## rederob (13 June 2019)

Sdajii said:


> They have 30 years to come up with a way to weasel out of today's lip service/virtue signal. It won't be this that ruins their economy.



Like most of what you write, it's just made up from whatever first came into your head.
BREXIT will  ruin the economy of the UK, if anything will.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Britain commits to zero net emissions by 2050.
> 
> Will it ruin their economy ?




Depends totally on what else they also do (or don't do).


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Depends totally on what else they also do (or don't do).




Exactly. I wonder if anyone has asked them the cost of this policy liked they asked our Labor Party.

The truth is no one knows the answer to that question because there are so many variables involved.


----------



## explod (13 June 2019)

If anyone really believes we will last another 30 years you are really in fairy land.

80 fariegnheight in the arctic a few days back. Ice melt three times faster in Antarctica in the last 12 months.

Open a beer and cheers to all.


----------



## rederob (13 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Exactly. I wonder if anyone has asked them the cost of this policy liked they asked our Labor Party.
> The truth is no one knows the answer to that question because there are so many variables involved.



Britain has been on the renewables path for a very long time and is ahead of most nations around the world.  So if there has been a cost, then it's been very well absorbed to date as the UK certainly has *not *been and industrial backwater fraught with economic woes.
The elephant in their parliament is BREXIT.


----------



## basilio (13 June 2019)

These are the changes city dwellers  (allegedly) need to accept if global warming is to be kept to 1.5C.. I'm surprised they didn't include yogurt knitting..

Challenging indeed.... Let's break out a beer explod...
*Drastic shift in city lifestyles urged to avert climate crisis*
by Megan Rowling |  @meganrowling | Thomson Reuters Foundation
Wednesday, 12 June 2019 16:09 GMT


By Megan Rowling

BARCELONA, June 12 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - You bound out of bed in your wood-framed eco-home, throw on a rented dress, jump on an electric bike and head to the "tool library" to borrow a trowel to plant your vegetable patch.

This is the kind of lifestyle urban dwellers need to adopt in just a decade's time to play their part in keeping global warming to a relatively safe 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels, the C40 cities network said on Wednesday.

"Everything and everyone will have to change," said Mark Watts, executive director of C40 - nearly 100 big cities acting on climate change.

"But the first step is understanding what needs to be done."

The 2015 Paris Agreement set a goal to limit average global temperature rise to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F), and to "pursue efforts" for 1.5C. But emissions are currently on track to fuel at least 3C of warming, climate scientists say.

The C40 study by London-based engineering firm Arup and Britain's University of Leeds measured the carbon footprint of urban areas in a new way to include what businesses and citizens use, eat and wear, and how those items are made and transported.

Up to now, cities have focused on curbing emissions from buildings, energy, transport and waste produced locally.

But 85% of emissions associated with the goods and services consumed in C40 cities are created elsewhere in the world and need to be addressed as well, the network noted.

Cities need to at least halve their emissions - already 10% of the global total - by 2030 to have a chance of keeping global warming to 1.5°C, it said, by transforming their use of food, clothing, electronics, transport and building methods.

Urbanites would need to cut their annual meat consumption to 16 kg per person from an average of 58 kg now, the study said.

*And fast-fashion would have to be ditched, with clothing business models focused on recycling, upgrading and renting so people would only buy three new items each year.*

*Watts told the Thomson Reuters Foundation some C40 mayors turned "slightly pale" when they learned of the drastic changes required, but recognised the analysis "helps them do their job".*
http://news.trust.org/item/20190610104250-rvtth/
*
*


----------



## kahuna1 (13 June 2019)

explod said:


> 80 fariegnheight in the arctic a few days back




Yep and the USA see's it as a chance for shorter shipping routes, more oil and gas to be exploited.

Meanwhile the recent Aussie based report, about realistic 3-4 degrees by 2100 is sobering. Not sure even the worst case of 6-8 degrees is out of the realistic measure by then.

Thankfully, I doubt I will be around in 2100. Pre 2050, given some disturbing numbers on every measure coming out from Temp to CO2 and CH4 or Methane .... being somewhat disturbed the 50 cm sea rise by 2100 is now 75 cm if not 100 cm .... makes me wonder is the USA just stupid ? 

Spending 500 million on pumps to keep Miami dry in 2019 from high tides is a loosing game ...

Yes we will adapt, possibly move, but when 50% of arable land is no longer of any use verses a population 150% of 2000 levels at say 9 billion, its going to be fun.

Must be positive and realistic. Not give time to nutters who are either extreme and deny any issue one side or even that CO2 is an issue or the other flip side that its going to end next week.

Impacts profound ones post 2050 and more post 2100. Can we adapt ? Can we even if we tried ? 

At this stage melting of the Permafrost and frozen methane is a given post 2050. Adding 200 PPM to the CO2 level and casting in concrete a 3 degree plus 2100 rise. Amazon having droughts at 2.5 degree rise and sea going 100 cm assured I suppose.

Its when the bloody Antarctic ice melts that we are talking 5 metre sea level rises and well .... London will be awash at 1 metre either ways as well as the lower end of NY. Miami ... New Orleans and so so many other nations. About 100 million refugees by 2050  and a billion by 2100. Climate flood followed by drought then wild storms likely case massive crop fails in large nations and so on ...

happy happy happy .... USA I do dislike them at the moment.


----------



## basilio (3 July 2019)

Came across these reports in the last few days while doing some research on CC adaptation.  Very challenging stuff..

*Prof. Jean Palutikof founding Director of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) at Griffith University, provides a graphic picture. * Professor Palutikof was based at the UK Met Office during which time she managed the production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report for Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). Professor Palutikof is among the foremost scholars of climate change adaptation and was lead author and review editor for several assessments of the IPCC. 

https://globusgreen.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/global-environmental-change-palutikof.pdf

*NCCARF REPORT: *Supporting evidence-based adaptation decision-making in Victoria: A synthesis of climate change adaptation research
https://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/def...tions/AECOM_2013_Synthesis_report_for_VIC.pdf


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Britain commits to zero net emissions by 2050.
> 
> Will it ruin their economy ?
> 
> https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/11/uk-enshrine-2050-net-zero-emissions-target-law/




3.2GW nuclear Power Station, should help a bit with base load.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-47718991

https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c

They are a long way down the renewables path, but they obviously have a way to go and don't think wind is going to manage it.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Exactly. I wonder if anyone has asked them the cost of this policy liked they asked our Labor Party.
> 
> The truth is no one knows the answer to that question because there are so many variables involved.



Well the cost of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, I think I read is $26billion and that is for a station capable of supplying 7% of the system load. So it isn't cheap.
Also:
The *UK* Government's energy national policy statement in June 2011 confirmed that eight sites are suitable for new *nuclear power stations* by 2025 – all are the sites of existing *nuclear plant*. Developers are currently *planning* new *build* at six of the sites (see map). The other nominated sites are Heysham and Hartlepool.


----------



## basilio (7 July 2019)

Effects of Global Heating

* Baked Alaska: record heat fuels wildfires and sparks personal fireworks ban *
Anchorage sees 80F weather with nearly 120 fires blazing across the state
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/02/alaska-heat-wildfires-climate-change


----------



## basilio (14 July 2019)

We are facing the effects of CC across the country.
And summer is a long way off.

*Country towns close to reaching 'day zero', as water supplies dry up in the drought*
By National Regional Affairs reporter Lucy Barbour
Updated about an hour ago




* Photo:* Farmers have never known Walcha, in regional NSW, to be so dry. (ABC News: Lucy Barbour) 
Across New South Wales and Queensland's southern downs, country towns are approaching their own 'day zero', as water supplies dry up in the drought.

*Key points:*

Water security is still almost non-existent for many rural communities, with 10 towns at risk of running dry in six months
Locals in Tenterfield are not washing cars or watering gardens and are cutting back on showers
Even in high rainfall areas like Walcha, locals are enduring constant water restrictions

Ten towns, including major centres, are considered to be at high risk of running out within six months, if it doesn't rain and if water infrastructure isn't improved.

Councils are rushing to put emergency measures in place, but more than a decade since the end of the millennium drought, water security is still almost non-existent for many rural communities.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-14/day-zero-approaching-as-towns-run-out-of-water/11271430


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2019)

basilio said:


> We are facing the effects of CC across the country.
> And summer is a long way off.
> 
> *Country towns close to reaching 'day zero', as water supplies dry up in the drought*
> ...




Yes, there will be a day of reckoning.

Then some rain will come and people will go back to their current unsustainable practices as if nothing ever happened. Over-clearing, over grazing, stealing water, then putting their hands out to the taxpayers  and all the other stuff they have been doing for centuries.


----------



## basilio (15 July 2019)

These analysis's have been around for a few years.  Not sure when the national need to respond to a a clearly different climate reaches the top of a to do list.
 Print  Email  Facebook  Twitter  More

*Defence lacks 'overarching strategy' to deal with climate change conflict, internal notes warn*
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...strategy-for-climate-change-conflict/11304954

*Former fire chiefs warn of more catastrophic weather events*
We often get alarming warning messages from our emergency services, but this one about the “escalating crisis” they face is coming from the very top.
*




Stephanie Bedo@stephanie_bedo




news.com.auApril 10, 201910:59am*
When a group of experts with more than 600 years of combined experience get together, it’s probably time to listen.
But the message these 23 former fire and emergency chiefs have for Australia is rather alarming.
They have seen “how Australia is experiencing increasingly catastrophic extreme weather events that are putting lives, properties and livelihoods at greater risk and overwhelming our
emergency services”.
The driver? Climate change.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/b050f578a4dce8ced68604db20cb39a8


----------



## basilio (18 July 2019)

*Ways to shore up the Antarctic ice cap and save coastal cities around the world.. *
(How do we want spend our latest tax cuts ?)

* Manmade Antarctic snowstorm 'could save coastal cities from rising seas' *

Blowing trillions of tonnes of snow on to ice sheet could halt its collapse, researchers say

Spraying trillions of tons of snow over west Antarctica could halt the ice sheet’s collapse and save coastal cities across the world from sea level rise, according to a new study.

The colossal geoengineering project would need energy from at least 12,000 wind turbines to power giant seawater pumps and snow cannons, and would destroy a unique natural reserve. The scientists are not advocating for such a project, but said its apparent “absurdity” reflects the extraordinary scale of threat from rising sea level.

Ending the burning of fossil fuels remains the key to tackling the climate crisis and sea level rise, the researchers said. But the carbon emissions pumped into the atmosphere so far may already have doomed the west Antarctic ice sheet.

A series of earlier studies concluded the accelerating loss of ice from the region could not be stopped by emissions cuts any more, meaning the oceans will rise by three metres in the coming centuries. This would leave major cities across the world, from New York to Kolkata to Shanghai, below sea level.

“As scientists we feel it is our duty to inform society about every potential option to counter the problems ahead,” said Prof Anders Levermann, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who led the research. “As unbelievable as [the proposal] might seem, in order to prevent an unprecedented risk, humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort.”

“The effort needed would be huge, like an Antarctic moon landing,” he said, though the cost would be less than abandoning even one city like New York. “It is up to society to make this choice – it can’t shy away from making decisions.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rm-could-save-coastal-cities-from-rising-seas


----------



## basilio (2 August 2019)

*How  significant as the recent heat wave in Europe ?*
The World Meteorological Organization  has a detailed analayis and neat 2 minute video. It is particularly scary to realise that this record has happened in a non El Nino year

*July equalled, and maybe surpassed, the hottest month in recorded history*
Tags:
Climate change
=field_cloud_tags%3A277']Environment
=field_cloud_tags%3A285']Public health
1
* Published *
1 August 2019

According to the new data from the World Meteorological Organization and Copernicus Climate Change Programme, July at least equalled, if not surpassed, the hottest month in recorded history. This follows the warmest ever June on record.

The data from the Copernicus Climate Change Programme, run by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, is fed into the UN system by WMO. The figures show that, based on the first 29 days of the month, July 2019 will be on par with, and possibly marginally warmer than the previous warmest July, in 2016, which was also the warmest month ever.

*The latest figures are particularly significant because July 2016 was during one of the strongest occurrence of the El Niño phenomenon, which contributes to heightened global temperatures. Unlike 2016, 2019 has not been marked by a strong El Niño.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/new...aybe-surpassed-hottest-month-recorded-history*


----------



## basilio (2 August 2019)

Following on from the massive heat wave in Europe.
This heated air mass has now spilled into the Arctic and is melting the Greenland Ice cap at ridiculous levels.
*(Isn't it great that the noted  scholar and intellectual Andrew Bolt reassures us there is nothing to worry about with global warming ?* )

* Heatwaves amplify near-record levels of ice melt in northern hemisphere *
Greenland’s ice sheet shrunk more in past month than in average year, experts warn

Jonathan Watts Global environment editor

 @jonathanwatts 
Fri 2 Aug 2019 02.00 EDT   Last modified on Fri 2 Aug 2019 04.10 EDT

Shares
274





Visitors walk among free-floating ice jammed into the Ilulissat Icefjord during unseasonably warm weather on July 30, 2019 near Ilulissat, Greenland. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
The frozen extremities of the northern hemisphere are melting at a near-record rate as heatwaves buffet the Arctic, forest fires tear through Siberia and glaciers retreat on Greenland fjords and Alpine peaks.

Unusually high temperatures are eating into ice sheets that used to be solid throughout the year, according to glaciologists, who warn this is both an amplifying cause and effect of man-made climate disruption across the globe.

Greenland – which is home to the world’s second biggest ice sheet – is likely to have shrunk more in the past month than the average for a whole year between 2002 and now, according to provisional estimates from satellite data. Surface ice declined in July by 197 gigatonnes, equivalent to about 80m Olympic swimming pools, according to Ruth Mottram of the Danish Meteorological Institute. An additional third of that amount is likely to have been lost from glaciers and icebergs.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ord-levels-of-ice-melt-in-northern-hemisphere


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2019)

Renewable energy not the only solution to climate change.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-08/ipcc-report-climate-change-land-use/11391180


----------



## basilio (9 August 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Renewable energy not the only solution to climate change.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-08/ipcc-report-climate-change-land-use/11391180



The isn't/can't be a single solution to somehow turning back the clock on  human created global heating.

The IPCC report on land use is very strong but, in fact, it underplays the huge impact our current land use and food production impacts on changing the climate. It is fair to say the combined efforts of teh political players in the IPCC have tempered the report. (As stark s it may seem.)


* We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops? *
George Monbiot
In its crucial land and climate report, the IPCC irresponsibly understates the true carbon cost of our meat and dairy habits 

It’s a tragic missed opportunity. The new report on land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shies away from the big issues and fails to properly represent the science. As a result, it gives us few clues about how we might survive the century. Has it been nobbled? Was the fear of taking on the farming industry – alongside the oil and coal companies whose paid shills have attacked it so fiercely – too much to bear? At the moment, I have no idea. But what the panel has produced is pathetic.

The problem is that it concentrates on just one of the two ways of counting the carbon costs of farming. The first way – the IPCC’s approach – could be described as farming’s current account. How much greenhouse gas does driving tractors, spreading fertiliser and raising livestock produce every year? According to the panel’s report, the answer is around 23% of the planet-heating gases we currently produce. But this fails miserably to capture the overall impact of food production.

*The second accounting method is more important. This could be described as the capital account: how does farming compare to the natural ecosystems that would otherwise have occupied the land? A paper published in Nature last year, but not mentioned by the IPCC, sought to count this cost. Please read these figures carefully. They could change your life.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...cc-land-climate-report-carbon-cost-meat-dairy


----------



## explod (11 August 2019)

We are stuffed:-

https://www.ecowatch.com/japan-heat-wave-2639709811.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 August 2019)

basilio said:


> *We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops?*



Because it gets to the crux of the problem that few are willing to face.

Population.

If we're going to have a lot less food production then having a lot less people to feed is the inescapable requirement associated with that. Cutting back on waste would help sure but that alone isn't enough.

"Per capita" arguments just don't cut it. Never have and never will in a situation where it's the total volume of emissions which matters.

The earth's population has gone up roughly 50% since this issue became mainstream in the late 1980's and no surprise to find that emissions are also trending firmly up.

At a local level, Australia's doing pretty well at cutting emissions "per capita". Trouble is, with population growth that means total emissions are still going up despite declining per capita. That is, of course, the expected outcome and not surprising.

Trouble is, very few are willing to face that reality since it involves a complete rethink of just about everything from banking to religion. Making the power grid work is just the easy bit really.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 August 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Population.




Not to mention that when people come here from subsistence economies to our high consumption society then global emissions will rise.

The obvious moral problem is that can we expect the subsistence economies to stay that way so that we can enjoy our profligate lifestyle ? Morally no, but practically very few think that we should reduce our consumption for the global benefit.


----------



## basilio (11 August 2019)

The huge issue with food production is not just "population" .

The point made by the IPCC report and re made with Geoge Monbiot is the way western counties (and now Middle Cass India and China) meet their  diets.  

Please. At least read the story and appreciate the points made about meat and dairy diets vs  non meat diets.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 August 2019)

basilio said:


> The huge issue with food production is not just "population" .
> 
> The point made by the IPCC report and re made with Geoge Monbiot is the way western counties (and now Middle Cass India and China) meet their  diets.
> 
> Please. At least read the story and appreciate the points made about meat and dairy diets vs  non meat diets.




The story was read when you posted it bas.

Of course the elephant in the room (or maybe the cow) is our dependence on meat. Personally I eat very little red meat these days and haven't done so for some time. I don't feel any worse for it but trying to wean dedicated meat eaters away from meat towards plants is not going to be easy.


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2019)

basilio said:


> Effects of Global Heating
> 
> * Baked Alaska: record heat fuels wildfires and sparks personal fireworks ban *
> Anchorage sees 80F weather with nearly 120 fires blazing across the state
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/02/alaska-heat-wildfires-climate-change



Carnegie wave energy are re floating( no pun intended), if you want to get on board.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2019)

basilio said:


> Please. At least read the story and appreciate the points made about meat and dairy diets vs  non meat diets.



I have indeed read it and my comments are with that in mind.

Telling people to go vegan is much like telling them to drink low alcohol beer or smoke "light" cigarettes. It might be a less bad option but do enough of it and your liver / lungs will still be stuffed in due course, all the change does is delay the inevitable.

Same with population and diet. Up 50% in the past 30 years. Keep repeating that and in due course even if literally everyone goes vegan then it still ends up outright trashing the planet especially given that there's rather a lot of land that's good for grazing and nothing else. Take that out of production, no more grazing, and pressure on what remains goes up.

Plus of course there's the reality that not everyone will actually go vegan. Just like we still have people who smoke and we still have people who drink daily despite the dangers of both being well established.

Same goes for just about every resource, we're simply using too much of everything from steel to fertilizer to wood and that's happening in a world where a large portion of the population is aiming to raise per capita consumption and we're also growing the population.

Keep going and many of us will live to see mining in Antarctica that's a given, indeed depending on your perspective climate change can't come quickly enough since getting rid of the ice will make digging the rest far easier. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01...ctic-mining-despite-international-ban/6029414



> Another 2013 report for the Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration obtained from a confidential source said: "Regardless of how the spoils are divided up, China must have a share of Antarctic mineral resources to ensure the survival and development of its one billion population."




It's like the fossil fuel debate. Politics and treaties aside, the harsh reality is that global emissions continue to rise at a significant pace.

https://www.carbonindependent.org/images/co2_emissions_2000.png

If the seriousness of this issue is anywhere even remotely close to what's claimed then we're stuffed basically.


----------



## qldfrog (12 August 2019)

"especially given that there's rather a lot of land that's good for grazing and nothing else. Take that out of production, no more grazing, and pressure on what remains goes up"
Can the vegan lobby evee acknowledge that?
Smurf resumes it all:
Unless population decreases we are stuffed,even for someone luke me now fully convinced that co2 has nothing to do with our current climate change 
Even outside climate, we are heading to doom thru sheer numbers ;
 years travelling and working in asia outside the cosy place named australia makes it so obvious but this is met with denial by our guardian readers mobs...


----------



## basilio (12 August 2019)

Well it looks like there's no hope at all ?  Some people want to see the Antarctic laid bare so we can begin mining it ?   I don't know where we would be using it because sea levels would be 216 feet higher which wipes out practically every significant city in the world.

As I'm watching it we have gone from total denial about global warming to  complete resignation about its reality and the possibility/probability our civilization will be basically stuffed. The IPCC report was recognising the impact our food choices have on the earth and pointing out other ways we could ensure we all were well fed but reducing our impact on global warming.

The issues of overusing our natural resources have been recognised for 40-50 years now.  Of course it doesn't stop the superwealthy making sure they have everything the want.  


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2019)

basilio said:


> Well it looks like there's no hope at all ?




Maybe there is...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2019)

basilio said:


> Well it looks like there's no hope at all ?  Some people want to see the Antarctic laid bare so we can begin mining it ?   I don't know where we would be using it because sea levels would be 216 feet higher which wipes out practically every significant city in the world.




To clarify - I most certainly _don't want_ to see that outcome but I can certainly see that's where we're headed. 7.7 billion people and rising all wanting high consumption rates - end result is every resource anywhere on the planet will be used.

That's in the same category as saying I don't want a bushfire and I don't want the ASX to go down either but if there's smoke rising above the hills then no point denying it.

A few more years of emissions going up and I expect a lot more will reach the same conclusion I have. There's 3 basic scenarios:

1. A full scale war-like approach to the problem where all normal rules are disregarded and an unprecedented level of co-operation occurs amongst all manner of normally opposed parties. Anything that works is adopted and what seems impossible actually happens politically.

2. The problem turns out to be false and CO2 doesn't really matter too much.

3. We're stuffed.

If I were to take a guess it's that something drastic actually happens and only after that we get the war-like approach. 

The problem is the scale of what's required and the ideological opposition. Rather a lot of organisations, politicians and so on need to actively work to do the exact opposite of what they're doing now - that's not going to be an easy change.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2019)

Population growth is the real problem, it is a compounding effects and with medicines we are adding to the issue. 
No matter what we do, if the World population keeps growing, we will go the way of the dinosaurs the only unknown is when.
The more affluent the World becomes, the more the mortality rate falls, the more the problem speeds up.
My guess is it is a bigger problem than rising sea levels, because that wont be fixed, until the population growth stops.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2019)

basilio said:


> As I'm watching it we have gone from total denial about global warming to  complete resignation about its reality and the possibility/probability our civilization will be basically stuffed.




Right at this moment in Australia we could cut some emissions and save money with nothing more than a few keystrokes.

Just take some load off a rather inefficient power station that's running and put it on a far more efficient one that's running well below capacity. Without wanting to name them, you could stand outside one and look at the other.

That our political masters would have anyone who tried to make that happen literally in jail for collusion illustrates the reason I've become so pessimistic on the issue. Economic ideology, political ideology, scenery preservation and all manner of other excuses keep pushing action on CO2 down the list so it doesn't get done.

My conclusion is thus that government and quite a few others either genuinely think there's no problem or have chosen to consciously ignore it. Utterances about catching buses and turning off lights, whilst not bad in themselves, are paying lip service to it so long as far more substantial things are ignored. 

Now realise that the same situation applies throughout much of the world, pretty much everything from urban air quality to noise to economic ideology to aesthetics is deemed more important, and it's not surprising that emissions continue to rise. 

Those other issues may well be important as such, but so long as there's a long list of things all deemed more important than CO2, even though many of them are either temporary or have already been greatly improved, then the CO2 issue doesn't get fixed and that's reality.


----------



## qldfrog (13 August 2019)

And do not forget that China does not care at all about co2
I am not even sure that my chinese colleagues have heard about Co2 links to climate change.
China goes electric to save air quality in towns, but burns coal to power it.
Use solar and wind :because it is cheap
I have not see any move to reduce co2 emissions while in China.
What is said by the Chinese government in international meetings etc is another story, but actions talk louder.
And as China government leads for the long term,  i am certain they would act if there was a real co2 threat.
I then started to question the co2 link.
If co2 is the cause then if co2 level is much higher, we should boil?
Millions of years ago when forest was covering earth and created the coal and oil deposits, co2 concentration was around 4000 to 5000ppm
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4
And earth was a tropical  garden of Eden, not a boiling planet.
We are at 250 ppm
That is fact and not loony science, and earth activity was higher then with more heat released from the core
Yes climate is changing
Napoleon could cross the frozen Rhine with his army 200y ago..do not try today but co2 is not the cause
We have bigger problems and overpopulation is at the core of the real ones


----------



## basilio (13 August 2019)

qldfrog said:


> We are at 250 ppm



How did you arrive at that figure for current CO2 levels in the atmosphere ?


----------



## sptrawler (13 August 2019)

qldfrog said:


> We have bigger problems and overpopulation is at the core of the real ones



I agree with that completely frog, the more we populate the more we increase deforestation to feed the masses.
Now we are going to remove more trees and shrubs to install solar farms, then the population keeps growing and we keep taking more of the Worlds CO2 sink, to feed and supply power to the increased population.
Then all of a sudden, we haven't got the plants, to actually deal with the C02 we are producing.
Until humans stop increasing their footprint on the Earth there is no hope, simple equation of 'the balance of nature', it isn't coal fired power stations causing the problem (though they are adding to it).
It is the constant urban sprawl to house people and the deforestation to feed them.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/
The problem is the 'chanters' are fixated on electricity, when in reality they should be demanding the Government not lease marginal land for farming and a buyback scheme for farmers on marginal land.
Then have tree planting programs in place to rehabilitate the land, the 'chanters' could actually do something useful and help with the planting, if they could drag themselves away from the Sydney and Melbourne.
The Government could legislate, that all new buildings must be fitted with solar panels and where possible the roof face North. New estate developments should require an equivalent amount of tree planting in a Government allocated area Easy to do in reality.
Instead we are going headlong, to clear more land to fix what in reality can be fixed naturally and in a more controlled manner.
It will be self resolving, when we are gone.


----------



## basilio (15 August 2019)

The David Attenborough doc "Climate Change - The facts "  is now on ABC Iview. 


SPECIAL
*Climate Change: The Facts*
ABCDOCUMENTARY
Sir David Attenborough looks at a planet on the verge of climate catastrophe. With intimate stories of people's lives affected by climate change, the documentary takes a look at one of the greatest challenges we face today.
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/climate-change-the-facts/video/ZW2018A001S00


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 August 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I am not even sure that my chinese colleagues have heard about Co2 links to climate change.




I think that aspect is greatly overlooked in all this.

Not referring to China specifically but to anywhere that isn't a wealthy Western democracy. Ask someone about CO2 and they might know what it is and that we're all breathing it out but good chance they've never heard that that there's any sort of serious problem with it.

Likewise there are still places today where manual workers are using asbestos completely unaware that there's any danger associated with it. They'd be truly shocked if they knew that the danger is well accepted to the point of it being outright banned in many countries.

Same with a lot of things. Eg some processed food products are in some countries made with ingredients widely seen as unhealthy in the West. A bag of potato chips will do you far more or less harm depending on what country you buy it in. 

And likewise there are rather a lot of people invested in shares through superannuation or other means who'd give you a blank stare if you mentioned pretty much any technical indicator or pattern. 

For that matter there are many with zero knowledge of bonds and by that I mean zero - they've no idea what a bond is but have some vague idea that dealing with them would likely land you in jail for a very long time if caught. They've only ever heard the term mentioned in a negative context and thus want nothing to do with them.

Never underestimate the level of ignorance on any subject.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 August 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The problem is the 'chanters' are fixated on electricity, when in reality they should be demanding the Government not lease marginal land for farming and a buyback scheme for farmers on marginal land.




There's an easy focus on electricity because it's a technology fix that requires basically no involvement from 99% of the population. All sounds very easy and reassuring.

In contrast, tell people that the plan is to produce less food and shrink the cities and that inevitably forces a realisation that it means fewer people. That's a far more uncomfortable reality in a world where pretty much everything is geared toward constant growth.


----------



## wayneL (16 August 2019)




----------



## rederob (16 August 2019)

The denialists have no capacity to argue the science so instead present a stream of diversions.
Thunberg happens to be very bright and well informed on climate science, which cannot be said for the countless years of dross you have added to ASF threads.


----------



## wayneL (16 August 2019)

Okay Robee


----------



## basilio (18 August 2019)

Always interesting to see how politicians and papers ignore recent research and decide everything is hunkdory becasue  they just saw some pretty coral in their last snorkel.

 Climate change 
* Accepting anecdotes more readily than climate science is wilful ignorance *
Greg Jericho

The Coalition is hand in hand with conservative media when it comes to the climate crisis – and both are out of step with the experts
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...dily-than-climate-science-is-wilful-ignorance


----------



## rederob (19 August 2019)

basilio said:


> Always interesting to see how politicians and papers ignore recent research and decide everything is hunkdory becasue  they just saw some pretty coral ...



The are like the  children who cover their eyes thinking nobody can see them.


----------



## moXJO (22 August 2019)

Amazon has been burning for three weeks straight and it just makes the news now.


----------



## basilio (23 August 2019)

Time to start moving uphill. Amazon burns. Global heating will intensify, Greenland/Antarctica melts.
(Don't worry. Minimal effect on investments and stock markets or political situations. And The  International Trump Team will  tell you it ain't gonna happen...)

*Climate change evacuation planning needs to start now, urges scientists*

From Bangladesh to the Philippines and the low-lying islands of the South Pacific, the impacts of climate change for many people around the world are going to get much worse, very soon.

*Key points*

Preparing now can prevent last-minute disorderly evacuation from climate impacts
Building in areas that will be hit by climate disasters in future needs to stop
Millions are expected to be displaced by the end of the century
Some people will become stateless, and will need to find homes in new countries, while others will need to relocate within their own borders.

Researchers writing in Science today argue that it's time to begin preparing the retreat of people living in regions that will become uninhabitable due to climate change.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-23/climate-retreat-planning-science/11435382


----------



## basilio (23 August 2019)

*Alaska Reels During Summer of Fire, Heat and Floods*
The impacts of a changing climate have been evident around the state all season

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — "Welcome aboard Alaska Airlines Flight 109 to smoky Anchorage," a voice said over the loudspeaker as travelers boarded a plane in Fairbanks.

The skies turned from blue to dark gray halfway through the 260-mile flight, shrouding the stunning vistas below. Then they disappeared altogether. In the final two minutes, as the wheels reached for the runway at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, the smell of smoke filled the pressurized cabin of the Boeing 737 and an eerie orange colored the Alaskan landscape.

Welcome to the Last Frontier, where record-breaking heat is shattering temperature records.

Alaska's average temperature in July was 58.1 degrees Fahrenheit — 5.4 degrees above the average and nearly 1 degree higher than the previous high set in July 2004 (_Climatewire_, Aug. 19).

Scientists say that's contributing to the wildfires that are burning around Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula to the south. The blazes, fed by an unusually dry summer and high winds, have closed highways and stranded tourists in their cars.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alaska-reels-during-summer-of-fire-heat-and-floods/


----------



## qldfrog (23 August 2019)

moXJO said:


> Amazon has been burning for three weeks straight and it just makes the news now.



but it is not global warming so who cares.....


----------



## qldfrog (23 August 2019)

obviously was cynical, this is a crime against humanity IMHO


----------



## sptrawler (23 August 2019)

Huge rock heading for Australia result of underwater volcanic explosion, possible damage to great barrier reef.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...-makes-its-way-to-great-barrier-reef/11444020
Only joking, but it did add zing.


----------



## wayneL (24 August 2019)

Hurrumph


----------



## qldfrog (24 August 2019)

interesting, let's find data.it would be nice to remember also that every year, this is the same story with Indonesia burning down Borneo to produce palm oil for your vegan burgers or chocolate , and choking Singapore..but Indonesia does not have a white male right leader so not PC to criticise


----------



## Knobby22 (24 August 2019)

qldfrog said:


> interesting, let's find data.it would be nice to remember also that every year, this is the same story with Indonesia burning down Borneo to produce palm oil for your vegan burgers or chocolate , and choking Singapore..but Indonesia does not have a white male right leader so not PC to criticise



There is plenty of criticism of Indonesia for this.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Hurrumph



It's been terrible for years. If you look on Google earth you can see the huge chunks being taken out year by year. The new leader though has opened the gates more.
Stop this culture war excuses.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 August 2019)

Why is this on the global warming thread?


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> There is plenty of criticism of Indonesia for this.




Indo has been burning this year for awhile winds must be missing Singapore that's where most the noise comes from about the fires...........ironically its  Singapore money that's causing much of the deforestation.


----------



## basilio (25 August 2019)

Scientists are now making clear  what is happening all around the world as a result human created global warming.
Scary stuff..
*No Climate Event in 2,000 Years Compares to What’s Happening Now*
While parts of the world have warmed or cooled in the past, modern climate change is happening just about everywhere at the same time.

....Absolutely nothing resembling modern-day global warming has happened on Earth for at least the past 2,000 years, a new study published today in _Nature _confirms. Since the birth of Jesus Christ, the climate has sometimes naturally changed—some parts of the world have briefly cooled, and some have briefly warmed—but it has never changed as it’s changing now. Never once until the Industrial Revolution did temperatures surge in the same direction everywhere at the same time. They’re doing so now, the study finds.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/why-little-ice-age-doesnt-matter/594517/


----------



## explod (25 August 2019)

Hit the veggie path Bas and if everyone planted one tree per week for 3 years and we turn off all the ignition switches we may save our world.

Otherwise, another scotch and watch the party.


----------



## rederob (26 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Hurrumph



Might help if you actually checked the data instead of continuing to post your usual rubbish.


----------



## explod (26 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Might help if you actually checked the data instead of continuing to post your usual rubbish.



I'm thinking he shoes horses for his local coal mine.

Many love these old holes.

Will be used for water storage soon IMHO

Whoops, if there is any more rain.


----------



## rederob (26 August 2019)

explod said:


> I'm thinking he shoes horses for his local coal mine.
> Many love these old holes.
> Will be used for water storage soon IMHO
> Whoops, if there is any more rain.



Lots of info was available to the shoddy poster, but he chose the wrong horse and shot himself in the foot.  
WRT to an earlier question about why it's relevant, I thought the answer was obvious.  However, the very simple response is that if fewer trees are available to the planet's lungs each year to "absorb" CO2 , then stopping the warming trend gets more and more difficult.


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2019)

Data rules boyz.

Adjustments are for pussies.  ;-)


----------



## rederob (26 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Data rules boyz.
> Adjustments are for pussies.  ;-)



Again shows how little you understand.
You got the donkey vote on forest fires because you did not check your data sources.
*With respect to climate, ALL TEMPERATURE DATA IS "ADJUSTED."*
There is no such thing as a "global temperature" unless you use a methodology which takes a whole lot of data and "process" it to reach that figure.  
The least reliable of all temperature data are from satellites as the processes of adjustment are mind boggling.  Furthermore, all these data are re-adjusted as better understandings of the technology and calibration processes occur.


----------



## explod (26 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Data rules boyz.
> 
> Adjustments are for pussies.  ;-)



What Data so that one can decipher what you are getting at.

If you have lived close to the open environment one does not need to refer to data.  Recently visited the old farm where I grew up in western Victoria and one does not need data.

Are you actually shoeing those horses down in the pit.  Probably a good place to live soon too.


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2019)

Here ya go Lads 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...world-is-wrong/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Again shows how little you understand.
> You got the donkey vote on forest fires because you did not check your data sources.
> *With respect to climate, ALL TEMPERATURE DATA IS "ADJUSTED."*
> There is no such thing as a "global temperature" unless you use a methodology which takes a whole lot of data and "process" it to reach that figure.
> The least reliable of all temperature data are from satellites as the processes of adjustment are mind boggling.  Furthermore, all these data are re-adjusted as better understandings of the technology and calibration processes occur.



Thanks, yes, like the BEST re-re-re-re-adjustment. Interesting interpretation of the process though.


----------



## explod (26 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Here ya go Lads
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...world-is-wrong/amp/?__twitter_impression=true



Forbes Wayne, you have to be joking.  You need to get out in the real world and talk to farmers and those being effected.

"
A factual search reveals that Forbes has produced a misleading claim according to an IFCN fact checker. Although Forbes is usually evidence based when it comes to science, they do not always support the consensus when it comes to climate change. For example, they have employed James Taylor as a columnist who writes anti-climate science propaganda and has connections to the questionable Heartland Institute and Exxon-Mobil. They have also published articles by Roy Spencer, who has a long track record of climate change denial. Spencer has also been a speaker for the Heartland Institute and has connections to the fossil fuel industry. Lastly, Forbes has published several articles that are rated Very Low for Science Credibility by IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback. They have also failed a fact check by IFCN fact checker Check Your Fact.

Overall, we rate Forbes Right-Center biased based on story selection that tends to favor the right and the political affiliation of its ownership. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading or false stories related to climate science. (7/14/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 8/15/2019)

Source: http://www.forbes.com/






































Terms and Conditions
Fair Use Policy


"


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2019)

Of course you'dtry to smear it Plod. 

That's what you lot do.

How about debating the points therein?


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2019)

Another one for you to smear Plod:

https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/24/rain-forest-fires-are-not-climate/


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2019)

Whoda thunk it? Electric vehicles destroy the planet!

https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/na...2d5a81324971fa96547?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2019)




----------



## rederob (27 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> How about debating the points therein?





wayneL said:


> Another one for you to smear Plod:
> https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/24/rain-forest-fires-are-not-climate/



Do you want to be living proof of how ignorant people can be?  Despite there being abundant science available, you choose to link to a continuous stream of garbage.
You then challenge others to debate you...on what exactly?
All these years later and the science gets more and more robust.  And still there are those like you who cannot understand climate science and read from and repeatedly link to non-science, for a purpose best known to yourself.
Why not prove to us that you actually know something about this topic for a change if, of course, you have worked out what it's supposed to be about.


----------



## bellenuit (27 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Whoda thunk it? Electric vehicles destroy the planet!
> 
> https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/na...2d5a81324971fa96547?__twitter_impression=true




As a regular The Australian reader, I thought the article was pathetic, particularly they way the promoted it on twitter. One Twitter heading was something like “electric cards emit more CO2 than petrol in the Eastern States”. They actually used the word *emit*. 

The issue is not the car, but the energy source. They could equally have ran a headline saying The Melbourne Age is the cause of more CO2 emissions than The West Australian. It probably is true for the very same reason, but misleading and unprofessional.


----------



## moXJO (27 August 2019)

Is this actually true?


----------



## wayneL (28 August 2019)

rederob said:


> Do you want to be living proof of how ignorant people can be?  Despite there being abundant science available, you choose to link to a continuous stream of garbage.
> You then challenge others to debate you...on what exactly?
> All these years later and the science gets more and more robust.  And still there are those like you who cannot understand climate science and read from and repeatedly link to non-science, for a purpose best known to yourself.
> Why not prove to us that you actually know something about this topic for a change if, of course, you have worked out what it's supposed to be about.



Lomborg, Curry, Pielke, Happer etc are not non-science Robee. There is plenty of science which brings differing viewpoints on climate change to the table. Robust science is about discovery, not excluding all that does not fit your political agenda... or Apocalypse fantasy or whatever the hell it is that makes you guys want to believe the Earth is ending in 12 years.

Fact is, I haven't really got time or the patience for debate with extremists, but I don't mind posting some relevant links from time to time when I feel like it. I read enough to satisfy myself what the problem is, and isn't. And I do find y'alls responses interesting too, especially the constant smear and ad hominem.


----------



## rederob (28 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Lomborg, Curry, Pielke, Happer etc are not non-science Robee.



Where is the science these folk bring to the table?  They offer no explanation for the present warming.


wayneL said:


> . Robust science is about discovery, not excluding all that does not fit your political agenda....



Again, where is the "*robust science*" of those you quote?


wayneL said:


> Fact is, I haven't really got time or the patience for debate with extremists, but I don't mind posting some relevant links from time to time when I feel like it.



All you need to do is to link to the science which explains what is happening, and you have never done this.


wayneL said:


> And I do find y'alls responses interesting too, especially the constant smear and ad hominem.



You continue to use words inappropriately as you seem unable to distinguish a personal affront from a critique on your comments.


----------



## wayneL (28 August 2019)

LMAO I can't believe you just posted that. 

Get off Desmog Blog and out of the echo chamber Robee.


----------



## rederob (28 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> LMAO I can't believe you just posted that.
> Get off Desmog Blog and out of the echo chamber Robee.



At some point you might actually use climate science to back whatever it is you believe, but I always give credit for consistency, and wrt to vapid posts you deserve a great deal.


----------



## PZ99 (29 August 2019)

It's getting hotter colder... for a spell... make the most of it before it's gone 

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...n/news-story/6a771e757e6cf834d1749dcc69c8d421







God of thunder


----------



## rederob (29 August 2019)

PZ99 said:


> It's getting hotter colder... for a spell... make the most of it before it's gone



This dang weather is just unstoppable .
Maybe we should consult with Lomborg, Curry, Pielke, or Happer to see what they forecast?


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2019)

rederob said:


> This dang weather is just unstoppable .
> Maybe we should consult with Lomborg, Curry, Pielke, or Happer to see what they forecast?



Not real scientists are they Robee


----------



## IFocus (29 August 2019)

I know its not relevant but broke recorded records here yesterday 30 degrees C how did you cope SP? 

I was surfing a couple of days before and nearly died of hypothermia, then there was the beach closure due to the 3m great white..........sorry carry on gents


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2019)

IFocus said:


> I know its not relevant but broke recorded records here yesterday 30 degrees C how did you cope SP?
> 
> I was surfing a couple of days before and nearly died of hypothermia, then there was the beach closure due to the 3m great white..........sorry carry on gents



Well I'm sitting in the dark in central Mandurah(power failure), writing this by the light of a torch, while it is pi$$ing down outside, bring back yesterdays heatwave.lol
Actually it is nice sitting here in the dark, just the sound of the Tivoli DAB radio, the torch, the laptop and a stubby.
Life's good.


----------



## basilio (29 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Not real scientists are they Robee




Maybe, maybe not.
It's just they talk total and utter rubbish about CC.

Well  maybe not utter rubbish. . Just convoluted, cherry picking, quasi denial shite intended to persuade willing bunnies to believe that nothing serious is actually happening  with our climate and that we can all rest easy. Putr up our feet. Have a beer. It's all cool folks.

I should be "amazed" that Wayne proudly protests the "scientific" credentials of  this handful of  quasi/total denialists but refuses to accept the work of the other thousands of scientists who recognise just how dangerous a situation we are facing.  But I'm not of course. Goes with the territory.

Not to mention the total studied  ignorance of the simple facts of extreme heat,  consequent  unprecedented fires, droughts, extreme climatic conditions around the world. It  is happening every day.  

But in Wayne's world it doesn't happen does it? It's like hearing Donald Trumps insane, repetitive denials of reality. And of course it never will because Wayne  has made it clear  that he will never, ever acknowledge that  perhaps we are facing a crisis which is changing everything - and certainly not in a good way.


----------



## rederob (30 August 2019)

basilio said:


> It's just they talk total and utter rubbish about CC.



He tried the classic appeal to authority.  However, given I have seldom seen his posts credible wrt to many such concepts, he may not have been aware it was what he did.
The science contributions of those in denial of what is occurring make for fascinating reading.  They spend a greater amount of their time nowadays looking for a line in a calculation, or a point from original research, which they can cast doubt on (because they no longer do research themselves).  They use the proven tactics of the tobacco lobbyists and now big pharma to cast doubt on any research which is contrary to self interest.
What *they do not* do is actually *prove their case*.  And this is where the gullible are sucked in to narratives which they prefer, rather than reality.
Those who post in forums around the globe who are in denial of climate science are so easy to spot.  

Their language is typically derogatory - eg. using terminology such as "alarmists" - and they latch onto outlandish claims derived from misunderstandings of science.
They prefer to link to media headlines (or worse) from sites which have no record of referencing climate science contributions, rather than draw from peer reviewed scientific publications, journals or conferences.
They cherrypick data because that's what someone else did and it seemed to make the point they wanted, without realising that trends and context would make their points trivial.
They seem incapable of linking to any science papers to confirm their comments have a legitimate basis and prefer to rely on discredited claims in the hope they are not called to account.
And they obfuscate and derail threads when the going gets tough.


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2019)

Ahh appeal to authority.

Nice parry.

Here's more appeal to authority. It would be nice if you guys would actually watch it,  then appeal to your authority in response .


----------



## Knobby22 (30 August 2019)

Happens all the time.
If you are a scientist, keep your head down. Don't go to conferences.

https://newrepublic.com/article/142547/epa-fired-bunch-scientists-its-just-political-theaterfor-now


----------



## rederob (30 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> Ahh appeal to authority.
> Nice parry.
> Here's more appeal to authority. It would be nice if you guys would actually watch it,  then appeal to your authority in response .



More of nothing - you are full of it!~
Asked to present something showing you are credible on this topic, and that was it?


----------



## IFocus (30 August 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well I'm sitting in the dark in central Mandurah(power failure), writing this by the light of a torch, while it is pi$$ing down outside, bring back yesterdays heatwave.lol
> Actually it is nice sitting here in the dark, just the sound of the Tivoli DAB radio, the torch, the laptop and a stubby.
> Life's good.




Someone likely stole the copper wire are the tyres still on your car I always do my wheel nuts up extra tight  I noticed they have razor wire along the train-station fence now.

Garden enjoyed the rain but looking like another grim year


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2019)

rederob said:


> More of nothing - you are full of it!~
> Asked to present something showing you are credible on this topic, and that was it?



You can't post without childish ad hom Robbee. 

Ridd is on the money,  but you can't accept what doesn't fit the narrative. 

I've got lots more,  but probably wasted on someone who is an acolyte a 16 yo with difficulties who believes she can actually see co2 molecules and magnifies her own footprints with stupid symbolism.


----------



## explod (30 August 2019)

GW began in the 1830s.  Interestingly lines up with the industrial revolution full bore and the burning of coal.  Who'd have guessed.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=global+warming+'started+in+1830s'+peter+hannam&form=EDGTCT&qs=PF&cvid=55304711e3bb43698bf4f19acc0dd026&refig=91493dc549fb4efced63a618dce120a8&cc=AU&setlang=en-GB&plvar=0


----------



## rederob (30 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> You can't post without childish ad hom Robbee.
> 
> Ridd is on the money,  but you can't accept what doesn't fit the narrative.
> 
> I've got lots more,  but probably wasted on someone who is an acolyte a 16 yo with difficulties who believes she can actually see co2 molecules and magnifies her own footprints with stupid symbolism.



Please learn that what you think is an ad hom is most definitely *not*, as you have got your terminology consistently wrong.
Moreover, you quote total irrelevances on a regular basis because you have shown no capacity here to understand climate science.
Whatever it is you have more of, based on possibly thousands of your posts to date, it is *not *climate science.


----------



## bi-polar (30 August 2019)

IFocus said:


> I noticed they have razor wire along the train-station fence now.



Parliament has razor and machine gun posts with concrete bastions to deter ram raids on pot-plants and stacking the Opposition benches with Adani enemies.


----------



## explod (30 August 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Parliament has razor and machine gun posts with concrete bastions to deter ram raids on pot-plants and stacking the Opposition benches with Adani enemies.



I actually think Adani is stuffed, they cannot get loan support and the costs of renewables, wind solar etc is now cheaper than coal.  For steel making yes but don't think theirs is up to that category.  

And China just recently decided against going ahead with more than 100 coal plants they had in the pipline.

The deniers are far far behind but in trying to stop the global warming damage we all are.


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2019)




----------



## bi-polar (4 September 2019)

There are 3.5bn tons of coal to warm China's water supply from Tibet and also methane comes from yaks, less than cattle.  The British and Chinese royalty use horse and coach  . Yak coaches are likely for Charles.


----------



## wayneL (8 September 2019)




----------



## rederob (8 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> ...posted a tweet...



Most people learn when to call it a day because they know they have nothing of substance to add.
Is that something you might learn?
Or do we have to endure another 10 years of your rubbish?


----------



## wayneL (8 September 2019)

Hahaha,  Pielke Snr,  Curry,  rubbish? You really are a biased turd aren't you.


----------



## wayneL (8 September 2019)

More interesting science. 



No watch the turds smear,  smear  smear, but never contest the science.


----------



## rederob (8 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> No watch the turds smear,  smear  smear, but never contest the science.



Perhaps you could quote the actual science that supports your views.
You have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for a very long time and cannot work out it is empty.


----------



## explod (8 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Perhaps you could quote the actual science that supports your views.
> You have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for a very long time and cannot work out it is empty.



Never does, only far right wing media twists.

My evidence is what we see and know, Hayman Islands flattened, if this had occurred over the last 50 thousand years there would have been no settlements there, or Pakistan and places becoming newly exposed all over the planet.


----------



## rederob (8 September 2019)

explod said:


> Never does, only far right wing media twists.



He links to a guy who has been trying to get his ideas published for 8 years, and cannot work out why - so funny.
The reason is very simple.
He does not have a clue about what he is trying to publish, and everyone but him and wayneL knows it.
Sadly this guy is well known for his ineptitude and there is even a YouTube upload explaining why he’s got it so wrong.
In simple terms, he thinks there is an error which propagates whereas it actually terminates, and it’s theoretical rather than actual.


----------



## basilio (9 September 2019)

rederob said:


> He does not have a clue about what he is trying to publish, and everyone but him and wayneL knows it.




Are you sure about that Redrob?  If Pat Frank was so clearly and obviously wrong why does a Watts Up proudly promote his "ideas" ? Surely they would understand the basic error and not be an unwitting party to promoting misinformation...

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/another-round-of-pat-franks-propagation.html


----------



## rederob (9 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Are you sure about that Redrob?  If Pat Frank was so clearly and obviously wrong why does a Watts Up proudly promote his "ideas" ? Surely they would understand the basic error and not be an unwitting party to promoting misinformation...



Bas, what's really sad is that WUWT is one of the most visited sites globally about climate.
It rates low on actual *science*, but those like wayneL seem to prefer a quick take away which requires no thinking.


wayneL said:


> ...watch the turds smear, smear smear, but never contest the science.



Again, what science would that be?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2019)

There hasn't been a lot of coverage of this in the mainstream media (maybe not surprisingly), but Dr
Michael Mann who came up with the "hockey stick " graph of global warming has lost a defamation case he bought against one of the people who criticised his findings.

Dr Manns graph has been widely publicised, and used in books and films, notably Al Gore's " An Inconvenient Truth".

So , does this invalidate the "science" behind global warming, or was it simply an extreme extrapolation of data ?

No doubt the sceptics will be on to this like a seagull on a hot chip.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...ed-to-pay-opponents-legal-costs-in-libel-suit


----------



## rederob (9 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> There hasn't been a lot of coverage of this in the mainstream media (maybe not surprisingly), but Dr Michael Mann who came up with the "hockey stick " graph of global warming has lost a defamation case he bought against one of the people who criticised his findings.
> Dr Manns graph has been widely publicised, and used in books and films, notably Al Gore's " An Inconvenient Truth".
> So , does this invalidate the "science" behind global warming, or was it simply an extreme extrapolation of data ?



Mann's work has been consistently validated and the legal case does not affect it.
Climate science denial sites have not reproduced the court's detailed ruling because it is consistent with Mann's claims, however that has not stopped them spreading their usual misinformation.


----------



## rederob (9 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Dr Manns graph has been widely publicised, and used in books and films, notably Al Gore's " An Inconvenient Truth".
> So , does this invalidate the "science" behind global warming, or was it simply an extreme extrapolation of data ?



Just adding an apology to Michael Mann after my earlier reply.


----------



## basilio (9 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Just adding an apology to Michael Mann after my earlier reply.




That is quite a succict and important summing up of the whole trashy business of accusing Michael mann of making up data.
Well worth a read for people who value the truth.


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2019)

Beautiful stuff, denial cuts both ways it seems.


----------



## rederob (9 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Beautiful stuff, denial cuts both ways it seems.



You, to date, are the epitome of those who are poorly informed yet want to add something to cyberspace, albeit *NOTHING*.
If you actually have something to support your assertions, please offer it.


----------



## basilio (9 September 2019)

Back to reality.  What is happening to Greenland and how it will affect all of us - whether we believe it or not.
*Climate change: Greenland's ice faces melting 'death sentence'*
*
Greenland's massive ice sheet may have melted by a record amount this year, scientists have warned. *

During this year alone, it lost enough ice to raise the average global sea level by more than a millimetre.

Researchers say they're "astounded" by the acceleration in melting and fear for the future of cities on coasts around the world.

One glacier in southern Greenland has thinned by as much as 100 metres since I last filmed on it back in 2004.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2019)

Climate change linked to changes in earth's orbit.

_"In an analysis of the past 1.2 million years, a geologist examining ocean sediment cores has discovered a pattern that connects the regular changes of Earth's orbital cycle to changes in the Earth's climate."
_
Maybe some contribution to GW, but does it explain it entirely ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406133707.htm


----------



## rederob (16 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Climate change linked to changes in earth's orbit.
> _"In an analysis of the past 1.2 million years, a geologist examining ocean sediment cores has discovered a pattern that connects the regular changes of Earth's orbital cycle to changes in the Earth's climate."_
> Maybe some contribution to GW, but does it explain it entirely ?
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406133707.htm



Not sure what you are getting at, but better a better paper is here.
*Global warming* in the modern context excludes the notion of natural variability.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Not sure what you are getting at




Simply playing the devil's advocate and waiting for you to knock it down. 

Thanks.


----------



## rederob (16 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Simply playing the devil's advocate and waiting for you to knock it down.
> Thanks.



I have no idea what you mean, so there is really nothing to knock down.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2019)

rederob said:


> I have no idea what you mean, so there is really nothing to knock down.




AGW sceptics are on to the "natural cycle" of climate change. I just wanted to see a counter argument.


----------



## qldfrog (17 September 2019)

In the interest of mankind, it is critical we stop the "blame the co2" and look at the real reasons
A very basic fact
Eons ago, co2 levels were hundreds if not 1000 of time higher than now, earth was an ecological paradise which created life with vegetation so abundant it created our coal and oil deposit
Earth did not become a baked oven did it?
But climate is indeed changing, and maybe faster than ever..maybe
So let's stop focusing on fake problems, sort if we can real issues: overpopulation first to reduce human influence, biodiversity, pollution,etc etc 
And let science be allowed to actually do its work at finding the cause of the current changes.
And it could very well be that this is just natural cycles, sunspot influence,etc or a system where human heat releases,darkening of the surface,removal of forests,even a bit of Co2 greenhouse effect all play together
But right now, this is impossible, no real science is possible
And the population is still increasing, Borneo forest still burning and elephants slaughtered while the west spend billions if not trillions and destroy its economy reducing its CO2 output share, while the global figures are still increasing with no change,and
no will from the biggest emitters to change...


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> In the interest of mankind, it is critical we stop the "blame the co2" and look at the real reasons
> A very basic fact
> Eons ago, co2 levels were hundreds if not 1000 of time higher than now, earth was an ecological paradise which created life with vegetation so abundant it created our coal and oil deposit
> Earth did not become a baked oven did it?
> ...



You clearly do not understand much about climate science because if you did you would not make such claims - just ill-informed guesses actually.
But you are very good at making up your own *FAKE NEWS*.  The "overpopulation" argument that now gets bandied around so often by climate change deniers, has been bandied around for decades - I know it was an issue when the global population was still at 3 billion!  Biodiversity and pollution concerns, for example, are *not *population dependent. The real issue is what governments do to mitigate the problems which arise from *ANY *increase in population, aside from addressing the problem of poor resource governance itself.


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> AGW sceptics are on to the "natural cycle" of climate change. I just wanted to see a counter argument.



Again, I have no idea what you mean.
Natural cycles affecting climate are well understood.
You need to work on your "language" as *climate change* in the present context does not mean the same as how over geological time-frames climate has natural variability.  Sadly it is the case that climate science denial followers have never worked this out, but the denial protagonists have and it's even written into their strategy papers.
From the purist's perspective, what cannot be shown by those who deny climate science is how a planet which receives less energy over many decades can continue to get meaningfully warmer, rather than cool.  They cannot show that current warming would be a consequence of any natural cycle, and they fail miserably when the known properties of greenhouse gases are accounted for in our atmosphere.
Your _*AGW sceptics*_ are a clueless bunch!


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2019)

Tim Flannery is a failure. He says...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-17/climate-change-deniers-are-a-threat-to-our-children/11518138


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2019)

I was about to reply to a post by sptrawler when it suddenly disappeared !


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Tim Flannery is a failure. He says...
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-17/climate-change-deniers-are-a-threat-to-our-children/11518138



I think most educated people know who the failures are.
Are you the new wayneL here?


----------



## sptrawler (17 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I was about to reply to a post by sptrawler when it suddenly disappeared !



Yes I was going to get involved, but thought better of it. Some things are pointless, this thread being one of them.IMO


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Yes I was going to get involved, but thought better of it. Some things are pointless, this thread being one of them.IMO




Probably right. The gist of the article you quoted seemed to me to be a government dictating to the people rather than the other way around. Banning cars and forcing people to use public transport (when there isn't any) is just a stupid way to lose elections imo. Governments have to provide alternatives before "encouraging" people to switch from their current arrangements.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2019)

rederob said:


> I think most educated people know who the failures are.
> Are you the new wayneL here?




I simply quoted an article from the man himself saying he is a failure without making any comment myself.

You descend too easily into ad hominem attacks, it shows a lack of character.


----------



## sptrawler (17 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Probably right. The gist of the article you quoted seemed to me to be a government dictating to the people rather than the other way around. Banning cars and forcing people to use public transport (when there isn't any) is just a stupid way to lose elections imo. Governments have to provide alternatives before "encouraging" people to switch from their current arrangements.



Exactly Rumpy, all we hear is the endless ramblings of people saying they want change, how many of them are carbon neutral? 
How many of them have a roof covered in solar panels and a 15Kw battery in the carport, charging their electric car, very few of them I bet. 
But we have to listen to them constantly lecturing all and sundry, on how it should be, maybe they should become clerics or something. They are obviously missing something in their lives.IMO


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I simply quoted an article from the man himself saying he is a failure without making any comment myself.
> You descend too easily into ad hominem attacks, it shows a lack of character.



You must be wayneL - I comment on your poor posting and lack of understanding of this topic.  Which is more evident from each of your posts.
Please go and learn what an ad hominem is because you are not using the phrase correctly.
Finally, you conflated a failure of *climate activism* to a "*personal failure*," which is pretty unforgivable in my book.


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Yes I was going to get involved, but thought better of it. Some things are pointless, this thread being one of them.IMO



It depends on what you add.
If you are going to post off topic, as Rumpy has been doing, then it's pointless.
But the meaningful question remains and is exceptionally newsworthy.  Global warming *IS unstoppable*  if nobody acts.
And as Australia is *NOT *acting as it needs to, we will continue to lead the planet into a very unhealthy climate future.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2019)

rederob said:


> You must be wayneL - I comment on your poor posting and lack of understanding of this topic.  Which is more evident from each of your posts.
> Please go and learn what an ad hominem is because you are not using the phrase correctly.
> Finally, you conflated a failure of *climate activism* to a "*personal failure*," which is pretty unforgivable in my book.




Please go and stick your insufferable arrogance where the sun doesn't shine. (definite ad hominem attack there).

Flannery said "This simple fact forces me to look back on* my* 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure."

That indicates the he personally thought he was a failure in the climate activism area, ie it was a personal failure.

But as I originally said, I made no  comment on the article when I posted it, Flannery's words are there in black and white.


_*Ad hominem*_ (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for _*argumentum ad hominem*_, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[

You tried to deflect argument from the substance (Flannery's article) to an attack on me (saying I'm wayneL) , so I think most would conclude that you made an ad hominem attack, so why don't you go and look up the meaning if you think I've got it wrong ?


----------



## sptrawler (17 September 2019)

rederob said:


> It depends on what you add.
> If you are going to post off topic, as Rumpy has been doing, then it's pointless.
> But the meaningful question remains and is exceptionally newsworthy.  Global warming *IS unstoppable*  if nobody acts.
> And as Australia is *NOT *acting as it needs to, we will continue to lead the planet into a very unhealthy climate future.



Maybe you could tell us what you have done personally, to mitigate your carbon footprint, apart from using the forum as platform for your tedious ramblings on the subject?


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Flannery said "This simple fact forces me to look back on* my* 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure."
> That indicates the he personally thought he was a failure in the climate activism area, ie it was a personal failure.



That's what I said, except you made the same error of "conflation".  His "activism" likely failed because there are a lot of ill informed people who post about climate matters and are relatively clueless. 
As to your other points, they are quite wrong.
I won't bother pointing them out as others can read and comprehend for themselves.


sptrawler said:


> Maybe you could tell us what you have done personally, to mitigate your carbon footprint, apart from using the forum as platform for your tedious ramblings on the subject?



Why not quote these "tedious ramblings" and be substantive rather than obtuse?


----------



## sptrawler (17 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Why not quote these "tedious ramblings" and be substantive rather than obtuse?



I think hearing them once, would be enough for everyone and as for being obtuse do you think you have the monopoly on that trait?
You may be very good at it, but anyone can do it.


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I think hearing them once, would be enough for everyone and as for being obtuse do you think you have the monopoly on that trait?
> You may be very good at it, but anyone can do it.



That's called a "fail."
The phrase goes, "put up or shut up."


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

Try going back to p.109 and this was my response to Rumpy:


rederob said:


> Not sure what you are getting at, but better a better paper is here.
> *Global warming* in the modern context excludes the notion of natural variability.



How a 9-year old linked paper was relevant to this thread was not obvious.
It's still not obvious.
Rumpy cannot claim any "argument" here as there is nothing to argue, unless you regard irrelevances as an argument.
But then Rumpy adds that Flannery, *personally *is a failure.  However the issue is that climate activism has failed him.  In a fashion it is failing Greta and her followers as well.  Not because she does not know what she is talking about but, instead, because those people in a position to affect change are instead sitting on their hands while paying lip service.
If you are going to claim there is an *argument *here, how about defining what it is?


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you could tell us what you have done personally, to mitigate your carbon footprint, apart from using the forum as platform for your tedious ramblings on the subject?



I generally avoid "mine's bigger than yours" sort of arguments but for the record at a personal level:

Never owned any car that was a gas guzzler and wouldn't want one. 4 cylinders isn't a problem though I'd rather go electric and in due course will do so.

Solar panels and battery have been up for almost 6 months on this house. Had 4 separate solar systems on the previous house. 

Just paid the deposit on the heat pump water heater about half an hour ago.

Always been a general avoider of waste and over consumption.

Plus I've done my best to pull the rug from under those who work to undermine renewable energy or pretend that constant compounding growth on a finite planet won't in due course consume all accessible resources. 

I wouldn't for a minute pretend that's enough but for the record that's what I've done.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Try going back to p.109 and this was my response to Rumpy:
> How a 9-year old linked paper was relevant to this thread was not obvious.
> It's still not obvious.
> Rumpy cannot claim any "argument" here as there is nothing to argue, unless you regard irrelevances as an argument.
> ...




It's no good going on Roberta.

Sometimes people post articles to generate some debate not because they personally agree with what is said in the article. 

But others just like attacking people for posting things that they disagree with instead of addressing the subject matter.

Frankly I think that Joe Blow has got it right about this thread, it's just a bile bucket really and this will be the last I post here.


----------



## rederob (17 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> But others just like attacking people for posting things that they disagree with instead of addressing the subject matter.



You have missed the point on every post.
There was nothing to disagree with from the outset.
I added a more recent scientific paper which addressed your link in more detail.  Although it was climate science, it was completely off topic.
I have consistently addressed the science here and despite your protestations, made no derogatory comments about you.  What you have mirrored, however, is wayneL's tendency to add something to this thread which is not particularly relevant, and then accuse any responder of an ad hominem attack.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Frankly I think that Joe Blow has got it right about this thread, it's just a bile bucket really and this will be the last I post here.




My personal view is that if there’s anything to be gained then in the context of this forum it’s looking at the investment implications of which there are potentially many.

The ideology and politics has been done to death and we won’t resolve it here.


----------



## sptrawler (17 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I generally avoid "mine's bigger than yours" sort of arguments but for the record at a personal level:
> 
> Never owned any car that was a gas guzzler and wouldn't want one. 4 cylinders isn't a problem though I'd rather go electric and in due course will do so.
> 
> ...




I have 6.6KW on the house I share with the daughter, replaced a 1.5KW sytem, when she and the grandkids moved in. Also have a 5Kw system on a unit down the coast a bit.
As with you smurf, I think my next car will be electric, just because i like the idea.
When I get that, I will put batteries on both houses, by then I assume they will have a standard organised, for vehicle and domestic battery applications.
I'm looking forward to watching it all unfold, it is really starting to get some momentum and direction.IMO
I always wanted a V8, but alas never bought one, head always over rules the heart in my case.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2019)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/investment-implications-of-climate-change.34918/


----------



## orr (17 September 2019)

If you have the 'choice' of working this Friday, or not working and you do; as Tim Flannery is apt to point out your an _Idiot_ in the old Greek meaning of the word '_interested only in your own business_'  
 This is  for the children; Ladies and Gentleman. Your choice.
 There are True Idiots that need to get the message...

Look at it as an investment opportunity.
Regards to all...


----------



## basilio (18 September 2019)

In the conversation on global heating  I like the direct simplicity of Greta Thunberg. 
Cuts to the heart of the issue like no one else  has.

*Greta Thunberg to US Congress*

“Please save your praise. We don’t want it,” she said. “Don’t invite us here to just tell us how inspiring we are without actually doing anything about it because it doesn’t lead to anything.

“If you want advice for what you should do, invite scientists, ask scientists for their expertise. We don’t want to be heard. We want the science to be heard.”

In remarks meant for all Congress as a whole, she said: “*I know you are trying but just not hard enough. Sorry.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...o-congress-youre-not-trying-hard-enough-sorry*


----------



## basilio (18 September 2019)

Nice point Orr about the historical meaning of "idiots"  Check out a more complete description

*What does the word “Idiot” really mean? Where does it come from?*
September 15, 2015 by History Disclosure Team in Knowledge · 4 Comments






The word “Idiot” has come to mean someone who is foolish, stupid and ignorant. The word has Greek roots and its real meaning will surprise you. The origins of the word  actually makes sense and is closely correlated to the modern definition of ”idiot”.

In ancient Athens contributing to politics and society in general was considered the norm and highly desirable. Being apolitical and selfish was frowned upon and all citizens aspired to be politically active. It was rare for citizens to demonstrate apathy towards what was happening in their state and common issues. The overwhelming majority of Athenians participated in politics to a greater or lesser extent.

Those who did not contribute to politics and the community were known as “Idiotes” (ΙΔΙΩΤΕΣ), originating from the word “Idios” (ΙΔΙΟΣ) which means the self. If you did not demonstrate social responsibility and political awareness you were considered apathetic, uneducated and ignorant. The word was transferred to latin as “idiota” and was used to describe an uneducated, ignorant, inexperienced, common person.

Considering the above, it is easy to identify how the primary form and meaning of the word mutated to modern“idiot”. Most importantly it is worth noting that ancient Greeks valued political participation and collective governance. A completely different state of mind from what we see in most societies today where most demonstrate apathy to what happens around them.

Are most of us turning into full-time idiots? Maybe it’s time to change.
https://www.historydisclosure.com/what-does-idiot-mean/


----------



## wayneL (18 September 2019)

Go easy on Robbie, Horace. Ad hominem seems to be his only argumentative tool even if it is fallacious.

Meanwhile, in the real world the data and the politics of this topic continues to diverge. I think conversation is more productive with those other than the acolytes of a 16 year old disabled girl.


----------



## sptrawler (18 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Go easy on Robbie, Horace. Ad hominem seems to be his only argumentative tool even if it is fallacious.
> 
> Meanwhile, in the real world the data and the politics of this topic continues to diverge. I think conversation is more productive with those other than the acolytes of a 16 year old disabled girl.



I think Rumpy's idea of jumping the thread to something more beneficial, was a good idea, this thread has become a pointless politically driven ramble and we already have enough of them IMO.


----------



## rederob (18 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Go easy on Robbie, Horace. Ad hominem seems to be his only argumentative tool even if it is fallacious.
> Meanwhile, in the real world the data and the politics of this topic continues to diverge. I think conversation is more productive with those other than the acolytes of a 16 year old disabled girl.



You are true to form - making points without being able to substantiate them.
I keep asking and you keep avoiding them.
Of course you will also claim an ad hom, and never yet getting that right either.
Who said you can't be consistent all the time!


----------



## wayneL (18 September 2019)

"true to form"

Such a delicious irony, Robbie


----------



## basilio (18 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Go easy on Robbie, Horace. Ad hominem seems to be his only argumentative tool even if it is fallacious.
> 
> Meanwhile, in the real world the data and the politics of this topic continues to diverge. I think conversation is more productive with those other than the acolytes of a 16 year old disabled girl.




"Diverge" you say ? Really ? You have some alternative reality Wayne that demonstrates we aren't cooking at an accelerating pace and that the overwhelming cause is human produced greenhouse gases? Of course you do.  You can always find some shrivelled little fig leaf of a twisted story to dress up a denial or "its not that bad " or whatever.

Perhaps you think  CC conversation should be with the thousands of climate scientists who have been banging on for years about what is/will be happening as a consequence of our decisions not to decarbonise our economy ?  Nah what a joke that would be . And just to be clear our sharp little 16 year old Greta *never, eve*r says more than "Listen to the scientists"  She just manages to sharpen the point.

It is a complete waste of pixels arguing with you and your ilk Wayne.  I've noticed that The Conversation website has decided the full catastrophe of climate deniers, twisters and other associated brethren don't have place on the table.

They are wreckers.

*Climate change deniers are dangerous - they don’t deserve a place on our site *

At The Conversation Australia we’ve recently vowed to improve our climate change coverage, and part of that means moderating comments with a similar degree of rigour.
Once upon a time, we might have viewed climate sceptics as merely frustrating. We relied on other commenters and authors to rebut sceptics and deniers, which often lead to endless back and forth.
But it’s 2019, and now we know better. Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse.
That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts. 
We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous.
It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. *The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action.*
As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don’t engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.
https://theconversation.com/climate...-they-dont-deserve-a-place-on-our-site-123164


----------



## moXJO (18 September 2019)

basilio said:


> "Diverge" you say ? Really ? You have some alternative reality Wayne that demonstrates we aren't cooking at an accelerating pace and that the overwhelming cause is human produced greenhouse gases? Of course you do.  You can always find some shrivelled little fig leaf of a twisted story to dress up a denial or "its not that bad " or whatever.
> 
> Perhaps you think  CC conversation should be with the thousands of climate scientists who have been banging on for years about what is/will be happening as a consequence of our decisions not to decarbonise our economy ?  Nah what a joke that would be . And just to be clear our sharp little 16 year old Greta *never, eve*r says more than "Listen to the scientists"  She just manages to sharpen the point.
> 
> ...



Thats actually sickening. Where is the line drawn on who moderates what.


----------



## cynic (19 September 2019)

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/conversation

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/monologue

 Will "The Conversation", now be demonstrating, via rebranding to "The Monologue", its professed commitment to "Academic rigour, journalistic flair"?


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Thats actually sickening. Where is the line drawn on who moderates what.



If we show there is *no *evidence that paedophilia is good for society, should we still give it a voice in forums?
We can apply the concept of "evidence" to many things wrt to functional societies.
If you thought the first example was a bit extreme, find a forum which gives air to the benefits of smoking for our overall health.  Or maybe the use of asbestos, or many of the pesticides which have since been proven to be detrimental to health.
What is *sickening *is that without a scintilla of evidence that global warming is *not *occurring, we still see a proportion of our population that is in denial.
Their defense is largely along the lines that they dispute the evidence.  That would be valid if there was good reason.  And they argue there *IS*.  The nature of their arguments are time and again shown to be poorly founded or not consistent with known science.  Nevertheless, they persist ...along the lines that we see from wayneL here.
*The Conversation* draws from leading experts in their field, yet many authors are then confronted by the comments of known trolls who dispute what they present.  It is not the intention of *The Conversation *to stymie legitimate debate, and this was made clear, as they instead are targetting *"... those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, ... perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet."*
Some here may not realise the extent of *organisation *of climate science "denial," or how well funded it is.  Some key players were also involved in denying that smoking was harmful, and use the principles of that playbook to cast aspersions on AGW.



cynic said:


> Will "The Conversation", now be demonstrating, via rebranding to "The Monologue", its professed commitment to "Academic rigour, journalistic flair"?



If you have evidence that *The Conversation *is* not *committed to academic rigour, please present it.


----------



## moXJO (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> If we show there is *no *evidence that paedophilia is good for society, should we still give it a voice in forums?
> We can apply the concept of "evidence" to many things wrt to functional societies.
> If you thought the first example was a bit extreme, find a forum which gives air to the benefits of smoking for our overall health.  Or maybe the use of asbestos, or many of the pesticides which have since been proven to be detrimental to health.
> What is *sickening *is that without a scintilla of evidence that global warming is *not *occurring, we still see a proportion of our population that is in denial.
> ...



Thats not what was happening in the comments. Any question against the data was being deemed as  "trolls". Its become the equivalent of flat earthers.


----------



## wayneL (19 September 2019)

basilio said:


> "Diverge" you say ? Really ? You have some alternative reality Wayne that demonstrates we aren't cooking at an accelerating pace and that the overwhelming cause is human produced greenhouse gases? Of course you do.  You can always find some shrivelled little fig leaf of a twisted story to dress up a denial or "its not that bad " or whatever.
> 
> Perhaps you think  CC conversation should be with the thousands of climate scientists who have been banging on for years about what is/will be happening as a consequence of our decisions not to decarbonise our economy ?  Nah what a joke that would be . And just to be clear our sharp little 16 year old Greta *never, eve*r says more than "Listen to the scientists"  She just manages to sharpen the point.
> 
> ...



The Conversation bans conversation. Yeah great stuff bazzzz.

No I don't live in an alternate reality and as I have stated a million times already, I believe humans have had an impact on climate in the current warming trend since the little ice age, especially regionally.

But for instance, the data does not bear out the alarmist narrative that extreme weather events have increased and that is one example only. Of course one must  stray from The Guardian, Desmog and SS, to get a broader picture, bazzzz.

(Cue Robbeee ad hominem)


----------



## wayneL (19 September 2019)

And please Robbeee, can you provide any evidence that I deny a warming trend or human influence. Unless you can do so, your obsession with me is not a good look. 

Over the years I have provided several scientific links to justify my position, it not my concern if you choose to ignore, or smear, but it does show your raging confirmation bias.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

This constant rhetoric, is just becoming an absolute farce, it wont be long before we have children using it as an excuse to miss school on a regular basis. The education standards are falling, our children can't do their times table and many are illiterate, but we encourage them to miss school. So now not only do the kids miss school for holidays, public holidays, student free days, now we have demonstration days, this Country is going down the toilet fast. IMO

https://www.schoolstrike4climate.com/


----------



## cynic (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> ...
> If you have evidence that *The Conversation *is* not *committed to academic rigour, please present it.



Can you see what I see?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> If we show there is *no *evidence that paedophilia is good for society, should we still give it a voice in forums?
> We can apply the concept of "evidence" to many things wrt to functional societies.
> If you thought the first example was a bit extreme, find a forum which gives air to the benefits of smoking for our overall health.  Or maybe the use of asbestos, or many of the pesticides which have since been proven to be detrimental to health.



Paedophilia is different in that it’s an actual crime as per the law.

It’s also incidentally a word that seems to be not recognised by either my iPhone or Google so I’ll have to assume I’ve spelled it correctly. Interesting that it’s not recognised.

For the others though, I’d argue that vaping is a much closer analogy to climate change than smoking or asbestos.

With a very large sample size of exposed people, it can be clearly shown that health outcomes for those exposed to asbestos or tobacco smoke are different to those not exposed.

In contrast we don’t have a thousand Earths to alter the atmosphere of and see exactly what happens so it’s not a directly comparable situation.

What we do have is knowledge gained by other means and this says that changing the composition of the atmosphere isn’t a great idea.

Likewise we have knowledge gained from other means which says that heating a liquid other than water to produce vapour which is inhaled is also not a good idea since that liquid will partially condense in the lungs.

As with climate change, commonsense and knowledge from other sources says that vaping is probably a bad thing to be doing. We don’t have thousands of dead planets or bodies as proof but there’s an abundance of evidence to warrant concern.

That hasn’t stopped the range of mainstream media from doing their best to normalise vaping however. News Corp has given it plenty of time, so has Fairfax and the ABC refers to it matter of fact as though it’s something everyone does. Just as tobacco seemed to be finally on the way out, being addicted to nicotine seems to be back in fashion. Humans are silly yes.

That said, if someone did want to argue that smoking or asbestos has some benefits then I doubt they’d be stopped.

How many would have ever heard that there’s a movement against vaccination if the mainstream media hadn’t reported it?

For that matter, how many would have heard of climate change if the mainstream media hadn’t reported what seemed to most people a somewhat dubious concept at the time?

There’s bias in the media certainly but with the exception of things clearly illegal they seem willing to give coverage to most ideas.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> There’s bias in the media certainly but with the exception of things clearly illegal they seem willing to give coverage to most ideas.




I haven't heard any climate change sceptism on the ABC of late and very little anti gay marriage debate there either leading up to the plebiscite.

As far as climate change goes, as it's a matter of science I see no reason why sceptics without qualifications in the field should be given much time, but if a qualified scientist comes up with data that goes against the mainstream thinking then they should be given time, that's what science is about after all.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

basilio said:


> They are wreckers.
> 
> *Climate change deniers are dangerous - they don’t deserve a place on our site *
> 
> ...



It sounds as though climate change ideology, is becoming a cult, well there have always been groups of people who like to congregate together and pedal their beliefs with fervor and fanaticism.
The only thing that has changed, is the medium, in which they associate.
Normal people accept that climate change is happening, and with that steps are being taken to mitigate it and also reduce our emissions, others have to riot in the streets it takes all kinds I guess.
What makes me smile, is when I see a pile of crap car blowing blue smoke out the exhaust and a save the whales sticker on the bumper.
How many of these 'chanters' are off the grid, drive an electric car and don't use fossil fuel? Not many is my guess.
I suppose they pay someone, to offset their carbon footprint, while they vent their anger on their keyboard while sitting on their pedestal, in an air conditioned nook.


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> But for instance, the data does not bear out the alarmist narrative that extreme weather events have increased and that is one example only. Of course one must  stray from The Guardian, Desmog and SS, to get a broader picture, bazzzz.



Climate science does not propose that there will be more weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones, but that when they occur they will contain more energy.  In lay terms, it means that on average a greater number of these events will be at the higher category.
All you need to do is accurately convey the science, and you do *not* do this.  Instead you demonise sites which actually quote from climate science, while drawing posts from sites which are dedicated to denialism.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I haven't heard any climate change sceptism on the ABC of late and very little anti gay marriage debate there either leading up to the plebiscite.
> 
> As far as climate change goes, as it's a matter of science I see no reason why sceptics without qualifications in the field should be given much time, but if a qualified scientist comes up with data that goes against the mainstream thinking then they should be given time, that's what science is about after all.



If a qualified scientist came up with data, that goes against mainstream thinking, they would be discredited by all and sundry. As has been shown in the Israel Folau case, you can say nothing, that conflicts with the "Agenda". IMO
The power of positive affirmation, even shows in your and my postings, when we call the 'chanters' mainstream for fear of retribution.
They used to be called 'bullies', now that term has been turned, to mean anyone who doesn't agree with 'them'.
It is quite funny, some are so used to getting away with saying what they like, that they get caught out saying something that can be perceived as slander.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Climate science does not propose that there will be more weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones, but that when they occur they will contain more energy.  In lay terms, it means that on average a greater number of these events will be at the higher category.



The trouble is that the overload of claims has left the general public absolutely confused on these sort of details.

I’m referring to those who try to blame every drought or flood on climate change or who contradict themselves by saying we’ll never have high rainfall events again. Stuff like that just undermines credibility of the whole issue since most people know we’ve had floods and droughts previously and will have them again.

The trouble with accurate reporting is that it’s not overly exciting and there’s no sensational headline to go with it.


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> If a qualified scientist came up with data, that goes against mainstream thinking, they would be discredited by all and sundry. As has been shown in the Israel Folau case, you can say nothing, that conflicts with the "Agenda". IMO



They would instead become wealthy and famous.
The first step, however, is to have the merits of their claims subject to peer review so they could be published. 
In the post above I linked to a person who has made such a claim, reproduced in WUWT, but it fails every test of basic maths, logic and science.  Despite that, there are people who propagate his ideas year after year.  This is the real "cult" you need to address.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> They would instead become wealthy and famous.
> The first step, however, is to have the merits of their claims subject to peer review so they could be published.
> In the post above I linked to a person who has made such a claim, reproduced in WUWT, but it fails every test of basic maths, logic and science.  Despite that, there are people who propagate his ideas year after year.  This is the real "cult" you need to address.



Not really because they aren't the ones taking kids out of school, causing the general public grief and going on endlessly, on any form of media that they can get on.
Climate activists are coming over as people with personality issues, associated with attention deficiency.IMO


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The trouble is that the overload of claims has left the general public absolutely confused on these sort of details.
> I’m referring to those who try to blame every drought or flood on climate change or who contradict themselves by saying we’ll never have high rainfall events again. Stuff like that just undermines credibility of the whole issue since most people know we’ve had floods and droughts previously and will have them again.
> The trouble with accurate reporting is that it’s not overly exciting and there’s no sensational headline to go with it.



The trouble is that what the scientists say is *not *what is being reported.
Instead, we are fed a diet of junk science and misinformation by sections of the media with vested interests that will not and cannot present the evidence that makes their commentary credible.
School kids are not tuned in to twaddle from the likes of Bolt and Jones and, instead, are learning about climate change from a more balanced perspective, and deciding that they don't want to inherit a planet being screwed over by ignoramuses.


----------



## IFocus (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Climate science does not propose that there will be more weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones, but that when they occur they will contain more energy.  In lay terms, it means that on average a greater number of these events will be at the higher category.




May have said this before, note insurance companies are raising their premiums significantly  for area's affected by cyclones some of the majors are not insuring in the areas due to your statement above.

Always a bun fight about climate change but need to comment on the younger generation using my kids as an example, they have access to more information than we ever did and are fully aware of bad and good information more so than our selves.


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Not really because they aren't the ones taking kids out of school, causing the general public grief and going on endlessly, on any form of media that they can get on.
> Climate activists are coming over as people with personality issues, associated with attention deficiency.IMO



I never raised those issues in my reply to you.
How about trying to address the point you raised about the science instead of bait and switch?


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> I never raised those issues in my reply to you.
> How about trying to address the point you raised about the science instead of bait and switch?



There is no point in debating with you Rob, as you have shown on every subject, unless someone agrees with you, you it turn into a personal attack and I'm not on interested in that.


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> There is no point in debating with you Rob, as you have shown on every subject, unless someone agrees with you, you it turn into a personal attack and I'm not on interested in that.



A debate would be if two people addressed the same issue.
I cannot debate what you cannot or will not defend.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> The trouble is that what the scientists say is *not *what is being reported.
> Instead, we are fed a diet of junk science and misinformation



Agreed.

Part of the problem is who gets the attention which tend to be pretty much everyone other than actual scientists.

With few exceptions politicians and business leaders are not experts in any scientific field even though they might hold a portfolio or run a business relating to it. 

The public and media tend to forget that. 

The Minister for Health, Environment or Finance in most governments has no medical, ecological or financial qualifications.

Etc. Those who get the spotlight generally aren’t actual experts in the field.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> A debate would be if two people addressed the same issue.
> I cannot debate what you cannot or will not defend.



Like I said, this isn't the only subject where you have shown your propensity to argue, whether you are right or wrong.
Your demeanor makes any discussion very unpleasant, so it is just easier to avoid them, as I have been doing.


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Paedophilia is different in that it’s an actual crime as per the law.
> It’s also incidentally a word that seems to be not recognised by either my iPhone or Google so I’ll have to assume I’ve spelled it correctly. Interesting that it’s not recognised.



The internet allows discussion/input on many things which are unlawful or contradictory.
Just as this website has a "*stock*" focus, *The Conversation* has an academic orientation slanted towards contributions specifically for lay readership.  Joe can moderate this site as he sees fit.  So can _*The Conversation.*_
Sites which do not have and uphold standards for contributions, including "comments," lose their credibility.
That said, some sites  - like WUWT - cater for the incredible and prosper.  Earlier this year I was banned from posting from such a site because, apparently,  I *disparaged *posters when I suggested that if they had a better education they would know that melting sea ice cannot lead to increased sea levels (they were almost exactly the words I used).
It did not take long for *The Conversation *to become aware that denialism is rampant and well funded, and that the same chestnuts were being regurgitated ad infinitum in comments regarding their climate change contributions.  Indeed, it's now coined as predatory denialism for good reason.
What *The Conversation* has stirred up internationally occasionally offers insights into the minds of those who, like here, indulge in "general chat"  but have specific interests vastly different.


----------



## moXJO (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> The internet allows discussion/input on many things which are unlawful or contradictory.
> Just as this website has a "*stock*" focus, *The Conversation* has an academic orientation slanted towards contributions specifically for lay readership.  Joe can moderate this site as he sees fit.  So can _*The Conversation.*_
> Sites which do not have and uphold standards for contributions, including "comments," lose their credibility.
> That said, some sites  - like WUWT - cater for the incredible and prosper.  Earlier this year I was banned from posting from such a site because, apparently,  I *disparaged *posters when I suggested that if they had a better education they would know that melting sea ice cannot lead to increased sea levels (they were almost exactly the words I used).
> ...



When did climate science become absolutism? 
There is questionable data coming from all sides at one time or another. I'm surprised you think every aspect of climate  science is hard fact.


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> When did climate science become absolutism?
> There is questionable data coming from all sides at one time or another. I'm surprised you think every aspect of climate  science is hard fact.



Rather than make new claims, why not present the questionable data that exists in climate science so we know what you are talking about.
And please do not assume things about what *I* think as you have been wrong on many occasions, including this one.


----------



## basilio (19 September 2019)

From a climate scientists perspective the reality of global warming and the consequences on our world are now overwhelming facts. There is just no sensible argument to say we are not warming up at a very rapid rate and that if this warming is not, in some way, moderated we will make large areas of the earth uninhabitable by people. Every-single-detail may not be cast in stone. The overwhelming trend is.

That is "science speak" . Measured, factual and relatively emotionless. But when people absorb what this means they understand this is a death sentence for hundreds of millions of people and an incredibly challenging life for those fortunate enough to stay alive.  These are the reasons why we have Extinction Rebellion and the current Climate Strike by students.   Unless there is an overwhelming , universal concerted effort to  reduce and suck CO2 out of the atmosphere they have a very bleak future. 

It seems to me that on ASF only a few people actually understand what the scientific evidence is telling us. Many members seem to think that global warming is "real" but nowhere near as bad as the "alarmists" would have us believe. 

I suppose 15-20 years one might have argued that we couldn't be sure the world was warming (it was) . Catastrophic climate related  events were happening but... well maybe that was just natural variation at work? Certainly that is a more attractive proposition.

The last 5 years however destroyed any of these mirages. Global temperatures have shot up at a accelerating rate. The Arctic and Antarctic are warming at 200-300% more than the mid latitudes. As a consequences of the  new heat records,  we have now seen fires in regions and at times that have never happened in our recorded history. And given the continual increase in temperatures these events can only get worse. Jut consider the unprecedented early onset fires in Queensland and fact that now rainforests have been burning because it has become so dry and so hot Should this ring alarm bells ?

Nothing I have said about the critical nature of what is happening to our climate is new. The research, the reports, the warnings have just been getting stronger and louder - and still largely ignored or soft pedelled.   The big change in the last couple of years has been a grass roots realisation kicked off by Greta Thunberg to call a spade a spade - our house is burning, this is an emergency,  we have to ACT now.  She has just put the millions of pages of scientific research,  temperature records, ice melt records,  loss of habitat into a stark message.  

I don't know how many people here read any summaries of what climate scientists are telling us. Maybe it's worth a look ?

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad
https://eos.org/features/how-will-climate-change-affect-the-united-states-in-decades-to-come
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...mate-change-end-century-science-a8095591.html
https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2019)

If there's one thing I'd change to improve all of this it would be improve the general public's understanding of the practical application of maths and science.

They're compulsory subjects at school and yet somehow we've got a society where rather a lot can't manage to apply simple maths to everyday situations and the same goes for science. 

If people would think for themselves, well that doesn't make them an expert on any given subject but it does give them the tools to spot things which don't add up. 

At the moment there's far too many who ask the bank how much money they can borrow rather than working it out themselves, deferring to "experts" with at best a vested interest, at worst who aren't really experts. Same concept with anything involving maths or science - bank loans are just an example.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2019)

basilio said:


> From a climate scientists perspective the reality of global warming and the consequences on our world are now overwhelming facts. There is just no sensible argument to say we are not warming up at a very rapid rate and that if this warming is not, in some way, moderated we will make large areas of the earth uninhabitable by people. Every-single-detail may not be cast in stone. The overwhelming trend is.




I suspect there's more complexity in the whole thing than is truly understood by anyone, actual experts included since nobody's across literally every aspect of it, but agreed that the observed trend in temperature etc seems clear, it is widespread geographically, it's alarming and at least part of the cause is known with reasonable certainty. To the extent there's doubt, it's about the detail of what's happening, what the consequences will be and what other causes may exist.

A new temperature record in Adelaide could be dismissed as just a random occurrence as could hot weather in France or wherever. It's rather hard to do that though when it keeps happening year after year and it's turning up everywhere from unpopulated parts of Tasmania through to central London. 

That said, I stand by my conclusion that the issue is way out of our hands and that bashing heads against walls won't really fix anything.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 September 2019)

My son is going to the walk tomorrow.
He's 15 and not a lefty in any sense.

He is into weather though  and knows where we are going so fair enough.
After all he is on the earth for another 70 years probably.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> My son is going to the walk tomorrow.
> He's 15 and not a lefty in any sense.
> 
> He is into weather though  and knows where we are going so fair enough.
> After all he is on the earth for another 70 years probably.



Couldn't they have organised it on a pupil free day, so they didn't miss school, it's not as though we are leading the World with our educational outcomes.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Couldn't they have organised it on a pupil free day, so they didn't miss school, it not as though we are leading the World with our educational outcomes.




School holidays coming up, plenty of time then.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> That said, I stand by my conclusion that the issue is way out of our hands and that bashing heads against walls won't really fix anything.



Who knows what the next issue will be, I guess when climate change runs out of mileage, the press will decide what is next for those who need a cause.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> School holidays coming up, plenty of time then.



Yes I thought of that, but they probably wouldn't want to interrupt their holiday, recovering from the hard slog. 
Same as they could have held it on a weekend, heaven forbid, that wouldn't be fun.


----------



## moXJO (19 September 2019)

rederob said:


> .
> And please do not assume things about what *I* think as you have been wrong on many occasions, including this one.



Science has already shown I'm always right.


----------



## InsvestoBoy (19 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Couldn't they have organised it on a pupil free day, so they didn't miss school, it's not as though we are leading the World with our educational outcomes.






SirRumpole said:


> School holidays coming up, plenty of time then.






The whole point is to strike...

I'm just imagining you guys sitting in the 1800s when Australians are working 14 hour days 6 days a week and you are saying "couldn't they strike on Sunday, so they didn't miss work, it's not as though we are leading the world with our productivity outcomes", "Queens Birthday coming up, plenty of time then".

Try and keep up.


----------



## rederob (19 September 2019)

Roy Spencer thinks natural variation explains warming.
He's been producing this temperature series for a very long time:





Back in 2008 Roy thought a "cooling" phase was probable.
Roy is certainly not stupid, although has contributed to and with various denialist groups over the years.
So with his series now having 40 years of data he might have thought there was a trend emerging.  Here's a talk he gave a year ago. 
It was straight from the denialist copy book, carefully avoiding presenting his own work in case others might have seen something a bit obvious.
This chart from RSS (below) uses the same original data:





Without overlaying them it's hard to pick where they are different.  In a fashion, that's my point.
We do not have to.
Again, the trend is obvious, and here we can see that RSS notes a decadal rate of change of 0.2Kelvin - which is broadly consistent with IPCC modelling rates going forward.
On topic, there is nothing presently happening on the global front that can give us any confidence that this trend will be reversed.
It's the next bit we should all be concerned about.
Except for cloud albedo (which would give rise to slight cooling in future), Arctic albedo and other feedback mechanisms suggest an acceleration of the warming trend.
That's not a pleasant thought.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

InsvestoBoy said:


> The whole point is to strike...
> 
> I'm just imagining you guys sitting in the 1800s when Australians are working 14 hour days 6 days a week and you are saying "couldn't they strike on Sunday, so they didn't miss work, it's not as though we are leading the world with our productivity outcomes", "Queens Birthday coming up, plenty of time then".
> 
> Try and keep up.



To strike is to remove your labour to cause financial or output based problems for your employer.
To be a student is to spend as much time as possible, learning as much as possible, so you may be able to be employed.
I'm missing the connection, but I'm from the 1800's. 
In my day it was called wagging school, the cops took you back to school and you got the cane. lol


----------



## bi-polar (19 September 2019)

Poland was the first nation to outlaw corporal punishment in schools in 1783. Corporal punishment was banned in Soviet  (and hence, Russian) schools in 1917 and continues in parts of the United States and in NT, WA and Qld. In 2005 a US court  found that a substantial number of death-penalty states had recently acted to exempt juveniles from capital punishment.  Many US kids still can't find Australia on a map or pronounce "Trunbull".


----------



## InsvestoBoy (19 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> To strike is to remove your labour to cause financial or output based problems for your employer.




These kids will be striking from school for the same reason people strike from work: to affect change.


> In my day it was called wagging school, the cops took you back to school and you got the cane. lol




In your day they used to treat homosexuality as a crime and ruin peoples lives for being gay. I guess some things just change!


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2019)

InsvestoBoy said:


> These kids will be striking from school for the same reason people strike from work: to affect change.
> 
> 
> In your day they used to treat homosexuality as a crime and ruin peoples lives for being gay. I guess some things just change!




So maybe all the teachers should refund their pay for that day as they are not doing what we pay them to do ?


----------



## bi-polar (19 September 2019)

Certainly the hourly rate rule applies for teachers on strike and in the Deep North the Head Teacher is justified in a light , reasonable whipping for the teacher.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2019)

On the political side of all this, I'll simply sum up my frustration with two examples from today:

1. On another forum's discussion of the attacks in Saudi Arabia, there are people seriously arguing that electric vehicles are bad idea because charging them might involve using coal.

Well sure, yes, in some places charging an EV will involve using coal but last time I checked there weren't too many wars being fought over the stuff and supply wasn't in danger of being cut off. 

The apparent inability to consider that there is any issue of importance other than CO2 frustrates me greatly and I suspect that's at the heart of some other comments in this thread. Being concerned about this issue doesn't preclude also being concerned about, or doing, other things also. 

Sure, yes, CO2 seems to be a problem but fighting wars or not having fuel to run vehicles would also be a rather serious problem. A singular focus on anything, to the exclusion of all else, is never helpful. Just because someone's gone to a concert tonight or claimed a tax deduction for self education expenses doesn't mean they aren't concerned about climate change, house prices or workers in certain countries who are still messing about with asbestos. It's possible to do more than one thing yes.

2. I see in the Age there's yet another nice photo of condensed steam coming out of a cooling tower in relation to climate change.

Yeah, OK, it's a nice cooling tower (the ones in the photo are owned by AGL for the record) but so what? Might as well have published a photo of a kitten playing with a ball of wool or some kids playing cricket in the local park. Or better still, publish a photo that actually has something to do with the subject of the article instead of misleading the average reader into thinking that cooling towers are the problem.


----------



## bi-polar (19 September 2019)

Heat comes from oxidising carbon.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2019)

InsvestoBoy said:


> These kids will be striking from school for the same reason people strike from work: to affect change.
> 
> 
> In your day they used to treat homosexuality as a crime and ruin peoples lives for being gay. I guess some things just change!



Well the change will happen whether they strike or not, but I dont think their educational outcomes will improve. Just my opinion.


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

Students block streets at ATO.
Thousands of school students marched through Sydney today protesting the Labor tax policy on franked dividends . Typically the rate is between 4% and 8% on average and students receive a franking credit for tax already paid by the corporation. A student organiser , Bill Bourse 15, explained that portfolios are already shrunk after GFC and made worse by Trade Wars.


----------



## rederob (20 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> On the political side of all this, I'll simply sum up my frustration ....



With this.


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

In 1961, the company introduced the polar bear as its unusual choice of mascot, to imply that the rum could ward off the coldest chill. In 2000, the Bundaberg Rum company and distillery were sold to British company Diageo.


----------



## basilio (20 September 2019)

Bit  of background to why millions of people (led by students)  will take action today to demand their governments do what it takes to arrest global heating.

* Why are people striking? The climate crisis explained in 10 charts *
From the rise and rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to possible solutions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/the-climate-crisis-explained-in-10-charts


----------



## basilio (20 September 2019)

There isn't just one solution to global heating.

* Greta Thunberg: ‘We are ignoring natural climate solutions’ *
Film by Swedish activist and Guardian journalist George Monbiot says nature must be used to repair broken climate


----------



## moXJO (20 September 2019)

I saw some guy work out seaweed farms as the best way to have a meaningful effect on carbon. Apparently it locks away a lot more carbon and was at a scale that was realistic.
If been in large scale indoor farms in the US where carbon dioxide levels were over 1200ppm. Better yields, faster growing plants that can also grow at higher temps. 
Carbon dioxide in itself won't be dangerous at higher levels. But we are burning excess through coal, oil,  gas. These are millions of years of extra carbon dioxide being pumped out at one time. That then has an effect as it filters through.
Personally I think its too late. China, India,  Indonesia,  Africa, Middle East, Pakistan will all pollute as they all pull themselves out of poverty.
I'm also not seeing the tech advancing a great deal either.


----------



## IFocus (20 September 2019)

The CO2 thing is just basic physics but anyway fossil fuels rule, as for the kids good on them haven't seen real activism for a long time the more old people and conservatives howl at the moon in despair the higher the hope for human kind with out such there is no progress to higher conscious.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> The CO2 thing is just basic physics but anyway fossil fuels rule, as for the kids good on them haven't seen real activism for a long time the more old people and conservatives howl at the moon in despair the higher the hope for human kind with out such there is no progress to higher conscious.



Could you explain these basic physics please.


----------



## basilio (20 September 2019)

An insight into who is joining Extinction Rebellion and  why it is spreading like wildfire.
* When our planet is under attack we have to stand up and fight back *
Luke Buckmaster
What is crazier: dancing on a bridge to build political will for action on climate change, or continuing as if nothing is wrong?

Until a few months ago I never imagined blocking a bridge and watching grandparents being carried off by police.

Yet last weekend I was one of hundreds of Extinction Rebellion (XR for short) protesters who danced, sang and chanted on Princes bridge in Melbourne for several hours to draw attention to the climate crisis. The people who chose to be arrested (the police gave protesters plenty of warning and time to move on) included an assistant school principal, a clinical psychologist, a permaculturalist and a 73-year-old grandmother.

These are not the sort of activities I envisioned doing at this point in my life. In the words of that Powderfinger song, these days turned out nothing like I had planned. Then again, few people predicted the world would end up the way it has – other than climate scientists, of course, whose warnings have been ignored for decades.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...der-attack-we-have-to-stand-up-and-fight-back


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> explain please.




Aussie Edition Sun Oven We are taking orders for the 3rd Edition of the Aussie Sun Oven







Cook in the sun every day with this premium cooking device. Get perfect roasts, soup, steamed veggies, sun dried tomatoes, moist cakes, amazing bread, juicy slow cooked curries - the list is endless!
The Sun Oven is VERY easy to use to get fantastic results!
This solar cooker is suitable for daily use as a family cooking appliance, so has all the features vital to getting great results while cooking in the sun. Yes this is the same as the All American Oven.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

So there is a giant foil box engulfing earth?

Physics please, not phantasy (sic)


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> So  engulfing earth?
> please (sic)



Indeed , hole in one.  The All American , All Chinese vibrating CO2 reflecting planet cooker.


----------



## orr (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Could you explain these basic physics please.




Unfortunately not to you son.
As the better part of a decade of attempted reasoning on several threads here is proof.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Could you explain these basic physics please.




Top video, aimed at high school students. Only 3 minutes long.
I like the bit when he gets two girlfriends.



You can watch the ones before and after also which  deal with the carbon cycle etc.


----------



## orr (20 September 2019)

And Bas thanks for the deeper background on the origins of the word Idiot. And Who comes to mind???
It hasn't gone un-noticed that the right Honorable Member for Hughes has escaped the Asylum, again, and remains unmedicated. Catch him tonight 'On SKY' as he has explained to him, again, the importance of removing the trousers for the waist before using to toilet...


----------



## basilio (20 September 2019)

Around 300,000 people marching around Australia today in the student lead Climate Strikes.  Worth checking out the places and stories. 
Happening around the world

*Global climate strike: Greta Thunberg and school students lead climate change protest – live updates*
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...greta-thunberg-rally-live-news-latest-updates


----------



## basilio (20 September 2019)

The  established science of Greenhouse Gases

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect


----------



## Klogg (20 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Bit  of background to why millions of people (led by students)  will take action today to demand their governments do what it takes to arrest global heating.
> 
> * Why are people striking? The climate crisis explained in 10 charts *
> From the rise and rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to possible solutions
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/the-climate-crisis-explained-in-10-charts



Interesting that they point to deforestation, yet don't mention the global greening phenomenon that's going on. Shows bias, which then leads you to question their other graphs.


----------



## Klogg (20 September 2019)

basilio said:


> The  established science of Greenhouse Gases
> 
> https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect




No question that increased greenhouse gases mean higher temperatures.

The question is to what degree. The topic is far more nuanced than either side of politics is willing to admit. And the IPCC modelling is far from accurate and riddled with bias.

There's also no certainty on how increased CO2 is treated by the earth. Is there a self reinforcing loop as some suggest (CO2 from ice is released, compounding the problem), or does the increased greenery offset and in fact make it harder for ever increasing amounts of CO2?


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

Regrowth and planting reduces the loss of forest . But the causes of the original loss remain to repeat the cutting. The remnant gets smaller while population doesn't . Supply and demand are converging, buy palm oil.


----------



## rederob (20 September 2019)

Klogg said:


> The question is to what degree. The topic is far more nuanced than either side of politics is willing to admit. And the IPCC modelling is far from accurate and riddled with bias.



Please offer your evidence for those claims.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 September 2019)

Klogg said:


> There's also no certainty on how increased CO2 is treated by the earth. Is there a self reinforcing loop as some suggest (CO2 from ice is released, compounding the problem), or does the increased greenery offset and in fact make it harder for ever increasing amounts of CO2?




It would if only we weren't chopping down the forests of Borneo and the Amazon.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

orr said:


> Unfortunately not to you son.
> As the better part of a decade of attempted reasoning on several threads here is proof.



Zzzz...zzzz...zzzz 
Ad hom


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

Well my point here is that the physics is not simple. It is extraordinarily complex and chaotic.


----------



## qldfrog (20 September 2019)

Quick question for Bas and cie
When co2 was hundreds of time higher, before it got captured into coal and petrol by a green forest covering earth, why was not earth boiling?
And what make you think today that increasing co2 level a fraction of these ancient level would render the earth inhabitable?
This is basic question based on recognised data you can find anywhere.
During that time we slaughter other species and breed like rabbits
We need to put our priorities rights especially when we as the west can do zip about global emissions levels even if we reverted to total suicide..
Ok our decomposing bodies could still be blamed..
And how many kids will you lead to suicide with your fake gloom? Cause some kids will be intelligent enough to look at the facts about co2 and its unstoppable increasing levels


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

@qldfrog , the anxiety this alarmism is producing is real. As I detailed here, I personally know of one suicide and one deep depression in adolescents. I think it's pathological and criminal tbh.


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> your fake gloom



At about 300m years ago , Co2 was about 10 times higher and temp about 10 deg higher.
Good for coal but not gloomy fakers.


----------



## rederob (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Well my point here is that the physics is not simple. It is extraordinarily complex and chaotic.



The earth receives energy.
The earth loses energy.
We know how much is being received.
We know how much is being released.
It's called an energy balance model.
We know what causes changes.
The variability of climate is a different matter.
You have confused confused concepts.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

rederob said:


> The earth receives energy.
> The earth loses energy.
> We know how much is being received.
> We know how much is being released.
> ...



I'm not a physicist, but I have called client and friend who is... Works with a UK government agency working on the storage of sloar energy conundrum and is associated with several other scientists involved in the relevant fields.

He would be amused at such a simplification and even more amused by the reliance on any current deterministic model .

FWIW


----------



## IFocus (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Could you explain these basic physics please.




The "answer" = your leaning ability - ideological dogma............


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

"Most studies show the oxygen percentage  relatively low in the Triassic 250m years, but increasing at the end of that period and remaining relatively high until about 40 million years ago, when it started to decline until it hit today's 21%.  During the Jurassic and Cretaceous period oxygen levels fluctuated fairly rapidly from between 21% and 30%, as evidenced by wide-spread fires in the rock record.. At 30% O2, even wet plants will burn."_  posted in Quora.

This may explain how dinosaurs got big and how we will become pygmies.


----------



## rederob (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> He would be amused at such a simplification and even more amused by the reliance on any current deterministic model.



You don't get much right - climate models are *stochastic*.


----------



## qldfrog (20 September 2019)

quoted from wikipedia origin:There is evidence for high CO
2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.PCC: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
not an oil lobby is it
current concentration:416ppm so 15 times lower...nothing more to say
and I quote same source:About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO
2 was about 760 ppm, so around twice as high as now...
as Pauline would say please explain, maybe just maybe there is another reason for global warming ...but who cares, the hysterics do not really want a cause of GW, they want a cause.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 September 2019)

A couple of things I've heard today which seem relevant to this topic:

Regarding the protests, I didn't hear the entire broadcast but I did hear a few calls to some radio program whilst in a shop. They were people who'd been to the protests today and the radio hosts asked them all the same question as to what their primary concern is. What I found interesting is that not one of them said climate change, they all said some other environmental issue.

That's a small sample size obviously but I do find it interesting that someone goes to a climate change protest and when asked what they're concerned about, they didn't say climate change.

Now I've marched through the streets on occasion in the past yes and suffice to say that if someone had asked me what my concerns were, the answer most certainly would have related directly to the subject of the protest. 

The other one came up in a face to face discussion. Basically an observation that a feature of current Australian society is a significant portion of the population, perhaps even the majority, has lost confidence in a fairly broad group which could be termed as "past leaders". Politicians and indeed government itself, academics, anything relating to banking and finance, public utilities or their privately owned successors, the church and so on. Basically anything that was reasonably respected throughout the 20th century is by many viewed with suspicion or even outright disdain today.

It's an interesting concept and I think it does have relevance to this and many other subjects including the difficulties faced by certain listed companies in regaining public trust and business.

That issues such as climate change and the intertwined subject of energy are seemingly unfixable via the political process makes far more sense if you first accept that confidence has been lost in government as such. Not specifically a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister personally or even the present Australian Government but a loss of confidence in the entire notion that government, any government, is really of much help in resolving any actual problem.  

It's not just climate of course. House prices are another one, utilities are another, then there's schools and hospitals and all sorts of other things. The masses feel dudded by those in charge who seem incapable of implementing even the basic solutions to improve such things and are thus resistant to further change of anything. A number of "let them eat cake" sort of comments from those in past or present leadership roles adds to this line of thinking.

My thinking is thus that the way to fix climate change might also be the same way to fix rather a lot of other things. Fix leadership itself and that naturally fixes the rest, climate included.


----------



## qldfrog (20 September 2019)

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/li...ng-people-are-feeling-it-20190918-p52soj.html
killing our youth for dogma now!


----------



## Klogg (20 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> It would if only we weren't chopping down the forests of Borneo and the Amazon.



That's partly my point. Even after accounting for rainforests getting chopped down, we have more greenery now than before.


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

er.. is that "more regrowth in cut forests than was calculated"?  The net loss of trees exists.


----------



## Klogg (20 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> er.. is that "more regrowth in cut forests than was calculated"?  The net loss of trees exists.



http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/humans-are-officially-greening-the-earth-is-that-a-good-thing/

From the article:

Looking at remote sensing data from NASA’s satellites, we’ve discovered that over the last two decades, the Earth has increased its green leaf area by a total of 5 percent, which is roughly five and a half million square kilometers—an increase equivalent to the size of the entire Amazon rain forest.


Basically, NASAs own data says there's more greenery now than 20 years ago. AFTER accounting for everything we cut down. So the net loss of trees actually does not exist.

And I'm only going on science. No denial, just facts that I can point to.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

rederob said:


> You don't get much right - climate models are *stochastic*.



Not in the minds of alarmists.

And they are still hopelessly wrong.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> The "answer" = your leaning ability - ideological dogma............



Thanks for stating, in code, that you don't know.


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

Klogg said:


> No denial, just facts that I can point to.



Klogg please read your article.


----------



## Klogg (20 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Klogg please read your article.



I've read it. It states we're enjoying more CO2 than the global greening deals with. I believe that to be true.
It also goes into how much CO2 some types of plants can remove from the atmosphere over others.

I'm not arguing any of this.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)




----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)




----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

Klogg said:


> we're enjoying more CO2 than the global greening deals with. .



I have my CO2 with Milo , 1/2 milk.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> I have my CO2 with Milo , 1/2 milk.



Cow farts, CH4, tsk tsk


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Cow farts, CH4, tsk tsk



No they belch .  buuuuur  pp


----------



## Klogg (20 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> I have my CO2 with Milo , 1/2 milk.



Lol. My bad, I meant emitting


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

Klogg said:


> Lol. My bad, I meant emitting



And I mean I enjoy emitting.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2019)

This


----------



## sptrawler (20 September 2019)

InsvestoBoy said:


> The whole point is to strike...
> 
> I'm just imagining you guys sitting in the 1800s when Australians are working 14 hour days 6 days a week and you are saying "couldn't they strike on Sunday, so they didn't miss work, it's not as though we are leading the world with our productivity outcomes", "Queens Birthday coming up, plenty of time then".



I'm just imagining these kids sitting back in 2050, going why is my life not as I planned it and why can't i still add up.lol
But everyone will say, it was because of you giving up your education, that climate change was stopped. 
How wonderful youth and ideology is, I wish i could bottle it and sell it.

If one was cynical, one would wonder if all that is happening, is the children are being pre programed for future votes.


----------



## bi-polar (20 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> This




Australia's coal exports to China in 2018 were worth about A$15 billion .  The top exports of North Korea are Coal Briquettes US$367M  .  The fascist monopoly dictator of Brazil is the front for Shining Path communists of Peru who follow  Qʼuqʼumatz a feathered snake god and creator,  closely related to god Kukulkan of Yucatán and to Quetzalcoatl of the Aztec . These will seize power in Beijing from the capitalist-road traitors and bring power to the Amazonian peoples.


----------



## basilio (20 September 2019)




----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2019)

I am quite amused. 
Have I joined a crotchety old man's club.
Kids of today. Hmmmph.

Such a lot of guff.


----------



## bi-polar (21 September 2019)

What's missing is the flowers, long hair and marij...........


----------



## wayneL (21 September 2019)




----------



## rederob (21 September 2019)

Because there are some here who cannot understand the science, they indulge in name calling, obfuscation and diversion with every post.
Even when shown there ideas are false, they continue their themes.
It's a trend which led *The Conversation* to ensure that comments on their articles were not being hijacked by those who adhere to the *denialist *playbook.
WayneL's classic appeal to authority at post #2308 was so flawed that it failed to represent the type of climate modelling that takes place.
*The Conversation* knows that denialists feed off each other, and proof of the power of their efforts is found in global surveys on climate matters which differ substantially from scientific findings.  Neither is it helpful if your political leaders bring coal into Parliament, or have policies promoting coal mining with concomitant offsetting mechanisms.


----------



## wayneL (21 September 2019)

Pure hypocrisy and sophistry Robie

But seeing you are so keen to cite logical fallacy, you might do well to examine yourself in that regard.

Have as nice weekend as is possible for a bitter curmudgeon, mate. I'm looking forward to a ripper.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2019)

wayneL said:


>



Pesky kids!

In my day 14 year olds had respect.
I've watched these poorly informed group of thousands of kids go past and found that some are irresponsible and so have taken photos and posted them.

 In my day as a young lad I did the right thing all the time and wore my school tie with pride. I looked at my world  leaders with great respect. 

Now we have leaders that are even better and yet these kids don't appreciate them.
They think that we haven't done a great job with the environment. Our generation has done a great job and I am personally proud of the way the world has improved.

I use less resources than those spoilt kids  anyway.


----------



## rederob (21 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Pure hypocrisy and sophistry Robie
> But seeing you are so keen to cite logical fallacy, you might do well to examine yourself in that regard.



Learn what evidence is, and get yourself a decent dictionary, because what you post is mostly poorly founded, diversionary, off-topic rubbish.


----------



## IFocus (21 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Pesky kids!
> 
> In my day 14 year olds had respect.
> I've watched these poorly informed group of thousands of kids go past and found that some are irresponsible and so have taken photos and posted them.
> ...




In my day we waz better at skool all the boyz spent there time smoking, drinking and trying to bonk the girls that's when they weren't razing the teaches........and look at how good we ended up


----------



## wayneL (21 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Learn what evidence is, and get yourself a decent dictionary, because what you post is mostly poorly founded, diversionary, off-topic rubbish.



Ad hom is a logical fallacy bruh.

Again, I urge you to look in the mirror.

Regards evidence, please note Mann v Ball.


----------



## IFocus (21 September 2019)

As for the CO2 thing, measurement, properties and relationships concerning gases is a known even if some argue other wise it is a known.

The rapid increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is also a known, currently rising at over (I believe) 2% a year (at an accelerating rate?).

Basic physics when applied to gases (denied by some one here ) states something will change. 

At the current rate of CO2 increase the very least you would consider (logic anyone or if you were truely a conservative wanting the good old days) is doing some thing about burning fossil fuels at a ever increasing rate (which is totally achievable).

So why are so many against the above, obvious, in your face, straight forward, not hard and certainly not complex?

Ideological dogma is my take on it.


----------



## wayneL (21 September 2019)

Hey @IFocus 

Still waiting for you to explain these basic physics. I would like to know what it is that claim is being denied


----------



## bi-polar (21 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Well my point here is that the physics is not simple. It is extraordinarily complex and chaotic.



Your driving pattern may be chaotic . Your road-distance to where you are driving is not. You deny the 2nd bit.


----------



## wayneL (21 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Your driving pattern may be chaotic . Your road-distance to where you are driving is not. You deny the 2nd bit.



That is not a valid analogy in any way whatsoever.


----------



## Klogg (21 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> As for the CO2 thing, measurement, properties and relationships concerning gases is a known even if some argue other wise it is a known.
> 
> The rapid increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is also a known, currently rising at over (I believe) 2% a year (at an accelerating rate?).
> 
> ...




Can you please walk me through this:
"Basic physics when applied to gases (denied by some one here ) states something will change."

Which laws of physics?

(I agree with you, but would like to know your understanding of it)


----------



## sptrawler (21 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> In my day we waz better at skool all the boyz spent there time smoking, drinking and trying to bonk the girls that's when they weren't razing the teaches........and look at how good we ended up



I bet you can work out when you are being ripped off af the checkout. Most of the kids today can't.


----------



## bi-polar (21 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> any way whatsoever.



Please explain. Vibration of CO2 by radiation is a fixed function . The resultant heat variations cause chaotic complex weather .  
Distance is fixed. Some random people have chaotic driving.


----------



## bi-polar (21 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Some random people .



Trump noted America had renovated the arsenal and acquired new nuclear capability, and the rest of the military was “all brand new”. “We all hope, and Scott hopes, we all pray that we never have to use nuclear,” Trump intoned. This will warm the globe and give kids another issue to discuss.


----------



## qldfrog (21 September 2019)

So


bi-polar said:


> Please explain. Vibration of CO2 by radiation is a fixed function . The resultant heat variations cause chaotic complex weather .
> Distance is fixed. Some random people have chaotic driving.



 Very simple with co2 level more than 15 times higher in the ancient past with an eden earth, twice the current level when earth had a similar weather as we have, how can the current increase alone explain the changes.that is very simple.of course, greenhouse effect of gas exists, but real scientists make and analyse experiments.we do not have spare pkanets to scale and test with, but we have had this planet data for longuer than 40000 years, we also have had a small mini ice age in recent history, the seine frozen in Paris during Napoleon wars etc
Denial of experimental data to achieve a belief is not science, and if in 50y, we discover that co2 or methane are playing a very small role but something else is the main player,how do you think your kids will judge you.the science is NOT settle on global warming, but it will not be as it is now impossible to even suggest any other cause that the god co2
And we'd better pray that co2 is not involved as the main reason , as anyone understanding the world knows that this will carry on going up even if the west stopped existing


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2019)

Well offer your alternate theory.


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Please explain. Vibration of CO2 by radiation is a fixed function . The resultant heat variations cause chaotic complex weather .
> Distance is fixed. Some random people have chaotic driving.



The radiative forcing is also logarithmic however, as you should know. What we don't know is the effect or lack thereof of all other forcings in a chaotic interplay with each other. 

There is no deterministically calculated average earth temp per ppm of co2, never has been, never can be.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

That's clarified things . Slowly we inch......


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> The radiative forcing is also logarithmic however, as you should know. What we don't know is the effect or lack thereof of all other forcings in a chaotic interplay with each other.
> 
> There is no deterministically calculated average earth temp per ppm of co2, never has been, never can be.



These are the continued obfuscations of climate science deniers.
Sow the seeds of doubt and propose that because some things cannot be precisely known, we cannot work out the consequences.
What we do *not* know is how the climate will change in the lower troposphere such that it will affect forcing: specifically, the albedo of clouds.
So poorly informed is wayneL, after so many years of posting his rubbish, that he writes in one sentence that forcing is logarithmic while in the next he suggests we need to know how to calculate the "average earth temp per ppm of co2."
WayneL's conceptual skills are such that he keeps confusing deterministic science with probabilistic science, as was reinforced with his earlier discounting of @bi-polar 's correct analogy.
What you do not see is wayneL presenting his evidence.  He keeps throwing mud and hopes some will stick.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

The trend for the period 1979- present  is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the  monthly anomaly plotted once per year. 
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

No-one knows how much ice exists or how high the sea-level is. But ice-breaker ship-voyages and sea-front beach repairs can be costed.


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Very simple with co2 level more than 15 times higher in the ancient past with an eden earth, twice the current level when earth had a similar weather as we have, how can the current increase alone explain the changes.that is very simple.of course, greenhouse effect of gas exists, but real scientists make and analyse experiments.we do not have spare pkanets to scale and test with, but we have had this planet data for longuer than 40000 years, we also have had a small mini ice age in recent history, the seine frozen in Paris during Napoleon wars etc
> Denial of experimental data to achieve a belief is not science, and if in 50y, we discover that co2 or methane are playing a very small role but something else is the main player,how do you think your kids will judge you.the science is NOT settle on global warming, but it will not be as it is now impossible to even suggest any other cause that the god co2
> And we'd better pray that co2 is not involved as the main reason , as anyone understanding the world knows that this will carry on going up even if the west stopped existing



Utter pseudoscience, and symptomatic of the rubbish that gets swallowed by denialists as some type of gospel.
The physics which lead to our planet warming or cooling are understood.  Claims to the contrary are from the denialists who have no idea, or do not want to.
If our planet retains more heat than it receives, then it will warm - basic physics!
The greenhouse effect and albedo are married with irradiance to determine whether cooling or warming will prevail.  To keep saying that these principles are not understood is pure fantasy.
The reason CO2 is so often mentioned is because it is that gas which has in the past been correlated with changes in temperature.  And it is that gas which is prevalent today as a driver of radiative forcing.  Except today it's because humans have increased its share, not natural phenomena.
Stop peddling your rubbish and, instead, post stuff which is coherent so it's at least possible to see if any of your ideas might be worth another take.


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2019)

rederob said:


> These are the continued obfuscations of climate science deniers.
> Sow the seeds of doubt and propose that because some things cannot be precisely known, we cannot work out the consequences.
> What we do *not* know is how the climate will change in the lower troposphere such that it will affect forcing: specifically, the albedo of clouds.
> So poorly informed is wayneL, after so many years of posting his rubbish, that he writes in one sentence that forcing is logarithmic while in the next he suggests we need to know how to calculate the "average earth temp per ppm of co2."
> ...



I'm going to refrain from duplicating your puerile penchant for ad hom, but your argumentative logic here is way dodgy mate.

It's also interesting you accusing me of throwing mud.


----------



## qldfrog (22 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Well offer your alternate theory.



I think we should consider properly the effect of heat released by  human activities
That is one part: so all oil coal wood burnt but also nuclear and geothermal
They just add up to warming the atmosphere first, around 2c since industrial age from own computation
Then effect of urbanisation
Huge amount of land going from forest or paddocks to roof or black road, polution dirtying snow ice, and with higher temp and melting, dirtier snow ice ...
All this based on a very simple concept
Earth is an insulated ball in space aka vacuum whose temperature has reached an equilibrium
Sun in, thermal radiation out, a bit of inner core heat and average forest fires,greenhouse effect of h2o..and a bit of co2
So here we are equilibrium
Then you light a fire/burn energy in that closed system
Do not need to have a Nobel to understand it will warm up you room
So co2 is not a cause but an effect, but no one wants to admit the unpleasant truth, as this means nuclear is not an option, capture of co2 useless and we should reduce population and only use energy borrowed from the sustainable system
Aka wind water a bit of solar..not too much as if we cover the planet black, of course we will get warmer
My belief is basically we are too numerous but this is the taboo subject as the number increases are not from white male middle aged westerners...
And then you see this anti science movement preventing any real research or clear thinking
Do not publish anything which could contradict the dogma
This is sad
As for the fight against co2, after working years in China, i keep lol
These climate activists have really NO IDEA of the world we are living in now
Maybe the muppet swedish girl "ambassador" of climate change movement could have a nice eye opening trip to China, she can fly there no pb
But then she would commit suicide, and i can not wish that
You should all pray that i am right as co2 will not decrease ever  unless population collapses
The sad bit is that even if i am right, GW will continue, and get worse
So live with it and start remediation or drop a few strategic nukes
One light: china population growth is over.thanks the 1 child policy...


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2019)

Here is what your analogy proposes guys. Let's pick a point in the future. Your claim is that you lot can predict the precise climate at that point, even if there is a degree of randomness on the way. This, despite the failure of models thus far? I am amused.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

Dead right, frog.  One effect is the greenhouse effect.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> predict the precise climate at that point, .



Mistaken  and amused.


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm going to refrain from duplicating your puerile penchant for ad hom, but your argumentative logic here is way dodgy mate.
> It's also interesting you accusing me of throwing mud.



Again, more mud, no evidence.
And of course your totally inappropriate use of words has again surfaced.
Stump up with your justifications and stop posting rubbish year after year after year.
One of the last bits of mud you threw related to Mann v's Ball.  Not only was there no evidence to support your ambiguous statement, you did not indicate how the decision affected climate science.  But that's what you keep doing.


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Here is what your analogy proposes guys. Let's pick a point in the future. Your claim is that you lot can predict the precise climate at that point, even if there is a degree of randomness on the way. This, despite the failure of models thus far? I am amused.



Bunkum.
Learn about stochastic modelling.


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I think we should consider properly the effect of heat released by  human activities
> That is one part: so all oil coal wood burnt but also nuclear and geothermal
> They just add up to warming the atmosphere first, around 2c since industrial age from own computation
> Then effect of urbanisation
> ...



Keep it up froggie!
Your knowledge of climate appears less than basic.
We deal with "global" climate in the context of gross energy flows.
What happens chaotically needs to manifest into a measurable forcing effect.
The idea that burning a wood fire, for example, or burning coal, warms the atmosphere and therefore contributes to warming the planet is a complete misunderstanding of climate science.  It is entirely possible that forest growth, ocean uptake and chemical processes to carbonate rocks can offset the initial addition of CO2 and could decrease atmospheric temperatures.
Your idea that CO2 is an "effect" rather than a cause has no place in climate science - it has been disproven so many times that proponents nowadays just look stupid.
Little wonder students are in the streets trying to combat the rubbish that your ilk peddle.
They receive an education that lets them work out from actual science what is now happening to the planet.
Whereas you just keep making up what you believe and have no ability to show it to be credible.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I think we should consider properly the effect of heat released by  human activities
> That is one part: so all oil coal wood burnt but also nuclear and geothermal
> They just add up to warming the atmosphere first, around 2c since industrial age from own computation
> Then effect of urbanisation
> ...



This is real but the heating effect is very very small in a global context to be in effect irrelevant. We looked at this issue year's ago somewhere in the various threads. I am sure we could find this information again. Maybe rederob has it at his fingertips.

I do agree with the nukes. I proposed these 15 years ago as the ultimate answer if we continue to f up. Unfortunately the side effects are severe as it works by throwing dust into the atmosphere reducing sunlight  and crop yield.

A section of heartland people  of the denier movement were working on injecting different sodium molecules into the atmosphere as a better solution. They know the reality but needed to keep the status quo through propaganda but also realised a solution would be needed long term. I wonder if wayne remembers this.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

qldfrog is correct , heat produces CO2.  Yeast cells are egg-shaped and can only be seen with a microscope. It takes 20,000,000,000 yeast cells to weigh one gram, or 1/28 of an ounce, of cake yeast.  Yeast is _Saccharomyces Cerevisiae_, or “sugar-eating fungus”and make CO2 in bread and beer and consumption is rising by about 2degrees a decade in chaotic sales graphs.


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

Before supercomputers and parameterised modelling, Hansen presented his ideas about where temperatures might head under various scenarios.  Back then climate science was rudimentary and data sources were not well homogenised, nor available anywhere near the level they are today.
Regress Scenario B against the observational data (see the link for more information) and Hansen was not too far out.
Climate science deniers would have us believe we cannot model climate.  Over 30 years after Hansen's work that would be true if the basis for his calculations were fundamentally flawed and observations proved him wrong.  That's not a compelling case from them.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I do agree with the nukes..side effects are severe as it works by throwing dust into the atmosphere reducing sunlight  and crop yield.



There will be savings in sunscreen lotion expenses but lettuce , cucumbers and paw paws will rise in price if grown at ground zero. Can't win them all.


----------



## qldfrog (22 September 2019)

The heat effect being" small"as far as i can see backed by 1 not 2 , one study every one refers to dismiss the effect,  yet as i say a corner of the table computation is enough
Amount of extra heat released since industrial revolution shared in the atmosphere brings a 2c temp increase of that atmosphere vs absence of heat release wo human activity
That is hard to contest as you do not even need a complex model to compute it yet everyone dismiss it, so what? that 2 deg C just vanished as thermal radiation in the outer space?
And if absorbed by water and land, does it not increase the overall temperature anyway?
Oil coal are finite and we need to reduce use when relevant, but there are more pressant problems on earth and i am talking environment here than reducing co2 , which will NOT happen, and is a side effect not a cause,
 more co2 as well when permafrost disappears and increased metabolism of the ecosystem
But we can not have a decent discussion, i am a denier by stating facts


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

The CO2 produced from peat by heat is a neat 8% .  The 92% is hot air.


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> The heat effect being" small"as far as i can see backed by 1 not 2 , one study every one refers to dismiss the effect,  yet as i say a corner of the table computation is enough
> Amount of extra heat released since industrial revolution shared in the atmosphere brings a 2c temp increase of that atmosphere vs absence of heat release wo human activity
> That is hard to contest as you do not even need a complex model to compute it yet everyone dismiss it, so what? that 2 deg C just vanished as thermal radiation in the outer space?
> And if absorbed by water and land, does it not increase the overall temperature anyway?
> ...



Mumbo jumbo - not science.
Repeating nonsense - you will learn nothing!
Again, you divert attention from a problem that can potential send countries under water to, instead,  problems which are much easier solved with simple strategies/policies.
How about you actually present facts, quoting from scientific sources rather than delusional beliefs.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I think we should consider properly the effect of heat released by  human activities
> That is one part: so all oil coal wood burnt but also nuclear and geothermal



I've thought that for quite some time.

As a concept it's readily dismissed as trivial compared to heat from the sun. Oddly that dismissal comes from the same people who tend to be very focused on CO2 having increased from 0.25% to 0.41% of the earth's atmosphere.

If that change in CO2 can alter the climate, and to be clear I'm not arguing with that point, then it would seem foolish to simply dismiss the notion that direct heat addition to the atmosphere, land and oceans may also have an impact.

Combustion of fossil fuels is one obvious source of man-made heat. Nuclear reactions are another. What's perhaps less obvious to most is that hydro and wind energy also ultimately end up as low grade heat.

Then there's the impact of land use change. With sunlight at 1kW per square meter, all those dark coloured roads, roofs and other things humans have built collectively produce a massive amount of heat which under natural conditions would be either reflected as light or result in evaporation of water rather than simply emitting, ultimately, hot air.

In the same way as the change in CO2 seems to be of significance, I think it would be foolish to dismiss the potential effects of direct heat addition in the absence of very firm proof to the contrary. Yes it's a minor amount of heat compared to the natural input but as with the argument about CO2, what matters is the change compared to natural levels not the total amount as such.

In saying that, my thoughts are in the direction of noting that observed warming seems to be occurring at or even above the upper end of the range expected based on the calculated impacts of CO2 and other gases. This suggests there are factors at work which haven't been considered or properly understood and direct heat addition is an obvious possibility there.

It may turn out to be insignificant but I wouldn't dismiss it without proof given we know for sure that human activities do heat the atmosphere at ground level over fairly large areas.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

Maintenance heat produced in Queensland frogs'  muscles was measured under various values of increasing CO2 concentration. The volume passed in the normal direction of respiration (for carbon dioxide, from within outwards) should exceed that in the contra-normal direction (for carbon dioxide, from without inwards). Obviously if carbon dioxide is used as the test gas, its percentage in the mixtures employed must not be allowed to rise high enough to exert a deleterious action on the tissues of the skin.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It may turn out to be insignificant but I wouldn't dismiss it without proof given we know for sure that human activities do heat the atmosphere at ground level over fairly large areas.





Maybe the heat produced by all the internal combustion engines may have some effect. I wonder if that has ever been measured.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

"A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use."


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe the heat produced by all the internal combustion engines may have some effect. I wonder if that has ever been measured.



It's known with certainty that cities are significantly warmed, in terms of the outdoor air temperature, by the combined effects of engines, electricity use, gas appliances, dark surfaces and so on. Depending on the city in question this effect is not minor but it's several degrees.

At the global level it would not be zero that seems clear. How much I don't know.

In all of this it must be remembered that we're talking about small numbers. A 0.16% change in the composition of the earth's atmosphere. A roughly 0.35% increase in the earth's temperature above absolute zero. Etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> "A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use."




That's true, solar energy received by the earth certainly vastly exceeds what humans use but then the asphalt road, which is not a natural thing obviously, on the street I live in puts out about 15 MW of heat when the sun's overhead.

That's one little street with not that many houses in it. Add them all up around the world and roads alone convert a massive amount of sunlight to heat whereas naturally more of that would be reflected.

Then there's the 100 - 200 kW from each and every one of those black roofs on houses. Plus all sorts of other things.

It might turn out to be trivial but in the absence of any proper calculations, and by that I mean a serious effort as with the CO2 issue, it would seem foolish to dismiss the effects that adding heat (as distinct from trapping it) may be having since it won't be zero.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> At the global level it would not be zero that seems clear.
> 
> In all of this it must be remembered that we're talking about small numbers..



Logically , the heat from burning is 1/10,000 heat from sun within that 2degree rise.  The small rise of greenhouse gas is in the small fraction of the air which is C02 , which is a large rise for that C02 component.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> roads alone convert a massive amount of sunlight to heat whereas naturally more of that would be reflected.
> 
> . that adding heat (as distinct from trapping it) may be having since it won't be zero.



Nothing is "converted" it's all solar heat. Everything is chaos but the end result is sun radiation in: sun radiation out.  So probably, the out radiation is slowly dropping year by year as we heat up.
( Just thinking, heat which strikes a road or house can bounce around many places then radiate out at night and some will then heat Mars..)


----------



## qldfrog (22 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> "A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use."



Sure but that was the same energy 100y ago, so this was balanced with energy reflected
Do you not get the concept? On an equilibrium/balance system, only the extra makes a difference
If your tank is leaking 2l a second but fed 2l a second adding a litre a day will be enough to result in overflow, yet it is negligible
@Smurf, fully agree, if keen i could pm you the computation explaining a 2 deg C increase of the atmosphere, this was done 5 or 6y ago, so would be higher now
As all scientists here know, most energy ends up in its most degraded form: heat so all the energy used by your car for example ends up in heat by the time you drive back in your garage
The kinekic energy will end up in brake heat, friction with air, sound which will end up as heat
So all the energy of coal oil burn ends up as heat.all of it
The exceptions? Dragging a rock up a mountain, doing a stable  chemical transformation, cement, etc negligible
One point where you are misled @Smurf
Wind and hydro would have ended up as heat as well, as you pointed so we just borrow that energy, it should have no impact on the balance
So wind hydro as much as you want
At last some good news
Solar probably ok as long as we compensate these black panels by some white or reflective roof
I do not understand to be honest the scientific community behaviour, but on the other end, i worked with CSIRO and saw the perpetual chase for funding, this being the case all over the world, that could easily explain...


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> , only the extra makes a difference
> .



Right again , that's twice today. The normal C02 greenhouse raises the globe from about -150 to about 15 C. So  rising by 2 degrees is about 1/80 of normal - call it 1%. Burning is .01% of solar heat.   Without the sun and just fuel burning, the temp rise would be 160/10,000 degrees or 1/60 degrees. That's cool man.
Therefore the balance , 1.98 degrees must be something else as the sun is not getting hotter. It must be greenhouse effect.


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> As a concept it's readily dismissed as trivial compared to heat from the sun. Oddly that dismissal comes from the same people who tend to be very focused on CO2 having increased from 0.25% to 0.41% of the earth's atmosphere.



Probably because there is a very clear distinction between "black body" energy absorption and the radiative forcing effect of greenhouse gases.
The other point that people miss is that CO2 is already higher than any time in the past 800000 years.
If you want to see the probable effect of doubling or tripling CO2 concentrations then you should read this.


Smurf1976 said:


> It might turn out to be trivial but in the absence of any proper calculations, and by that I mean a serious effort as with the CO2 issue, it would seem foolish to dismiss the effects that adding heat (as distinct from trapping it) may be having since it won't be zero.



Why would you need to calculate an amount of energy which *IS* trivial.
Each hour 430 quintillion joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth (ie 430 with 18 zeroes after it) which is a fraction less than the total amount of energy that all humans use in a year.  
Another way to express it is that over 8,000 times more energy is received by the planet than is consumed by humans each hour.
Fugitive emissions of sulfur hexafluoride from electrical insulators are far more relevant if you are really interested in doing the maths.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> One point where you are misled @Smurf
> Wind and hydro would have ended up as heat as well, as you pointed so we just borrow that energy, it should have no impact on the balance



I've never managed to grasp exactly how, exactly, water simply falling naturally produces heat?

Presumably due to friction?

Not something I've really thought about to be honest.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> water simply falling naturally produces heat?
> 
> .



It's interesting when water falling inside Greenland's caverns 3.6 kms high are assisting with melting. Little molecules get bounced around like..like.. greenhouse radiation..
Heat is absorbed to raise sea-water into clouds so it just has to return when gravity reverses the potential energy into kinetic.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Another way to express it is that over 8,000 times more energy is received by the planet than is consumed by humans each hour.



Thus far the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be from approximately 287'K to 288'K or 0.36%

Given that the vast majority represents a release of very long term stored energy, fossil fuels or nuclear, your 1:8000 ratio means that we've added 0.0125% to the earth's present day energy input.

Relative to the observed temperature increase that's not huge but it's enough to consider that a link between the two is plausible especially given that warming is the expected outcome of adding heat. 

Now can anyone tell me exactly what effect changes in albedo have had? The IPCC seems to see it as of significance, particularly in so far as carbon and other contaminants add heat directly to ice thus bringing about melting and the loss of ice itself results in less light reflected thus creating a positive feedback loop, but so far as I'm aware hasn't put precise figures on it.


----------



## bi-polar (22 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> consider that a link between the two is plausible



Ok a link between .01% and 99.9%.  I'd link such odds at Melbourne cup to a good bet , unless it means a .01 cent payout.  but where's the beef? 
Carbon on ice may raise the melting but what is the loop?  Maybe in algae on ice where more algae grows as temp rises?  But it doesn't itself add any heat..?


----------



## IFocus (22 September 2019)

Klogg said:


> Can you please walk me through this:
> "Basic physics when applied to gases (denied by some one here ) states something will change."
> 
> Which laws of physics?
> ...




Apologies Klogg missed you question.

I was talking about a closed system containing gases and the laws around temperature, volume and pressure and the interactions of gases, change any one of those states the environment in the closed system will change.

Hadn't gotten to the so called greenhouse gases and their behaviour which was  well answered by Bi-polar and Rederrob but simlar principal applies as the volume of CO2 increases. 

Simplistic and obvious I know but reading some of the comments here you wouldn't know it, I have spent 30 years in the chemical manufacturing industry many a day arguing about the measurement, composition or behaviour of gases in a closed process system one of the gases was actually CO2.



While I am here on another note to to bore (up on the soap box) you one factor, or one of many that frustrates me is the narrow points argued applied to the whole tactics used often when applied to CC obfuscates  (tobacco industry / NRA) our need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels tactics highly funded by vested moneyed interests unfortunately wealth is the basis of power and in this "climate" has been relatively effective. 

I remember being utterly dismayed when the US Republican party made the decision to reject the science purely for political reasons (wealth and power again) not because of the science it was a bipartisan issue.


----------



## rederob (22 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Thus far the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be from approximately 287'K to 288'K or 0.36%
> 
> Given that the vast majority represents a release of very long term stored energy, fossil fuels or nuclear, your 1:8000 ratio means that we've added 0.0125% to the earth's present day energy input.
> 
> ...



Would you like me to point your dodgy maths out, or can you work it out yourself?


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Carbon on ice may raise the melting but what is the loop?  Maybe in algae on ice where more algae grows as temp rises?  But it doesn't itself add any heat..?



Ice is white and in the overwhelming majority of cases whatever's under it will be a darker colour.

From there it's pretty straightforward. In layman's terms a white surface reflects light back away from the planet whereas a dark surface absorbs that and releases it as heat. Greenhouse gasses let the visible light through but trap the heat.

Put the two together, better insulation and more heat, and the effects seem reasonably obvious - I'm questioning the magnitude not whether it occurs as such since that seems to be accepted.

Consider what happens if you take two identical pieces of sheet metal, paint one white and the other black using ordinary paint as you'd buy off the shelf from any paint shop or hardware store so nothing special. Put them in full sun - the white one will barely rise above ambient temperature whereas the black one will be hot enough to cause sufficient burning to human skin as to require medical attention.

So on a clear sunny day an ordinary house in the suburbs with a black Colorbond roof is just sitting there adding ~150kW of heat. Now consider how many houses, asphalt roads and so on there are and it's a big number.

We know for sure that this effect warms cities and it warms suburbs, that has been noted in numerous places and is to the point of some local governments considering the need to address it via building codes, shade and the like.

Or putting it all together, consider an open cut coal mine. There's CO2 from burning the coal. If it's black coal then there will also be CH4 released from mining the coal (generally not an issue with brown coal). There's also heat from burning the coal. Then there's the change in albedo now that a greenish piece of land has been replaced with a black one. The total impact of that mine on warming the planet isn't just the CO2.

What I'm questioning is the actual global impact and if there's any _proper_ research into it? Dismissing something as unimportant, without proper research into it, doesn't cut it in the context of taking a scientific approach.

There's basically no chance the answer is zero though, it's an observable effect even in relatively small population / development places eg Tasmania or between different suburbs and the CBD in Adelaide. Now at the global level the effect is ???


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Would you like me to point your dodgy maths out, or can you work it out yourself?



Which part of my maths is flawed?

The earth's average surface temperature has increased from approximately 287'K to 288'K. For clarity that's the air temperature not anything else.

That is an increase of 0.36%.

Those temperatures have been rounded obviously so I'll happily accept as valid if your point is to be more accurate to however many decimal places.

The 1:8000 figure is yours, I haven't questioned it just taken it as being correct, and the 1 is indeed 0.0125% of 8000.

Ignoring any pure mathematics arguments and sticking to practical application, 0.0125 is about 3.5% of 0.36.

If that's not correct then what, exactly, is the correct answer? It's obviously not zero so put a figure on it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> While I am here on another note to to bore (up on the soap box) you one factor, or one of many that frustrates me is the narrow points argued applied to the whole tactics used often when applied to CC obfuscates  (tobacco industry / NRA) our need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels tactics highly funded by vested moneyed interests unfortunately wealth is the basis of power and in this "climate" has been relatively effective.



The concept seems to be settled in that greenhouse gases trap heat.

The exact magnitude seems to have some uncertainty noting that the IPCC and other researchers themselves have applied different figures in different studies. Not drastically different but there's a range or window of estimates and calculated values.

Where any real uncertainty arises is in regard to other things which may influence the end result of warming. Albedo, direct heat emission, solar irradiance, the extent of CO2 and other gas absorption by oceans and how this may change over time and so on.

There are also an abundance of other reasons why fossil fuels are a problem. From trace metal contaminants through to geopolitics through to human health, there's a lot of reasons why it's a problem even without considering the climate issue at all. Climate is a big reason, but certainly not the only reason, to be moving away from fossils.

Where the problems arise really comes down to money and power as you say. Not just at the corporate level but also at the party political, national and trading bloc level.

If the money and power aspect, plus those who try and hitch unrelated other "causes" up to the climate change one, could be removed then resolving the problem from a technical perspective isn't that hard really.

Credit to Elon Musk as one who seems to be trying to go down that route - come up with a capitalist solution to it that becomes rather difficult to stand in the way of and which is inherently unsuited to the attachment of the other "causes" which drag the whole thing down.


----------



## qldfrog (23 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've never managed to grasp exactly how, exactly, water simply falling naturally produces heat?
> 
> Presumably due to friction?
> 
> Not something I've really thought about to be honest.



Yes friction 
Hard to believe but basically be it water or a rock falling from the top of the mountain, same
The water may create a grain of sand out of a rock, smash a tree during a flood, all of this end up in useless entropy, the dreaded degraded heat
The universe based on our knowledge will end up as a boiling hot acid soup but we or earth will be long gone...


----------



## rederob (23 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Which part of my maths is flawed?
> The earth's average surface temperature has increased from approximately 287'K to 288'K. For clarity that's the air temperature not anything else.
> That is an increase of 0.36%.



You have used the Kelvin temperature scale as a yardstick to propose the change in temperature, instead of the average temperature of the body.
That does not wash.  
For example, if I increase my speed by 1km/hr, tell me the percentage increase in my speed?
Next:


Smurf1976 said:


> Given that the vast majority represents a release of very long term stored energy, fossil fuels or nuclear, your 1:8000 ratio means that we've added 0.0125% to the earth's present day energy input.



Try moving along the decimal point.
1/8000 = 0.000125
By the way, an excellent summation of energy use is here.


Smurf1976 said:


> The exact magnitude seems to have some uncertainty noting that the IPCC and other researchers themselves have applied different figures in different studies. Not drastically different but there's a range or window of estimates and calculated values.



This is true, and the IPCC provide error bars in their projections.


----------



## qldfrog (23 September 2019)

2 things irritate me most: the pretence that the world as a whole will reduce co2 emissions whereas India and China plus smaller players like Indonesia, Pakistan,all overpopulated places are the ones in control and do not give a ****
Then the real obsession on co2 without even trying to see if any other phenomenon is actually in play
Look at the answers on this thread and that is from supposedly educated people who will dismiss even simple figure based options just to save the God CO2
This is religion not science
The first consideration in scientific processes was to admit we do not know, otherwise, we would still believe the sun turns around us
Yet on such a simple yet supposedly critical problem, there is denial of closed system, denial of darkening of earth by human activity, denial of anything not CO2?
Why when we all know co2 was between twice and 15 times higher in the past?
That the co2 released was actually captured by plant and life in the past and we are really releasing a fraction of the captured one
But even stating that is an ideological crime
If people actually cared about this earth, they would try to find answers, not join a religion of CO2 fanatics
And as in all religions,poor lost souls are misled, and end up in the street waving cardboards or getting offended here, denying basic science and figures
Same things happen on migration, growth or political subjects so not really surprised
It is hard to be self thinking even harder to stray off the mainstream
Better join the pack, the hitlerian youth or the communist party, and now in the west the climate crusade
Meet friends, have parties, be "right" against the ugly lobbies then loading the iphone ipad at night 100% fossil fuel powered....
Wonder how long it will take to reach some truth,slowly admitting bits here bits here or just pure denial as indeed co2 will still increase so we can carry on the charade
Over and off


----------



## rederob (23 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> 2 things irritate me most: the pretence that the world as a whole will reduce co2 emissions whereas India and China plus smaller players like Indonesia, Pakistan,all overpopulated places are the ones in control and do not give a ****



The fact that China is the world leader in renewable spend suggests you are clueless.
You also exhibit racist and elitist tendencies: why not instead name the nations with the greatest per capita emissions?
Or, why not show the countries which have been responsible for the cumulative emissions we now have?
That would be because....







qldfrog said:


> Then the real obsession on co2 without even trying to see if any other phenomenon is actually in play



Rubbish - stop making up shyte!
These data are freely available so start educating yourself rather than ranting on with your misinformation.







qldfrog said:


> This is religion not science



Your religion appears to be ignorance.  If you disagree, then quote the science you rely on, because you have never yet done this.







qldfrog said:


> The first consideration in scientific processes was to admit we do not know, otherwise, we would still believe the sun turns around us



Nonsense, the first step is to to test your ideas for how you believe things happen by undertaking research and examining the evidence.  Try googling the "scientific method" and posting that here rather than your misconceptions.


qldfrog said:


> If people actually cared about this earth, they would try to find answers, not join a religion of CO2 fanatics



The IPCC has published 5 reports over the past 30 years, and you think they do not care?
From your posts here it is doubtful you have ever looked at any of them.
When the younger generation reads ill conceived ramblings such as yours, their actions make a great deal of sense.
Your ignorance on climate matters is palpable, yet you keep posting.


----------



## Klogg (23 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> Apologies Klogg missed you question.
> 
> I was talking about a closed system containing gases and the laws around temperature, volume and pressure and the interactions of gases, change any one of those states the environment in the closed system will change.
> 
> ...



Sounds like your understanding is far better than mine. I need a refresher in chemistry 101


----------



## moXJO (23 September 2019)

rederob said:


> The fact that China is the world leader in renewable spend suggests you are clueless.
> You also exhibit racist and elitist tendencies: why not instead name the nations with the greatest per capita emissions?
> Or, why not show the countries which have been responsible for the cumulative emissions we now have?
> That would be because....Rubbish - stop making up shyte!
> ...



China is roughly 1/3 of emissions I thought. Some of the places over there are toxic to breathe in. Theres a lot of fudging of figures. "Per capita" on a nation of 1bill people hides the amount of sht they pump out.


----------



## bi-polar (23 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> a greenish piece of land has been replaced with a black one.



Agree that darker ice melts quicker but question how that is a feedback loop to bring more carbon to the ice or more CO2. Melting permafrost is a positive feedback loop for methane and CO2 (but not a loop for more carbon dust on the ground). 

The planet albedo is worth a look. Many houses in tropical belt are white and cleared land for farming may be lighter colour than forest. The difference between green and black land must be less than white and black ice.


----------



## Logique (23 September 2019)

Another barrage of media hysteria this morning. The world is going to end in 12 years, 5 years ..next April... yawn.

Only by wagging school, raising electricity prices even further, and going vegan can the end of the world be prevented.

Let's see Greta Barton ..err Thunberg start walking to school, and hand in her smartphone. And turn off the heating in her Kent  ..err Sweden classroom.  And when will you be sailing the yacht over to China Ms Thunberg, where most of the emissions are.







> Doomed Planet - Dear Greta, You Won’t Mind Being Unplugged…
> 22nd September 2019 - Quadrant Online: Christopher Heathcote: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/dear-greta-you-wont-mind-being-unplugged/
> ..Dear Greta Thunberg,
> It’s one thing organising mass protests of children during their school holidays, and delighting in jamming up major cities, but why don’t you initiate some grass roots action to reduce carbon emissions internationally?...


----------



## qldfrog (23 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> China is roughly 1/3 of emissions I thought. Some of the places over there are toxic to breathe in. Theres a lot of fudging of figures. "Per capita" on a nation of 1bill people hides the amount of sht they pump out.



60pc emission by India and china alone last year


----------



## qldfrog (23 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> 60pc emission by India and china alone last year



Actually i should check it is actually worse


----------



## kahuna1 (23 September 2019)

Well ...

Trying to debate physics or science is a waste of time.
Alarming developments in the Arctic which is NOT included in any IPCC estimate about climate change.

Its missing due to USA and Canada and Saudi Arabia demanding it be excluded.
Bottom line the 2 degree which will be bad is assured at 4 degrees by 2100. Possibly MORE is a distinct possibility if more feedback loops occur such as less rain in the Amazon.

I find this guy interesting and his research excellent and backed by just factual information.

Debating with someone who doesn't even accept any science, refutes all evidence is sadly what the debate is .... akin to those who deny gravity.



Actually having done so, debating people denying science and gravity is not evident in their view, was educational as to their logic and thinking, but beyond a point, the debate becomes one where your speaking to your pet cat and expecting it to understand. 

I note the total destruction of all multi year Arctic sea ice occurred in 2019. Its all GONE. Whilst ice still at the level well above an Arctic blue event of say 1.5 million sq km, its sadly looking likely the event which IPCC ... the United nations supposed peak body which discarded this event as it would NOT occur till post 2100 is likely if not assured pre 2040 if not 2030 if we were to have a few more of 2019 summers.

each to their own. 

Allergic to cats, so not about to discuss or try and explain ... enjoy that denial of gravity existing, if that's your thing. 

Take care


----------



## Logique (23 September 2019)

.._someone who doesn't even accept any science, refutes all evidence_ ..kahuna1

A better description of the warmist lovies you would not get.  In these threads, hundreds of pages of quoted scientific papers debunking the exaggerated hysteria, literally hundreds kahuna1.  

We see who are the real luddites.


----------



## Klogg (23 September 2019)

Just thought I'd post this. A reminder that although the scientific theory checks out, our modelling may not


----------



## bi-polar (23 September 2019)

"In  July last year, his father was called in to work at around 10pm one night after a leak was spotted on the lower surface of the dam.Fernando Coelho said “The supervisor found the mud leaking,” . Coelho broke into tears as he remembered his father warning him to steer clear of the dam. “That’s going to burst at any time,” he recalled him saying.





FacebookTwitterPinterest
 Fernando Coelho. Photograph: Nicolo Lanfranchi/The Guardian
Coelho has related the same events to state prosecutors. A spokesman for prosecutors said they would not comment on an ongoing investigation.
Dam safety experts said that such a leak would mean the dam was not safe.

“A leak like that … would inherently make the dam more unstable,” said David Chambers, an expert on tailings dam failures who co-founded the Center for Science in Public Participation. “Any kind of leak through the face of the dam is significant. It shouldn’t do that if it was working properly.”


----------



## kahuna1 (23 September 2019)

Meow ...

Earth is flat.
Gravity does not exist.
NASA faked the moon trip.

I note the UN thing quoted did not come from the IPCC .... it came from Koch Brothers funded think tank.

Congratulations.

Meow.

What Hansen actually said ... WAS not what which the AP published.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/12/01/decades-denial-american-petroleum-institute-climate-crunch

Or this 
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-hansen-nasa-scientist-climate-change-warning

Usual stuff to discredit science .... for the cat lovers and delusional non thinkers.


----------



## chiff (23 September 2019)

Hard to make sense of all of these statistics,but CO2 emissions per capita in tonnes....Australia 16.75,China 6.18 and India 1.64.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 September 2019)

chiff said:


> Hard to make sense of all of these statistics,but CO2 emissions per capita in tonnes....Australia 16.75,China 6.18 and India 1.64.




Ahh statistics ...

Worlds largest exporter of Iron ore ?
LNG Gas ? 
Massive exporter of coal, wheat and a long list of other things...

Hence the per capita CO2 is high, of course it is. We produce 5 times the amount of food we consume and 10 times the resources mineral wise and now export double the energy we use ....

It takes CO2 to produce and farm the crops, mine the other stuff.

Sadly its easy to say misquote the NASA guy in 1988 he and IPCC have been BELOW the actual on their estimates for the past 30 years, NOT above ,,, below reality.

Each to their own ... I will not be around post 2100 when the hard stuff hits. Until say the Antarctic ... ice 3 km thick melts in earnest sea levels maybe rise 1 metre by 2100 ... this will be bad enough. Prior to that radical changes to rain and land use and viability will occur.

The 70 cm guaranteed rise by 2100 or a maybe of 1 metre ... will minimum cause 100 million to need to move and nations like Bangladesh hardest hit.

Permafrost melting and not included in ANY of these numbers MAY add another say 50% by 2100 and it seems assured this occurs. How much sooner is I suppose the debate ... Best maths and models suggesting it hits in 2070 .... instead of 2170 ... then again USA pulled out of UN ... stopped paying its fair share of its funding and on the issues outside climate, USA is ... for USA and bugger all else.

Glad to see New York is going to build a wall of mud to keep the high tides out of Wall St ... good luck ... spend 500 million on more Pumps for Miami and again, a waste of time beyond the next 30 years. Trump will be gone by then ..., One Koch brother is gone thankfully ... our own funder of climate denial Gina Rhinehart who funds it to support her Qld coal mines will hopefully gone soon up there with Koch or should I say DOWN there with Koch brother number one.


----------



## rederob (23 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> 60pc emission by India and china alone last year



Wrong by a very large margin - use data rather than make up nonsense!
The USA is the single largest contributor to cumulative CO2 emissions, despite having about a quarter of China's population.
The largest per capita emitters of CO2 do not include China.


----------



## bi-polar (23 September 2019)

qldfrog
You do understand the difference between 1 and 1/10,000.
Do you?  How much is it then?


----------



## moXJO (23 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Wrong by a very large margin - use data rather than make up nonsense!
> The USA is the single largest contributor to cumulative CO2 emissions, despite having about a quarter of China's population.
> The largest per capita emitters of CO2 do not include China.



Per capita hides that China is actually the highest emitter overall.


----------



## basilio (23 September 2019)

Its all accelerating ... the IPPC report is heavily influenced by CC denialist governments that are trying to minimise the extent of the changes.

Having said that what they have reported  is dark. 

*Climate change 'hitting harder and sooner' than forecast, warn scientists ahead of UN meeting*

A new report published ahead of key UN climate talks has warned the world is falling drastically behind in the race to avert climate disaster, with the five-year period ending in 2019 the hottest on record.

Key points:

The new report revealed that global temperatures between 2015-2019 were the hottest on record
It noted carbon emissions in the same period had risen by 20 per cent
Its authors also warned of the alarming extent of sea-level rise and melting glaciers
 
The data, compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), says climate change is accelerating, with sea levels rising, carbon dioxide levels increasing and ice sheets melting faster than ever before. 

It warned that carbon-cutting efforts have to be intensified immediately and comes ahead of a major UN climate summit in New York on Monday that will be attended by more than 60 world leaders, as secretary-general Antonio Guterres pushes for countries to increase their greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The report "highlights the urgent need for the development of concrete actions that halt global warming and the worst effects of climate change," said its authors, the Science Advisory Group to the summit. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-23/climate-change-accelerating-warn-scientists/11537240


----------



## wayneL (23 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Its all accelerating ... the IPPC report is heavily influenced by CC denialist governments that are trying to minimise the extent of the changes.
> 
> Having said that what they have reported  is dark.
> 
> ...



Like, global socialism, per chance?


----------



## bi-polar (23 September 2019)

Greenland ice loss is caused by socialist polar bears hitting hard and soon. Or banging their heaads against an ice wall.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Wrong by a very large margin - use data rather than make up nonsense!
> The USA is the single largest contributor to cumulative CO2 emissions, despite having about a quarter of China's population.
> The largest per capita emitters of CO2 do not include China.



"per capita" won't save the planet.

Eg Australia's emissions are down approximately 27% per capita since the year 2005 or 35% since 1990 so if we take the "per capita" argument as valid, then we need do nothing more in order to meet our Paris obligations other than maintain constant emissions per capita going forward. No need for anyone to protest, we're doing exactly as promised.

Trouble is, the "per capita" argument won't fix the problem and that's easily illustrated by pointing out that constant "per capita" emissions will see Australia's total emissions increase by 20% between now and 2030 assuming population goes from 25 million to 30 million as expected.

Now what's the bet that there's an argument put forward that despite the 27% cut per capita from 2005 exactly as promised, Australia's growing total emissions are seen as a problem? Is anyone seriously expecting to not see that argument put forward over the coming decade or so? 

In the real world it's total emissions, not per capita, which matters. 

If the entire population of the world was 5 million and the biggest city on earth was Bendigo then quite simply none of this would matter. They could be stoking up coal fires all day every day and it just wouldn't matter in the slightest. 

That's there's 7.7 billion and rising, each seeking high per capita resource consumption, is what makes it a problem.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 September 2019)

rederob said:


> You have used the Kelvin temperature scale as a yardstick to propose the change in temperature, instead of the average temperature of the body.
> That does not wash.
> For example, if I increase my speed by 1km/hr, tell me the percentage increase in my speed?




I have used the Kelvin scale specifically to avoid the problem you refer to.

Many members of the general public, particularly in places where temperatures rarely if ever go below zero, seem to think that if the temperature drops from 30'C to 15'C then it has halved. Or that rising from 20'C overnight to 40'C during the day means it has doubled.

Since Kelvin starts at absolute zero it avoids that problem hence why I've used it.

To use your speed analogy, we're not talking about an increase of 1 km/h without knowing whether that's from 0 to 1 or if it's from 300 to 301. Rather, we're talking about an increase that, rounded to the nearest whole degree, is from 287 to 288 degrees above absolute zero.



> Next:
> Try moving along the decimal point.
> 1/8000 = 0.000125




Noting that I have clearly stated I am referring to percentages and sticking to the simplest terms which suffice, the issue is climate not purist maths, I will step this through to ensure no confusion.

8000 / 8000 would be 100%. No argument there hopefully.

1000 / 8000 = 12.5% or 1 in 8

100 / 8000 = 1.25% or 1 in 80

10 / 8000 = 0.125% or 1 in 800

1 / 8000 = 0.0125% or 1 in 8000


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 September 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Alarming developments in the Arctic which is NOT included in any IPCC estimate about climate change.



Hence my thinking that there's more to this than CO2 and other accepted greenhouse gases and my pondering of what those other things may be.

That doesn't mean CO2 etc aren't a problem, it means they're plausibly not the only cause and that would explain why actual warming, melting etc seems to be exceeding projections.


----------



## rederob (23 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I have used the Kelvin scale specifically to avoid the problem you refer to.
> 
> Many members of the general public, particularly in places where temperatures rarely if ever go below zero, seem to think that if the temperature drops from 30'C to 15'C then it has halved. Or that rising from 20'C overnight to 40'C during the day means it has doubled.
> 
> ...



That's two fails.
You specifically stated an increase in temperature of 1K against the *temperature *scale and not the planet's average temperature.







Smurf1976 said:


> Thus far the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be ...0.36%



Unless you could answer my km/hour question your explanation is not valid.
And 1/8000 was provided as a fraction, not as 100% of itself - that's absurd.


----------



## bi-polar (23 September 2019)

The Roaring Forties winds are part of the polar vortex , caused by the angular momentum of the smaller global distance there. It is low pressure and maybe industrial gases collect there ?
It's said the north pole has a brown haze in the air. There is ozone layer hole , ultra violet light and the aurora ionisation. Who knows what chemical mixing is going on with methane etc. The most temperature alteration is at the poles and heat then is another new factor.


----------



## rederob (23 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> "per capita" won't save the planet.



No - it will not.
But we are quick to demonise countries which have not had the opportunity to reach our standard of living, despite the fact that *we, *on average, are more culpable.
We have been happy to send poorer countries or rubbish, and manufacturing industries, thereby offsetting *our *per capita emissions while increasing theirs, and now we want to blame them for apparently becoming the problem.
Whereas, in reality, the problem has significantly been the USA because we should be talking about why we are where we are.


----------



## moXJO (23 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> "per capita" won't save the planet.



Thats my thinking. Otherwise just double the population and your emissions would most likely drop on a "per capita" basis. Especially if they are all poor as sht. 
Manufacturing emission standards are a big culprit. And in reality Trump should be hailed as an environment saint for shifting and slowing down manufacturing in China. He probably reduced emissions more with the trade war then all the other Presidents put together.


----------



## bi-polar (23 September 2019)

Coal workers have been among President Donald Trump's strongest supporters,
   Last week, US President Donald Trump said at a rally that the US steel industry was “thriving” under his presidency.


----------



## chiff (23 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Thats my thinking. Otherwise just double the population and your emissions would most likely drop on a "per capita" basis. Especially if they are all poor as sht.
> Manufacturing emission standards are a big culprit. And in reality Trump should be hailed as an environment saint for shifting and slowing down manufacturing in China. He probably reduced emissions more with the trade war then all the other Presidents put together.



Of course  not...but it is just showing what you can do with statistics...I see today the use of coal is increasing in China and India and Australia like exporting more all the time.


----------



## moXJO (23 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Coal workers have been among President Donald Trump's strongest supporters,
> Last week, US President Donald Trump said at a rally that the US steel industry was “thriving” under his presidency.



All under US epa standards. God bless that man


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2019)

Germany having trouble getting consensus on reducing emissions.

https://au.yahoo.com/finance/news/merkel-climate-deal-cost-billions-122640939.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 September 2019)

rederob said:


> That's two fails.
> You specifically stated an increase in temperature of 1K against the *temperature *scale and not the planet's average temperature.




Given that Kelvin is an absolute scale it makes no difference. An increase of 1K is an increase of 1K no matter what the actual numbers are.

For reference however the actual numbers are 287K increasing to 288K.



> Unless you could answer my km/hour question your explanation is not valid.
> And 1/8000 was provided as a fraction, not as 100% of itself - that's absurd.




Apart from your analogy speed has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Bearing in mind that the issue is climate change, not a maths degree, I think most people would find the concept that 1/8000 being equal to 0.0125% as being more than sufficient for the purpose.

As with anything, if the aim is to examine the issue and aid understanding then layman's terms generally win over technical terms. Hence my use of percentages which most people have at least some grasp of, they understand that 50% means half or that 1% means one in a hundred, whereas using decimal numbers adds unnecessary confusion since many do not immediately recognise 0.5 as being "half" or 0.25 as being "quarter". 0.5% is however a concept that most understand to mean half of one percent. Etc.

In any event, I will simply note that one sure way to spot that someone's avoiding the detail of a subject is an excessive focus on the meaning of words and so on. Politicians, lawyers and anyone else not wanting to answer the question will always dwell on such points. Those seeking to avoid discussion of science may well do likewise.

Now to recap, using as a base that the earth has warmed 1'C and your comment that solar energy reaching the earth is ~8000 times the energy used by humans (a claim I haven't verified by the way, I'm taking it as is) then:

In Celsius the earth's temperature measured at the surface has increased from 14'C to 15'C or an increase of 1'C. That figure has been rounded obviously. Expressed in Kelvin this is an increase of 1K from 287K to 288K. In percentage terms this is an increase of approximately 0.35%.

Using your 1/8000 figure, direct heat emission from human activities has added 0.0125% to the earth's heat input versus the increase in temperature of 0.35%.

The above suggests that direct heat emission from human activities has made a minor but not zero contribution to observed temperature changes thus far. Practical observation, not detailed here, has previously identified that this effect is quite pronounced in locations with high density heat emission - cities, airports and industrial areas being examples.

If you consider that my maths is wrong, please present your alternative version focusing on the issue of climate change rather than pedantic aspects of mathematics terminology.


----------



## rederob (23 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Given that Kelvin is an absolute scale it makes no difference. An increase of 1K is an increase of 1K no matter what the actual numbers are.
> 
> For reference however the actual numbers are 287K increasing to 288K.
> 
> ...



Serious fail - again!
You stated "*the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be ...0.36%"*
That is patently false.
Your figure is NOT based on the actual temperature of the planet at its surface.  The temperature of the planet has ranged less than 20 degrees over the past million years, and never at any time while it has been habitable varied more than that.  (In fact you need to go back almost half a *billion *years to get a greater range.)
And you refuse to respond to the analogy which presents the exact same issue you have addressed, except instead of temperature it deals with an increase in speed.
You also stated, yet again, that *1/8000 = 0.0125%*
That remains false.
Maths are important and yours are not good.


----------



## bellenuit (23 September 2019)

rederob said:


> You also stated, yet again, that *1/8000 = 0.0125%*
> That remains false.




Perhaps I am missing something, but 1/8000 is 0.0125% in my books, if used in the context of what percentage of 8000 is 1.


----------



## rederob (24 September 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Perhaps I am missing something, but 1/8000 is 0.0125% in my books, if used in the context of what percentage of 8000 is 1.



It was expressed as a fraction:
1 = 1
1/8 = 0.125
1/80 = 0.0125
qed


----------



## bellenuit (24 September 2019)

rederob said:


> It was expressed as a fraction:
> 1 = 1
> 1/8 = 0.125
> 1/80 = 0.0125
> qed




The line you posted and said was wrong was 1/8000 expressed as a percentage, not as a fraction. It is in fact correct. 

_You also stated, yet again, that *1/8000 = 0.0125%*
That remains false._

1/8000 = 0.000125 = 0.0125%


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Serious fail - again!
> You stated "*the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be ...0.36%"*
> That is patently false.
> Your figure is NOT based on the actual temperature of the planet at its surface.




If you disagree with the temperature I've used and that approximately 1K (or 1'C) of warming has taken place since the mid-1700's then I suggest you contact NASA and the IPCC and request they correct their data.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 September 2019)

rederob said:


> It was expressed as a fraction:
> 1 = 1
> 1/8 = 0.125
> 1/80 = 0.0125
> qed



I've made it extremely clear that I am referring to a percentage and that the reason is simply that a substantial portion of the public doesn't recognise 0.5 as meaning half or 50% etc. As with any subject, there's no reason to use terms which bring unnecessary confusion unless confusion is the objective.

The subject is climate not maths so there's no reason to not use widely understood terms to convey the message provided the units are stated which I have done.

1/8000 = 0.0125%

Tell someone it's 0.000125 and that's meaningless to a large portion of the population. Those who are familiar with that would in general have a better understanding of maths and no difficulty accepting the use of a percentage figure instead - we're talking about climate not purist maths and I've intentionally used terms that most people can understand.

Likewise I could say that Kelvin is Kelvin, it's not measured in degrees, but if someone wants to say "degrees Kelvin" well then that's not actually going to matter in the context of the discussion so there's no need to be worrying about such detail given the subject at hand. Far more useful to focus on the actual numbers and their significance than the semantics of what to call them.


----------



## qldfrog (24 September 2019)

A side note but interesting findinghttps://interestingengineering.com/a-key-climate-evolution-theory-may-have-been-discredited
The cooling of earth had been attributed to storage of atmospheric co2 by newly exposed rocks and erosion leading this co2 to end up stored in sea/ deposits
Well that does not seem to be right as per that study
It could be again that focusing on co2 as the reason for the cooling/heating of earth is wrong
This is pre industrial civilisation so not related to human interaction, but relevant as to the role of co2 in the climate


----------



## rederob (24 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've made it extremely clear that I am referring to a percentage and that the reason is simply that a substantial portion of the public doesn't recognise 0.5 as meaning half or 50% etc. As with any subject, there's no reason to use terms which bring unnecessary confusion unless confusion is the objective.
> 
> The subject is climate not maths so there's no reason to not use widely understood terms to convey the message provided the units are stated which I have done.
> 
> ...



I know what you did, and I immediately called it *dodgy *- because you turned my points into something  they were not.
A change in temperature of 1Kelvin is expressed in climate science in context with the period it changed through, *and* as anomaly against a prescribed baseline (usually an average temperature over a given period).  You will find that as standard practice in climate science because it avoids the issue you tried to overcome.
What you did, effectively, was to propose that 1K was inconsequential, because - at 0.36% - it was only a fractional change in temperature measured as a percentage of the temperature measurement system (and not of what was being measured), thereby implying that the planet was at some point 0Kelvin, which it has never been.  
With respect to the sun's energy versus human energy consumption I initially said "Why would you need to calculate an amount of energy which *IS* trivial."  That was because it would take about 8000 times longer for humans to add an equivalent amount of energy to Earth.  In this context humans are an extremely small fraction as effective as the sun in terms of heating the planet.  That small fraction is 1/8000 and it is a nonsense to convert it to 100% and do what you did.  Moreover, it is conceptually simple to explain that the sun is 8000 times more powerful than humans in terms of adding energy to Earth.
On the other hand, the addition of greenhouse gases by by humans can, in a matter of hundreds of years, change the physics of warming and effect a rate of change in global temperature that has never before been observed.


----------



## rederob (24 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Using your 1/8000 figure, direct heat emission from human activities has added 0.0125% to the earth's heat input versus the increase in temperature of 0.35%.



That is more bad climate science maths.
The increase in global temperature has to do with the greenhouse effect preventing heat energy escaping from Earth.
Irradiance has been declining, on average, since the 1970s. 
While the 1/8000 relationship has been cumulative and never had a zero starting point wrt to the base period for the 1Kelvin change.


----------



## rederob (24 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> It could be again that focusing on co2 as the reason for the cooling/heating of earth is wrong



No - it wholly supports the AGW theory.
However, it suggests a different  "*mechanism *whereby, in addition to deep-sea dissolution, changes in marine calcification acted to modulate carbonate compensation in response to reduced weathering linked to the late Neogene cooling and decline in atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide."


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

It wasn't long ago medical science, was blaming fat intake for all our health issue, now it seems the science has changed and sugar is the main culprit.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2019)

Give over 5 minutes to understand how critical our climate situation is  from a 16 year who represents the billions of people  will have to live through the consequences of our failings.


----------



## wayneL (24 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Give over 5 minutes to understand how critical our climate situation is  from a 16 year who represents the billions of people  will have to live through the consequences of our failings.




Utterly cringeworthy.

Her handlers should be indicted for child abuse, because sometime soon, she is going to blow the **** up.

Never have I been more appalled by you beta cretins.


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Utterly cringeworthy.
> 
> Her handlers should be indicted for child abuse, because sometime soon, she is going to blow the **** up.
> 
> Never have I been more appalled by you beta cretins.



Maybe she could make an appeal to the striking kids, that went to Hyde Park, to take their rubbish with them next time rather than leave it on the ground. All rallies make a mess, one would think they would cater for them beforehand, rather than rely on existing infrastructure.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2019)

Yea, yea, attack the messenger.

Its all not true, its bad for her mental health, its a leftist plot, she's mentally incapable and is a tool. blah blah blah. We shouldn't talk about this stuff as it upsets the kids. (I think doing nothing upsets the kids more.) Kids should give up their phones if they really want to help the environment.  

Let's ignore the Chinese building new northern ports and ships to travel through the arctic, the movement of major wineries (such as Brown Brothers) to Britain and Tasmania. 

The world will change, action will happen.  The changes as advised 10 years ago on this site are obvious now, in ten years it will be a far worse, in 20 years it will be a lot worse. As I stated many years ago it will be the Republicans that will "declare war on global warming".


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Yea, yea, attack the messenger.
> 
> Its all not true, its bad for her mental health, its a leftist plot, she's mentally incapable and is a tool. blah blah blah. We shouldn't talk about this stuff as it upsets the kids. (I think doing nothing upsets the kids more.) Kids should give up their phones if they really want to help the environment.



Hopefully this surge in concern and action by our children, manifests itself in more taking on scientific and engineering studies, so they can help us overcome the issues.
Currently we have falling numbers of children following these educational pursuits.


----------



## chiff (24 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Utterly cringeworthy.
> 
> Her handlers should be indicted for child abuse, because sometime soon, she is going to blow the **** up.
> 
> Never have I been more appalled by you beta cretins.



And in the meantime we have a brainwashed zealot as Prime Minister...cringeworthy indeed !


----------



## IFocus (24 September 2019)

Smurf you are using units to present a % over the scale for the units, not using the units to represent a percentage for the scale of temperature range experienced on the planet.

The percentage you present is not relative as Rederrob states.

Hope this makes sense.


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> Smurf you are using units to present a % over the scale for the units, not using the units to represent a percentage for the scale of temperature range experienced on the planet.
> 
> The percentage you present is not relative as Rederrob states.
> 
> Hope this makes sense.



Your saying he isn't using a suppressed zero method?


----------



## IFocus (24 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Your saying he isn't using a suppressed zero method?




Kinda, the range Smurf is using is not representative so the % change of that range  is also not representative.


----------



## wayneL (24 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Yea, yea, attack the messenger.
> 
> Its all not true, its bad for her mental health, its a leftist plot, she's mentally incapable and is a tool. blah blah blah. We shouldn't talk about this stuff as it upsets the kids. (I think doing nothing upsets the kids more.) Kids should give up their phones if they really want to help the environment.
> 
> ...



Excuse me?

Attacking the messenger?

Messenger of what? The transmogrification of woke nihilism into an Apocalyptic cult, using a deranged child as a body shield?

Pizz off man. You scumbags  are ruining a generation, via eco anxiety, who will get to 40 and realise we are all still just fine and have wasted the best years of their lives.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> Attacking the messenger?
> 
> ...




Didn't you call her deranged, I would call that slightly attacking the messenger.

You forgot the leftist plot bit but remembered the religious argument and the anxiety argument.

*We grew up with the bomb,* I know it scared me. The song Screaming Jets by Johnny Warman gave me the chills.
Not facing the issues and trying to hide it under the carpet is much worse.


----------



## moXJO (24 September 2019)

chiff said:


> Of course  not...but it is just showing what you can do with statistics...I see today the use of coal is increasing in China and India and Australia like exporting more all the time.





Knobby22 said:


> Yea, yea, attack the messenger.
> 
> Its all not true, its bad for her mental health, its a leftist plot, she's mentally incapable and is a tool. blah blah blah. We shouldn't talk about this stuff as it upsets the kids. (I think doing nothing upsets the kids more.) Kids should give up their phones if they really want to help the environment.
> 
> ...



I think the left is just going about it the wrong way. Well really, has always gone the wrong way about getting the right onside. Nazi,  deniers etc was used at the start. It then morphed into the left selling climate action to themselves. Greta is more of the same. Crying in the streets like a bunch of limp wrists won't achieve anything. Most here are for reducing pollution,  but the previous battles have lines drawn.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Hopefully this surge in concern and action by our children, manifests itself in more taking on scientific and engineering studies, so they can help us overcome the issues.
> Currently we have falling numbers of children following these educational pursuits.




Maybe.. Of course given how wilfully ignorant our current political leaders and some of their followers are about the  overwhelming Climate Heating issues that face us there is FA chance their hard earned education will be put in that area.

Couple of others points.

1) Great Thonberg points about where we are going with global heating come totally/directly from the IPCC.  It is the thousands of  highly educated (stem) scientists who are telling politicians and us just what a desperate situation we are facing. It is a 16 year girl watching her future go down the tube who is saying this is unacceptable and we will hold you to account when it all comes to grief.

2) Are you aware that the story you passed on about climate strikers trashing Hype Park is just another trumped up denialist lie?  Check it out. Easy to do SP.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> I think the left is just going about it the wrong way. Well really, has always gone the wrong way about getting the right onside. Nazi,  deniers etc was used at the start. It then morphed into the left selling climate action to themselves. Greta is more of the same. Crying in the streets like a bunch of limp wrists won't achieve anything. Most here are for reducing pollution,  but the previous battles have lines drawn.




Why is it always culture wars rather than issues?
Why is it wrong for the young to be upset and try to do something about it.
(Thanks for bringing in the leftist plot bit)


----------



## Logique (24 September 2019)

I think it's time for Joe to disallow climate threads on ASF.  It can't be party to this sort of thing.

I feel nothing but pity for the poor exploited child. What credibility has any religion that needs to hide behind it's children! The caravan will eventually move on, and it will be devastating for the young girl.

_"You've Stolen My Childhood" - 16-Year-Old Girl Throws Tearful Climate Tantrum At UN_
by Tyler Durden ; Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/23/2019:  https://www.zerohedge.com/political...ar-old-girl-throws-tearful-climate-tantrum-un


----------



## qldfrog (24 September 2019)

Indeed, it is criminal from her parents /carers
Changing our models year after year to adapt to a non co2 problem will ultimately force as least some government to act and try to find the real root cause
By that time it will be too late as increased temperature by itself will increase co2 levels, and anyway co2 emissions will continue to rise due to 2/3 of mankind not giving a damn


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

I agree with you Logique, the climate change thread is winding up again and will end up swallowing everything else, as it started doing before Joe asked for a reduction in general posting.
The problem is , it is so easy to get caught up in an endless loop argument like this one and all it does is stuff up the forum.
It's a shame there isn't a forum dedicated to the subject, so all those that are very passionate about it could congregate there, rather than stuff up a stock forum.IMO


----------



## qldfrog (24 September 2019)

And imagine how long it will take to reason the Believers...


----------



## basilio (24 September 2019)

Folks,  if you don't like being told by a 16 year that we are going down a really dangerous path how about reading the report  from those  who told her what is happening.

*WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2018

Statement by the United Nations Secretary-Genera*l   

The data released in this report give cause for great concern. The past four years were the warmest on record, with the global average surface temperature in 2018 approximately 1 °C above the pre-industrial baseline.

These data confirm the urgency of climate action. This was also emphasized by the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C. The IPCC found that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will require rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities, and that global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching “net zero” around 2050.

To promote greater global ambition on addressing climate change, I am convening a Climate Action Summit on 23 September. The Summit aims to mobilize the necessary political will for raising ambition as we work to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Specifically, I am calling on all leaders to come to New York in September with concrete, realistic plans to enhance their nationally determined contributions by 2020 and reach net zero emissions around mid-century. The Summit will also demonstrate transformative action in all the areas where it is needed.

*There is no longer any time for delay. I commend this report as an indispensable contribution to global efforts to avert irreversible climate disruption.

https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789
*


----------



## basilio (24 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I agree with you Logique, the climate change thread is winding up again and will end up swallowing everything else, as it started doing before Joe asked for a reduction in general posting.
> The problem is , it is so easy to get caught up in an endless loop argument like this one and all it does is stuff up the forum.
> It's a shame there isn't a forum dedicated to the subject, so all those that are very passionate about it could congregate there, rather than stuff up a stock forum.IMO




I just wonder how seemingly intelligent people can ignore and denigrate overwhelming evidence of a problem that is destroying everything we have. 

Instead they want to attack anyone who has the courage to speak up about teh problem.

By the way SP  have you checked out the truth behind the Hyde Park denialist slander  yet ?


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

basilio said:


> I just wonder how seemingly intelligent people can ignore and denigrate overwhelming evidence of a problem that is destroying everything we have.
> 
> Instead they want to attack anyone who has the courage to speak up about teh problem.
> 
> By the way SP  have you checked out the truth behind the Hyde Park denialist slander  yet ?



Yes I have, and how much are you doing to mitigate you carbon footprint?
You and everyone else has been heard for the millionth time and I for one have done as much as possible to reduce my carbon footprint, but it does become nauseous hearing it endlessly on here.
Is there any wonder it is driving Joe up the wall.
You mentioned to VC you would love to get an electric car, but can't afford one. Go and get a job at Bunnings and buy one, maybe put solar on your roof and get a battery to charge the car as well. Just to endlessly go on and on about climate change and post up news articles about it, seems absolutely pointless, if people want a sermon they will go to church.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> Smurf you are using units to present a % over the scale for the units, not using the units to represent a percentage for the scale of temperature range experienced on the planet.




The temperature of the earth is ultimately a temperature above absolute zero.

Remove all energy input and that's where it would eventually end up, at absolute zero. Granted it would take some time to get there but that would be the ultimate outcome.

Likewise the speed of a train is not relative to the speed which has varied between 180 and 300 km/h over the past 30 minutes. Rather, it's an absolute speed - if it increases from 200 to 300 then it's going 50% faster. That it doesn't go below 180 other than when stopping is irrelevant in that calculation. We don't say that increasing from 200 to 220 is doubling its speed because it's now 40 km/h above 180 rather than being 20 km/h above 180 which seems to be your argument.

Same with anything. 160 MW is twice as much power as 80 MW. That the machine can't stay online below 40 MW doesn't change that. There's no subtracting the 40 MW in the calculation and then arguing that 160 is actually 3 times as much as 80 because it's 3 times as far above the minimum.

We're dealing with absolute quantities. 400K is twice as hot as 200K. 100 km/h is 25% faster than 80 km/h. 500 MW is 5 times as much power as 100 MW. What constitutes a normally expected range isn't a factor in any of that.

The real issue though is science versus religion.

I have put forward a hypothesis and some choose to take the approach of flat denial rather than seeking to prove or disprove it via experiment or at least calculation. That's the exact same approach which said don't worry about lead, DDT, smoking, CFC's, CO2 or all manner of other things. Just trust us it's all safe......

That approach is also the one which leads many thinking people to distrust the entire issue. As with any form of scrutiny, if there's nothing to hide then there's no reason to be hiding it.

If the ATO asks to audit my taxes or the police want to inspect my house then as someone with nothing to hide I'll be happy to go along with it. If however I try to avoid it, well then any decent Police Officer will then be immediately suspicious since the act of seeking to avoid scrutiny is of itself a huge red flag that something's up. Same in any situation. Avoiding scrutiny is always a red flag.

Those with a scientific interest in the issue would of course already be aware that real climate scientists and the IPCC have themselves raised concerns about the issue of heat input, specifically that brought about by changes in albedo caused by black carbon (soot) deposition and the loss of ice cover. No doubt a Google search will bring up relevant reports.

Regardless of whether that turns out to be an issue or not, the discussion has demonstrated rather well the problem of religion versus science on this topic and why many are wary.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I agree with you Logique, the climate change thread is winding up again and will end up swallowing everything else, as it started doing before Joe asked for a reduction in general posting.



Noted and I intend to leave the issue alone for that reason.


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Noted and I intend to leave the issue alone for that reason.



I have done the same and put the thread on the ignore list.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Yes I have, and how much are you doing to mitigate you carbon footprint?
> You and everyone else has been heard for the millionth time and I for one have done as much as possible to reduce my carbon footprint, but it does become nauseous hearing it endlessly on here.
> Is there any wonder it is driving Joe up the wall.
> You mentioned to VC you would love to get an electric car, but can't afford one. Go and get a job at Bunnings and buy one, maybe put solar on your roof and get a battery to charge the car as well. Just to endlessly go on and on about climate change and post up news articles about it, seems absolutely pointless, if people want a sermon they will go to church.




Actually I do a lot both personally and in the community on this topic. But I'm not going to beat that drum  here because, frankly,  there are plenty of other people who are making the noise about their contribution to reducing global warming.

Unfortunately  everything I or you or Wayne or Smurf or anyone else does individually will make an infinitesimal difference to what is required. In an ideal world a huge number of people drastically reducing their carbon footprint would make a difference. But overall we still have to have a radical change in direction in our society/economic direction/national priorities if we are going to decarbonize our economy at the rate required to avert runaway global warming.

To get that (magical ) outcome somehow enough people have to convince the government and the rest of the community that this is not a drill.  

In my view ASF is a sort of litmus test of our community. I appreciate it is a more conservative group of people mainly with money or trying to make it whose general political bent will be Liberal/Republician/Tory.  But I'd like to think that anyone and everyone can look at overwhelming  evidence, can appreciate risk management, might be able to recognise poor arguments and downright lies and realise this global warming stuff is serious and deadly.

But it's not happening is it ?  No matter how hot it gets, how out of kilter our climate becomes, or how many measurements are made which show the path to peridition the eyes stay closed, the mind is set. 

Greta Thunberg has emerged as teenager who reads the science and understands exactly what it means.  She distills the hundreds of pages of reports into simple clarity -  radical change now or we are all dead. 

Her last speech to the UN was a bit blunter though wasn't it ? I think that is what has gotten under peoples skin. She is saying to our current leaders and senior citizens , on behalf of a few billion younger people  " This is your absolute last chance.  Recognise the problem, bite the bullet and do whatever it takes to pull our collective future out of the fire"

*Because folks if you don't we will not forget you , we will not forgive you.  You will be blamed for the disasters your denial and inaction has caused. There will be consequences for you. Count on it.
*
Strong stuff SP.  Of course if all the science is hopelessly and utterly wrong there is nothing to worry about is there.


----------



## IFocus (24 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The temperature of the earth is ultimately a temperature above absolute zero.
> 
> Remove all energy input and that's where it would eventually end up, at absolute zero. Granted it would take some time to get there but that would be the ultimate outcome.
> 
> ...




Your examples are not representative of measuring the earths temperature range if you start at 0 degrees Kelvin. 

In contrast your train speed starts at 0 km / hr.


----------



## moXJO (24 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Why is it always culture wars rather than issues?
> Why is it wrong for the young to be upset and try to do something about it.
> (Thanks for bringing in the leftist plot bit)



Its not a plot, just stupidity.
It was framed a left vs right issue long before I waded in. Its also big business with billions of dollars sloshing around. 

Its been roughly 15 years. Even though everyone agrees on the basics here,  its still pretty much a "stuck" subject.
Theres been lies, scare campaigns,  shame tactics, labeling etc. It doesn't/hasn't work(ed). Its thus far been a colossal failure.

This shouldn't be viewed as a "fringe" concern. But as you mentioned should be about the issues. But the cheap gimmicky crap thats been thrown about was only preaching to the converted.

I'm fine with the science. I'm fine with much of what rob posts. I just don't think anything much will be done. Especially with the rise of the authoritarian populist right. I haven't got a lot of faith at this point.


----------



## Klogg (24 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Folks,  if you don't like being told by a 16 year that we are going down a really dangerous path how about reading the report  from those  who told her what is happening.
> 
> *WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2018
> 
> ...



Again, this:


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2019)

You better have a go at Sr David Attenborough who was on the 730 report.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2019)

Klogg said:


> Again, this:
> View attachment 97607




Klogg do you realise that the prediction made by the UN official in 1989 is in fact being played out right now ?

Global warming was being recognised as a critical problem by the mid 80's . The understanding then was that if action wasn't taken within 10 years to reverse the trend then, * over time* (not in the year 2000) rising sea levels would affect low lying countries. Think Pacific islands, Bangladesh.

This is 2019. We have gone to point where the melt of Arctic, Antarctic and glacial ice is moving so quickly sea level rises are affecting scores of places around the world. 

https://thecityfix.com/blog/5-major-cities-threatened-climate-change-sea-level-rise-emily-cassidy/


----------



## basilio (24 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Its not a plot, just stupidity.
> It was framed a left vs right issue long before I waded in. Its also big business with billions of dollars sloshing around.
> 
> Its been roughly 15 years. Even though everyone agrees on the basics here,  its still pretty much a "stuck" subject.
> ...




Fair enough. If we accept that "everyone agrees on the basics here," that "This shouldn't be viewed as a "fringe" concern." and that your fine with the science how would you suggest one should engage people ? And out of interest what  do you  understand to be the basics and the science ?

What are you suggesting could/should/might be done ? Or is it just too late in the day to do anything practical  so as Explod suggest lets just party ?


----------



## Jason Lermount (25 September 2019)

If i might put in my two cents.
Albeit their are argument for both sides and there definitely should be discussion about how we approach climate change, i think that any argument denying climate change is not only invalid but quite a display of ignorance. Any semi-competent high school chemistry student could give evidence to the impact of climate change, albeit to only a small degree that scientists can prove. I do agree however that there is quite a lot of ignorance on the environment forefront, with the more vocal activists perhaps doing it more so from a pseudo-moralistic standing, to look good to their peers and family. But i think that, arguments regarding Greta Thunberg being used as a means by which some leftist agenda is hiding behind is not only irrelevant but entirely ignorant. Greta is being used largely as the figure head of this movement for a multitude of reasons, she represents the up and coming generations and the fact that they, or rather we, are inherently scared for our future, and with little influence over the law making and electoral systems, the one way we can do it is through protests. Its accentuating the statement that this child is more aware of her surroundings than the adults comprising the issues, her frustration is so evident that her fear for the environment takes precedent over her schooling. You should at least respect that.
I do agree however that there are lots of criticism to be received on both fronts, i enjoy debating both sides of the argument regardless of my personal standing, and even though (in case you havent already picked) i'm heavily for a more eco friendly and conscience society. I do see how some might perceive the movement as, to a degree, rather lackluster and disingenuous, as many of my debates with peers show that its more a pseudo-moralistic issue to them rather than an inherent fear. Renewable energy isn't perfect and there should be heavy consideration into increasing the efficiency of such, or possible alternatives, but i don't see how deliberations upon tiny mistakes in ones wording, or mathematics is relevant to an issue so evident that even a junior school student could understand.


----------



## qldfrog (25 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Noted and I intend to leave the issue alone for that reason.



Same here..but a shame that it has become religion vs science indeed
Pathetic and screwing lives, economy and ultimately the planet


----------



## rederob (25 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've made it extremely clear that I am referring to a percentage and that the reason is simply that a substantial portion of the public doesn't recognise 0.5 as meaning half or 50% etc. As with any subject, there's no reason to use terms which bring unnecessary confusion unless confusion is the objective.
> 
> The subject is climate not maths so there's no reason to not use widely understood terms to convey the message provided the units are stated which I have done.
> 
> ...



Smurf and I agree on more things than we disagree.
I disagree that it can be the case that a natural system in our extant world (ie billions of years after any singularity event) has a zero starting point.  So I disagree with him that we should measure changes in the planet's temperature from Kelvin's absolute zero.  An important example: We need to measure changes in cloud cover to better understand climate.  How useful would it be to start at zero?
I have also privately told him that I disagreed with his idea that "most people would find the concept that 1/8000 being equal to 0.0125% as being more than sufficient for the purpose."
While it is an accurate percentage, a good many people would think that 0.00125 was less than 0.0125%, *despite it being ten times greater*.
My point was that the fraction 0.000125 is trivial in terms of human contributions to surface warming by energy consumption alone.  Indeed, Smurf effectively echoed that sentiment above when he said, "Tell someone it's 0.000125 and that's meaningless to a large portion of the population."
We all know how statistics can be used to achieve whatever end the writer desires, so I do try to put  things into a more appropriate climate context.
Back on topic, yes Bas, this site is a microcosm.
Let's shoot the messenger -  via Greta - rather than deal with what she is saying.
This morning I listened to a person who regards himself as a climate optimist.  He reckons that the probable turn of the century outcome is 4Kelvin more than the baseline temperature.  But he thinks it's possible, with concerted action, to get that closer to 3Kelvin.
Right now it is difficult to find any climate scientist - and I am talking about those actively researching and publishing - who thinks it's possible to *stop *the warming trend this century.
We who are not the younger generation are effectively bequeathing the planet to our children without a care.  They, and their children will see economic and social disruption from climate change at a scale we cannot imagine.
I hope Joe can keep this site going for a good while longer so that these posts can be reflected upon.
And I hope also that gold prices keep rising so that I can post elsewhere at his excellent website.


----------



## rederob (25 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Same here..but a shame that it has become religion vs science indeed
> Pathetic and screwing lives, economy and ultimately the planet



Please show where you have presented any science.
I consistently link to information showing you make claims which are unsound.
Yet you keep making them.  
If there is a religion here, it exists as all religions do, without evidence.


----------



## chiff (25 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> You better have a go at Sr David Attenborough who was on the 730 report.



Right on brother...the pack was running yesterday.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Fair enough. If we accept that "everyone agrees on the basics here," that "This shouldn't be viewed as a "fringe" concern." and that your fine with the science how would you suggest one should engage people ? And out of interest what  do you  understand to be the basics and the science ?
> 
> What are you suggesting could/should/might be done ? Or is it just too late in the day to do anything practical  so as Explod suggest lets just party ?



Theres a stigma attached to the warming debate now. Personally I think the whole things a mess of an argument. With what is realistically possible with the reduction of carbon/renewables exaggerated. 
Greta will be the latest internet meme.
Its a gimmick that won't win over the people it thinks it will. 

The other thing is the money of climate change. Its big business. Oil isn't the only one distorting the message. Doomsday messages won't work. Neither will giving credibility to some of the bs scenarios or data.

If you want to reduce carbon then reduce it where it matters first ie china, india. 

Australia being realistic about the problem: could only have a real effect on carbon reduction by stopping coal exports, or developing tech. One of those ain't happening soon. 


I don't think the world will end, but I think nothing will be done for a while yet. I think its too late now as the right has risen across the world. I mentioned years ago that the lefts consistent whining would in fact bring more problems. The big one being inaction.

How would I frame it?
Simplify. We can argue over the data endlessly and there are so many variables. Pollution and mans immediate effect.  "Climate change" as a movement or label has become to divisive.


----------



## wayneL (25 September 2019)

FYI


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

Always interesting to see what Wayne will find and promote from the depths of the web.
The Twitter poster you quote is on her umpteenth account becasue Twitter somehow keeps deciding  she is serial psycho, lying,  wacko.

Did you want to show us the rest of rubbish MSQ post on Greta ?

Of course that rubbish is swallowed hook line and sinker across the world.
https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1176566569587134464


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

xxx


----------



## wayneL (25 September 2019)

But is it true?

That is the question bazzzz


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2019)

Of course it is Wayne.
Now we are going to take you to a room with lots of fluffy pillows  so you can relax.


----------



## wayneL (25 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Of course it is Wayne.
> Now we are going to take you to a room with lots of fluffy pillows  so you can relax.



How old are you again?

Follow.
The.
Money.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

*THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD GRETA THUNBERG HAS RECEIVED* $46 Million dollar by being an activist.
End of story. Full stop. Quoting a fictional piece of rubbish from a notorious lying Twatter isn't  worth the pixels we wasted watching it.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

The story behind Waynes tweet.
Just a satirical website that  makes up stuff

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/malia-obama-highest-paid-heir-in-the-world/

It does work of course on many levels
http://wafflesatnoon.com/mediamass-fake-news/


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

The facts behind the "rubbish in Hyde park" slur
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/protesters-hyde-park-rubbish/


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

For entertainment purposes only.

What clues could there be about the authenticity of this claim ?


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2019)

I had a look into it.
It appears Greta is a fembot working for Dr Evil.
We have got Austin Powers on the case.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

While we are going down the rabbit holes of Gretas fembot warriors

*Lets not forget  Australia is the greatest country in the world. .

Australia voted Best Country in the World

The Australians can be proud of their country as it has been voted Best Country in the World  last night (Tuesday September, 24) during the annual WCA ceremony. The Australian people were also voted Nicest people on the planet.

More than a hundred prizes have been awarded during the 2019 World Countries Awards, the most prestigious international award ceremony in the world. A night to remember for the people of Australia as they swept nearly all the awards available.

https://en.mediamass.net/world/au/best-country.html#

*


----------



## Logique (25 September 2019)

Just close this thread, it's a drain on ASF, a soapbox to clear fanatics


----------



## explod (25 September 2019)

Logique said:


> Just close this thread, it's a drain on ASF, a soapbox to clear fanatics



So being a clear believer in the current man made climate change I am a fanatic?


----------



## rederob (25 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Of course it is Wayne.
> Now we are going to take you to a room with lots of fluffy pillows  so you can relax.



Post first.
Check if there is evidence later - or maybe don't bother!
Remind us of any posters here?


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2019)

basilio said:


> *THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD GRETA THUNBERG HAS RECEIVED* $46 Million dollar by being an activist.
> End of story. Full stop. Quoting a fictional piece of rubbish from a notorious lying Twatter isn't  worth the pixels we wasted watching it.



Doesn't she work with a fund? 
She was a manufactured PR exercise.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Doesn't she work with a fund?
> She was a manufactured PR exercise.




Really  ?  You have anything close to proof ? Do you know how she started this process? She decided to sit outside the Swedish parliament as a sole Climate Change protester every Friday afternoon. Does that sound like manufactured exercise ?


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Really  ?  You have anything close to proof ? Do you know how she started this process? She decided to sit outside the Swedish parliament as a sole Climate Change protester every Friday afternoon. Does that sound like manufactured exercise ?



Her mother was an activist and a green pr firm attached quickly. I can tear her crafted image apart if you like. Theres nothing wrong with pr frontmen/women.


----------



## Jason Lermount (25 September 2019)

Logique said:


> Just close this thread, it's a drain on ASF, a soapbox to clear fanatics



Trying to shut down discussion wont have an impact upon the issue, this is entirely relevant and given this is a "general discussion" sub, i don't see why it should be in any capacity. Discussion needs to happen because even if one person is more educated because of this, or have their opinion changed as a result, the effort would have been well worth it.


moXJO said:


> Her mother was an activist and a green pr firm attached quickly. I can tear her crafted image apart if you like. Theres nothing wrong with pr frontmen/women.



Albeit shes from quite a wealthy family, and whether or not shes part of, or simply being manipulated by a movement doesn't matter. I'm sure for her to stand her ground against an onslaught of climate change deniers, she must be inherently quite passionate about the environment. It is difficult for just the average kid to speak in front of their peers during a presentation, just imagine the same scenario but in front of some the most powerful figures in the world. If in the case Greta is just a result of her mothers influence or whatever, she's served to inspire a vast group of the youth and population, and even in my own area, the girl who set up our local protest started receiving death threats, but didn't back down from her position. Its quite saddening to see such a great collection of wisdom and intelligence in a single site, but yet also see such a refusal to consider other sides of the argument, or just putting it down to fanaticism.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

It is very impressive for a 15/16 old girl to have the courage to take the stand that she has on  the refusal of current leaders to realistically tackle global warming.

Lets understand she is saying nothing different to all the climate scientists who have been researching, measuring, writing reports and  giving more and more urgent calls for actions.

And these calls have been ignored.  So one young person watching her future evaporate before her eyes decides to make a stand. Her stand  is recognized.  Her message distills a hundred reports to a few paragraphs. She challenges the deniers, the liars, the timid, the ostriches. Pretty impressive for an introverted Year 9/10 student.

As far as her family goes? Fact is she worked on them to bring them round.  Like almost everyone else her family just wanted a quiet life and couldn't believe a little introverted mouse of school girl could/should start solo climate strikes outside the Swedish parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2019)

Jason Lermount said:


> Its quite saddening to see such a great collection of wisdom and intelligence in a single site, but yet also see such a refusal to consider other sides of the argument, or just putting it down to fanaticism.



I think the refusal to see what is in reality a big business machine.  I'm actually surprised people here believe this is a "grassroots" effort.


----------



## rederob (25 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> I think the refusal to see what is in reality a big business machine.  I'm actually surprised people here believe this is a "grassroots" effort.



There is certainly a divide here.
It's between those who offer evidence, and those who cannot, do not, or think that if you post it here, then that's evidence enough.
So, please show us where this "big business machine" is because I reckon I might be able to make some money there.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2019)

rederob said:


> There is certainly a divide here.
> It's between those who offer evidence, and those who cannot, do not, or think that if you post it here, then that's evidence enough.
> So, please show us where this "big business machine" is because I reckon I might be able to make some money there.



Really? Surely you're not drinking the kool-aid.
WWF, Stockholm Institute and World Resources Institute are key instruments in the creation of the financialization of nature.
Then we have the absolute boon in green contracts by government. Billions of dollars are up for grabs. 


And good old Al Gore heres his site:
https://www.climaterealityproject.org

Take a spin of the green goodness.

Ingmar Rentzhog is a fan.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2019)

rederob said:


> There is certainly a divide here.
> It's between those who offer evidence, and those who cannot, do not, or think that if you post it here, then that's evidence enough.
> So, please show us where this "big business machine" is because I reckon I might be able to make some money there.



I reckon with your knowledge and my ability to exploit your knowledge. We could turn a few bucks in the green space. We might have to spruce it up by you transitioning to a woman for the "woke" factor. Guaranteed millions though.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2019)

Congratulations MoXjo &  Redrob on along and happy union.

Your first job as Masters of the Green Universe is spin the latest research to the IPCC which is essentially the long version of Greta Thonbergs 30 second quickie address to the UN.  (Reverse* Now* or we are all xxxxed )

*Oceans and ice are absorbing the brunt of climate change*
*The latest report from the IPCC highlights the dramatic toll warming has taken on the world's water.*

Climate change is here, heating the oceans and crumbling the planet’s ice sheets, a new report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lays out.


On Wednesday, the IPCC released a major report on the state of the planet's oceans and ice. The 900-page report, which compiles the findings from thousands of scientific studies, outlines the damage climate change has already done to the planet’s vast oceans and fragile ice sheets and forecasts the future for these crucial parts of the climate system.


Climate change’s impacts, the report says, are already readily visible from the top of the highest mountain to the very bottom of the ocean—and tangible for every human on the planet.


The problems aren’t theoretical, the report stresses: Science shows that they are here, now. And the oceans, polar ice caps, and high mountain glaciers have already absorbed so much extra heat from human-caused global warming that the very systems human existence depends on are already at stake.
*https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...cc-report-climate-change-affecting-ocean-ice/*


----------



## rederob (25 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> I reckon with your knowledge and my ability to exploit your knowledge. We could turn a few bucks in the green space. We might have to spruce it up by you transitioning to a woman for the "woke" factor. Guaranteed millions though.



Am still looking for your so called "big business machine."
Where are you hiding it/them? 
Not for profits are hardly big business, while "green contracts" are funded policy initiatives from those elected to make such decisions.


----------



## Logique (26 September 2019)

explod said:


> So being a clear believer in the current man made climate change I am a fanatic?



I hold you in high regard Explod, but I don't agree with you on these matters. Too many of your fellow climate travellers see a vulnerable 16 year old girl, with documented health issues, and impressionable young school kids wagging school, as just collateral damage. To me this is repellent.

The campaign tactics have become ever more extreme, stooping ever lower. I don't think ASF should be providing a platform for this.


----------



## chiff (26 September 2019)

Logique said:


> I hold you in high regard Explod, but I don't agree with you on these matters. Too many of your fellow climate travellers see a vulnerable 16 year old girl, with documented health issues, and impressionable young school kids wagging school, as just collateral damage. To me this is repellent.
> 
> The campaign tactics have become ever more extreme, stooping ever lower. I don't think ASF should be providing a platform for this.



What does anyone find wrong Greta Thunberg's message?Why attack her on a personal level.Does this discredit the message?I would have thought the opposite was the case.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Am still looking for your so called "big business machine."
> Where are you hiding it/them?
> Not for profits are hardly big business, while "green contracts" are funded policy initiatives from those elected to make such decisions.



A bit disingenuous that you can't take basic steps to investigate Al gore. Yet you can argue to a decimal place.

*Groups that track the economics estimate that, all told, more than half a trillion dollars a year is going into climate-related activities. Much of that does not cross borders, but is spent by private investors in wealthy nations on projects such as solar plants. The figures are rising, but researchers say that banks, investors and governments are not spending anywhere near enough.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02712-3*

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwit3M6q9OzkAhUbfysKHdCDDDAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/business/climate-change-funds-profit-global-warming.html&psig=AOvVaw2mfLoyRaMCptS0fY8HF1le&ust=1569533037589130

So we have green funds that fund for green infrastructure and varied programs that do a lot of good. A lot of them provide the meat.

Then we have the "institutions" that lobby, funnel and siphon cash. Mixed bag this lot generally "rentseekers".
And a lot of back scratching goes on between firms as it is a common purpose.
Al gore has his "leech" institute. He basically lead the way on profiting on the "green" label.


Lets do beyond meat as an example of how it works from Micro to macro.








*When I heard about Beyond Meat (BYND) going public it reminded me of  Pets.com back in the dotcom bubble era. My opinions are strictly personal but imagine a company with no real sales tapping into the “green” mentality that will deliver all its vegan burgers with fossil fuels!

Even Leonardo DiCaprio, the fake “Green” has invested in this company who flies around in jets.  Next thing we may hear is that Al Gore is buying shares.

It was a very slick IPO as they timed it very well with the peak of the Nasdaq. Suck as much money as they can from investors when valuations are at their extremes already is pretty normal. There is no way in telling at this time, but insane moves can bring on more insane moves until investors get tired with a company that has no earnings but plenty of losses.
*

https://elliottwave5.com/beyond-meat-sucking-in-the-green-investors/


This jumped up near $200

So who is one of the major investors

*Kleiner Perkins is the top investor in the company, with 15.9% share — making its stake at the time of IPO worth nearly $200M. The VC firm is followed by Obvious Ventures at 9.2%, and DNS Capital at 9% (both roughly worth $110M at a $25 share price).

https://www.cbinsights.com/research/beyond-meat-ipo-investor-analysis/*


So kleiner Perkins is there.

We get this story on cnn:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/17/...s-report/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

And this research institute:

*This calculation comes from the World Resources Institute, a global research nonprofit that supports better use of natural resources to sustain a growing population.

*
Yep ok.

Who the hell is WRI?
well who sits on their board is a better question.

Good old david blood
https://www.wri.org/profile/david-blood

*David Blood is co-founder and Senior Partner of Generation Investment Management. Since its founding in 2004, Generation has played an integral role in the development of sustainable investing and in demonstrating the long-term commercial and societal benefits of this approach. Previously, David spent 18 years at Goldman Sachs including serving as CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.

David received a B.A. from Hamilton College and an M.B.A. from the Harvard Graduate School of Business. He is chairman of Dialight, Social Finance UK and co-chair of The World Resources Institute and on the boards of On the Edge Conservation and SHINE. David is also a life trustee of Hamilton College.
*
SO wait he was the co founder to al gores investment fund. Lucky none of them are connected to the investors.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...ent-Management-Kleiner-Perkins-Caufield-Byers

*MENLO PARK, Calif. & LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (“KPCB”) and Generation Investment Management (“Generation”) today announced a global collaboration to find, fund and accelerate green business, technology and policy solutions with the greatest potential to help solve the current climate crisis. The partnership will provide funding and global business-building expertise to a range of businesses, both public and private, and to entrepreneurs. As a result of the collaboration, the chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management, former Vice President of the United States Al Gore, will join KPCB as a Partner. KPCB will co-locate their European operations at Generation’s offices in London. John Doerr, Partner at KPCB, will join Generation’s Advisory Board.*

Oopps they are. So they basically wrote the research invested in it and profited. This is how all business operates at a major level.
Right now the green space is still in cowboy territory. Its how the crypto space was a few years back before it popped. 
As investors you should all probably know how it works. There are opportunities at micro to macro level. Im not saying its bad Im saying this is the reality. Its a money making exercise that hopefully benefits the earth. But its still a lot about the $$.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2019)

Want me to do greta and her rise?
Guess what?!?! 
It has an al gore PR wannabe  in it who couldn't wait to profit!!!


----------



## basilio (26 September 2019)

A shorter take on the latest IPCC report
__________________________
At which point in this conversation do we discuss how serious global warming is and the overwhelming infrastructure changes that will be required to cope with its  certain consequences  let alone trying to reduce overall impact ?

It is certainly "big business".  But it will be vital. And terminating the industries that are currently adding to GG emissions will also be vital.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2019)

basilio said:


> A shorter take on the latest IPCC report
> __________________________
> At which point in this conversation do we discuss how serious global warming is and the overwhelming infrastructure changes that will be required to cope with its  certain consequences  let alone trying to reduce overall impact ?
> 
> It is certainly "big business".  But it will be vital. And terminating the industries that are currently adding to GG emissions will also be vital.





I'm not saying all green business is bad. Its the same as in any industry. There is greed that will cash in on the "green" label.
Its early days, but some good investments on the ground floor.

But people need to be sensible to the marketing. Its designed to hit on the emotional level.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2019)




----------



## qldfrog (26 September 2019)

explod said:


> So being a clear believer in the current man made climate change I am a fanatic?



Being in denial of any science contradicting a rudimentary model which can be proven wrong by any 12y old  makes you one,
 you and manyy here seem  not to have realised that half of the people you label deniers are just trying to find the cause of what they realise is a rapid change of climate, but can not clearly be explained by the current simplistic explanation
It is never good to be told that 
" it is too complex for you to understand" so believe that fairy tale
Lets use the left usual way of dealing with uncomfortable truth
Shut the debate


----------



## qldfrog (26 September 2019)

And why am i here again..


----------



## rederob (26 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> A bit disingenuous that you can't take basic steps to investigate Al gore. ally lead the way on profiting on the "green" label.



Al Gore is not a climate scientist and is never relevant to my discussions.


moXJO said:


> Groups that track the economics estimate that, all told, more than half a trillion dollars a year is going into climate-related activities.  Much of that does not cross borders, but* is spent by private investors *in wealthy nations on projects such as solar plants.



Where is the big Business you claimed?


moXJO said:


> Beyond Meat (BYND)



Please show how this affects climate matters.
Lot of wind from you, but nothing supporting your previous claims.


----------



## qldfrog (26 September 2019)

Thread ignored


----------



## rederob (26 September 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Being in denial of any science contradicting a rudimentary model which can be proven wrong by any 12y old  makes you one,



What are you talking about?


qldfrog said:


> you and manyy here seem  not to have realised that half of the people you label deniers are just trying to find the cause of what they realise is a rapid change of climate, but can not clearly be explained by the current simplistic explanation



The IPCC has clearly spelled out what the causes are.  Perhaps read their Reports.


qldfrog said:


> It is never good to be told that
> " it is too complex for you to understand"



Whereas it has never been hard to explain; it's called the "greenhouse effect" and has CO2 as a principal contributor.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Al Gore is not a climate scientist and is never relevant to my discussions.
> Where is the big Business you claimed?
> Please show how this affects climate matters.
> Lot of wind from you, but nothing supporting your previous claims.



Your post is similar to a butter sandwich. Nothing in it.
I literally joined the dots for you. 
Showing you anything is a waste of time. Once you get caught out you play "50 Questions" to cover your ignorance. 
Reducing cattle reduces emissions,  or so we are told.


----------



## rederob (26 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Your post is similar to a butter sandwich. Nothing in it.
> I literally joined the dots for you.



Really, so where is this* big business machine* you keep talking about?


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Really, so where is this* big business machine* you keep talking about?



Read above. Its pretty easy to put together. You asked how to profit.

 Or experience it for yourself after the gender op. I'm thinking "Green Woke" as a company name. I'd ask for your input- but I already demoted you to secretary


----------



## IFocus (26 September 2019)




----------



## rederob (26 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Read above. Its pretty easy to put together. You asked how to profit.
> 
> Or experience it for yourself after the gender op. I'm thinking "Green Woke" as a company name. I'd ask for your input- but I already demoted you to secretary



I asked where your so called “big business machine” was.
As usual you offer nothing credible, and like so many others posting climate science denials, think irrelevances can be valid.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2019)

rederob said:


> I asked where your so called “big business machine” was.
> As usual you offer nothing credible, and like so many others posting climate science denials, think irrelevances can be valid.



And I pointed it out. Its not a "wheres waldo" kind of deal. Pretty simple.


----------



## rederob (27 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> The other thing is the money of climate change. Its big business.



Your ideas of *evidence *to support your claim that climate change is "big business" are about as useful as wayneL's ideas.
If you believe you joined the dots, then you get a picture of a donkey.
The idea promoted in this thread that there is a "debate" over the legitimacy of climate change is a fabrication.
It's perpetuated by the many posts which, like yours on claimed "big business," offer no real evidence at all.
Smear, misinformation and diversion are not *debate*.


----------



## wayneL (27 September 2019)

Interesting to see where the actual denial is here.


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Your ideas of *evidence *to support your claim that climate change is "big business" are about as useful as wayneL's ideas.
> If you believe you joined the dots, then you get a picture of a donkey.
> The idea promoted in this thread that there is a "debate" over the legitimacy of climate change is a fabrication.
> It's perpetuated by the many posts which, like yours on claimed "big business," offer no real evidence at all.
> Smear, misinformation and diversion are not *debate*.



Oh, whats the cost for the world to transition over from fossil fuels? 
But no one takes advantage of that.

I posted up people making money right now and their links to one another.
The "green" label is the big business. 
From the green investment firms that vc a lot of this crap to those lobbying. And I gave links as an example.

Once again butter sandwich you came up with nothing. Same as you always do. Talk about climate funding denial.


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Smear, misinformation and diversion are not *debate*.



I linked to their webpages. Their made up stories and reputable information. 
You linked to.... yourself.
Yelling at clouds (of co2)


----------



## Logique (27 September 2019)

The thing is, if we wanted:

_"..Fall into line with my religion, because the world is coming to an end.."_

we can get that already up on the high street, along with a nice little printed leaflet. Sometimes they even bring it to your door.  And they don't require you to pay more for your electricity either.


----------



## IFocus (27 September 2019)

Mean while reality in Western Australia out look forecast for the rest of the year is low rain fall...........as you can see below we are already below recent average for run off note the top line is pre 1975 average.







On a happy note the Western Australian wild flowers are still courageous enough to put on a show here is a wattle tree......lovely.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2019)

IFocus said:


>





Nailed it in 3 minutes.


----------



## cogs (27 September 2019)

Neither side of the argument here:
Just wondering and curious, what if all fossil fuels were banned today, and all the man made apparent causes of climate change were ceased today, do you think climate would change, if so how would it change, what would the conditions change to?
Would climate continue to change (or not) with ongoing volcanoes erupting, Solar sun spot activity, the earths orbital change etc?


----------



## Knobby22 (27 September 2019)

cogs said:


> Neither side of the argument here:
> Just wondering and curious, what if all fossil fuels were banned today, and all the man made apparent causes of climate change were ceased today, do you think climate would change, if so how would it change, what would the conditions change to?
> Would climate continue to change (or not) with ongoing volcanoes erupting, Solar sun spot activity, the earths orbital change etc?



Even if we all stopped tomorrow the climate will get warmer despite the Sun being in a quiet phase. Unfortunately the raised levels of CO2 have a long lag time before removal.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2019)

cogs said:


> Neither side of the argument here:
> Just wondering and curious, what if all fossil fuels were banned today, and all the man made apparent causes of climate change were ceased today, do you think climate would change, if so how would it change, what would the conditions change to?
> Would climate continue to change (or not) with ongoing volcanoes erupting, Solar sun spot activity, the earths orbital change etc?




There would still be ongoing global warming as a consequence of the current GG in the atmosphere.  With luck things might settle down but another possibility is that tipping points may have already been reached in a number of areas around the environment that would create positive feedback loops to accelerate global warming.
On a sadder note "if", suddenly, all human activity was stopped and the skies became clearer without the smog and smoke we generate -- global warming would accelerate. One of the brakes on hiuman caused Global warming is the smoke we generate which dims the sun.

All the other factors that influence our climate would continue. In this day they are background issues which  have small but still significant effects over a longer period of time. They only issue that could cause an immediate change in climate would be a gigantic volcanic eruption which dimmed the sun for a couple of years ie 1815 event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer


----------



## rederob (27 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> I posted up people making money right now and their links to one another.



 A very, very, very  small number of individuals making some money from climate activism is hardly an apt description of "big business".
It's also a novel idea that you think Al Gore = big business.  You wrote, "A bit disingenuous that you can't take basic steps to investigate Al gore."  Yet Gore made most of his money selling his stake in media interests, plus selling down his options in Apple.


moXJO said:


> The "green" label is the big business.
> From the green investment firms that vc a lot of this crap to those lobbying. And I gave links as an example.



You mentioned these NGOs: "WWF, Stockholm Institute and World Resources Institute."  They are neither big nor businesses.
And I was not sure you understood that "green contracts" are quite different to the sense you used the term.


moXJO said:


> Talk about climate funding denial.



Most money accounted for under* climate change* initiatives is actually for renewable energy, and is spent in countries of origin to assist them meet Paris Agreement objectives.  Renewables is definitely now in the "big business" league.  But the gist of your claim was about *activism*, as per your posts #2490, 2492, 2495 and 2497.
If you really think climate activism is big business, stump up with data that shows it.


----------



## rederob (27 September 2019)

basilio said:


> There would still be ongoing global warming as a consequence of the current GG in the atmosphere.  With luck things might settle down but another possibility is that tipping points may have already been reached in a number of areas around the environment that would create positive feedback loops to accelerate global warming.
> On a sadder note "if", suddenly, all human activity was stopped and the skies became clearer without the smog and smoke we generate -- global warming would accelerate. One of the brakes on hiuman caused Global warming is the smoke we generate which dims the sun.
> 
> All the other factors that influence our climate would continue. In this day they are background issues which  have small but still significant effects over a longer period of time. They only issue that could cause an immediate change in climate would be a gigantic volcanic eruption which dimmed the sun for a couple of years ie 1815 event.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer



Bas, you forgot the energy accumulating in oceans which, over the past 50 years, has accounted for around 90 percent of warming. 




This energy content would continue to affect climate for decades to come even if a miracle occurred and the Paris Agreement was met in 2020.


----------



## explod (27 September 2019)

Logique said:


> I hold you in high regard Explod, but I don't agree with you on these matters. Too many of your fellow climate travellers see a vulnerable 16 year old girl, with documented health issues, and impressionable young school kids wagging school, as just collateral damage. To me this is repellent.
> 
> The campaign tactics have become ever more extreme, stooping ever lower. I don't think ASF should be providing a platform for this.




Rubbish I was handing out at polling booths at 14 years and can tell you I knew exactly what I was doing and understood politics thoroughly.  We had Malcolm Fraser in our electorate, my dad interacted with him and my mother interacted with the ALP. 

I do not believe i was as educated then as this Lass but many of the expressions of ignorance here just takes my breath away.  And anything to draw attention to climate change is essential for overall survival of our current civilization. 

Anyway just out of hospital today so I'll try to assist a bit more in a day or two. Excuse errors as my puter is in dock too atm


----------



## wayneL (27 September 2019)

explod said:


> I do not believe i was as educated then as this Lass



Don't be too hard on yourself, Plod. You didn't have the benefit of Soros et al. coaching you.


----------



## IFocus (27 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Nailed it in 3 minutes.




Always admired how he can articulate an issue.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Bas, you forgot the energy accumulating in oceans which, over the past 50 years, has accounted for around 90 percent of warming.
> View attachment 97670
> 
> This energy content would continue to affect climate for decades to come even if a miracle occurred and the Paris Agreement was met in 2020.




True..  Can't remember everything off the top of my head!  

All a bit sad isn't it. Sort of suggests the train has well and truly left the station has gone  into overdrive and  is looking for the next cliff torun over. 

Ah well we can always bask in De Nile and not worry our pretty heads about stuff that never will happen because.... it just  won't ? (Ask The Don)


----------



## IFocus (27 September 2019)

explod said:


> Rubbish I was handing out at polling booths at 14 years and can tell you I knew exactly what I was doing and understood politics thoroughly.  We had Malcolm Fraser in our electorate, my dad interacted with him and my mother interacted with the ALP.
> 
> I do not believe i was as educated then as this Lass but many of the expressions of ignorance here just takes my breath away.  And anything to draw attention to climate change is essential for overall survival of our current civilization.
> 
> Anyway just out of hospital today so I'll try to assist a bit more in a day or two. Excuse errors as my puter is in dock too atm




Wishing you a speedy recovery Explod.


----------



## IFocus (27 September 2019)




----------



## cogs (27 September 2019)

Thanks bas and knob for sensible replies.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2019)

The problem with Greta
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...king-out-about-the-tiny-swedish-climate-demon


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2019)

rederob said:


> A very, very, very  small number of individuals making some money from climate activism is hardly an apt description of "big business".
> It's also a novel idea that you think Al Gore = big business.  You wrote, "A bit disingenuous that you can't take basic steps to investigate Al gore."  Yet Gore made most of his money selling his stake in media interests, plus selling down his options in Apple.
> You mentioned these NGOs: "WWF, Stockholm Institute and World Resources Institute."  They are neither big nor businesses.
> And I was not sure you understood that "green contracts" are quite different to the sense you used the term.
> ...



Thats one small part of a very large range. Changing infrastructure, industry, will take trillions of dollars. This is big business with a lot of lobbyists attached. You are absolutely blind if you can't see the amount of money that will be involved.
I didn't mention activism was the only game in town (you did). Only how they exploit opportunities in the example I gave.


----------



## rederob (27 September 2019)

(my emphasis in red)


moXJO said:


> Her mother was an *activist *and a green pr firm attached quickly.





moXJO said:


> I think the refusal to see what is in reality a *big business machine*.





moXJO said:


> I didn't mention activism was the only game in town (you did). Only how they exploit opportunities in the example I gave.



Not only did *you* initially use the word "activist," your posted response at #2490 was in relation to this comment from basilio
"*THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD GRETA THUNBERG HAS RECEIVED* $46 Million dollar by being an *activist*."
This was the theme you worked from, and it was in the context of being a* big business machine*.
Classic denial moXJO .
ASF has other threads which deal with renewables/energy transition issues.


----------



## orr (27 September 2019)

Logique said:


> The thing  we want:
> 
> _"..Fall into line with my religion,_




Logoke good to see you back here; How's that George Pell apologising protectionist/ AGW Climate  Denialist  MirandA 'DING BAT' Devine going these day's.. Friends of mine have told me she's good dinner party conversation... can't imagine it myself..

From redmolotov.com  "If you're to stupid for science. There's always religion"... goes to prove there's a place for Miranda...

Judgement is a useful capacity...
 *Please note; The above comments are ones I ask my children to actively critique and question...


----------



## basilio (27 September 2019)

MoxJo says Climate Change is "Big Business".

He's absolutely right.  Adapting to the climate change we can't stop. Mitigating the worst effects.  Cleaning up after  a series of horrific climate caused catastrophes.  

One way or another there will be enormous call on new investments, new developments. 

Don't worry.  Business will take a millisecond to recognise the opportunities in disaster, adaptation or mitigation. 

But trying to say the reality behind global warming is all a scare and a scam is a sick lie.


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2019)

rederob said:


> (my emphasis in red)
> 
> 
> Not only did *you* initially use the word "activist," your posted response at #2490 was in relation to this comment from basilio
> ...



Greta is a money maker and the front of a large PR machine. Whats your point? 
I posted up the name of the guy who pushed her as well. Another al gore trainee. 
Do you need me to run down another breakdown of her. Or do you think you can get the gist from the first example I used. Its the same basic bloody systems.


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2019)

basilio said:


> MoxJo says Climate Change is "Big Business".
> 
> .



Its an investment opportunity. Its trillions of dollars of change. Everyone thinks its the end of capitalism- its more like the renewal .

Why on earth you guys get butthurt over business jumping on board is beyond me. I didn't doubt the science. But I don't swallow the marketing bs and neither do a lot of others. Theres just as many sharks the same as any other industry.

Theres a massive sum of money involved and plenty of VCs dropping money on good ideas.


----------



## rederob (27 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Greta is a money maker and the front of a large PR machine. Whats your point?
> I posted up the name of the guy who pushed her as well. Another al gore trainee.
> Do you need me to run down another breakdown of her. Or do you think you can get the gist from the first example I used. Its the same basic bloody systems.



No, you have a warped sense of reality and no real idea of what "big business" actually entails. All you did was reference kindergarten stuff .
You are free to believe what you want.


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2019)

rederob said:


> No, you have a warped sense of reality and no real idea of what "big business" actually entails. All you did was reference kindergarten stuff .
> You are free to believe what you want.



Sure thing butters.


----------



## IFocus (28 September 2019)

orr said:


> Logoke good to see you back here; How's that George Pell apologising protectionist/ AGW Climate  Denialist  MirandA 'DING BAT' Devine going these day's.. Friends of mine have told me she's good dinner party conversation... can't imagine it myself..
> 
> From redmolotov.com  "If you're to stupid for science. There's always religion"... goes to prove there's a place for Miranda...
> 
> ...




It used to be those that were religious denied science and that God made the earth in 7 days.....................now those that believe science are called religious


----------



## rederob (28 September 2019)

IFocus said:


> It used to be those that were religious denied science and that God made the earth in 7 days.....................now those that believe science are called religious



It's all from the denialism copybook, derived from big tobacco.
Just as moXJO has beaten up the earlier post from wayneL claiming Thunberg has made millions, and there's now a "big business machine" backing her activism.
It's such twaddle.
As I repeat often, what denialists do not do is use any actual science in support of their ideas.
Lies, diversions, and misinformation are the stock in trade of denialists and it's apparent in their many hundreds of posts in this thread alone.


----------



## noirua (28 September 2019)

*China Railways close to completion on $30bn coal freight line*
*September 23 2019*
*https://www.constructionglobal.com/...close-completion-30bn-coal-freight-line?q=ntr*

*China Railways is close to completing the world’s longest heavy freight line to haul coal from China’s northern mines to its eastern and central provinces.*

One of the main reasons for building the nearly 2,000km (1,243-mile) long railway is to ease transportation bottlenecks in the domestic supply chain. China is rich in coal - with its resource concentrated in the northern provinces of Inner Mongolia, Shanxi and Shaanxi - but the distribution is uneven.

Almost a decade in the making, the nearly $30bn Haoji Railway will start around the end of this month and eventually haul as much as 200 million tonnes from key producing regions in the north to consumers in the south, reports Bloomberg.

That’s more than Japan uses in a year and could cut China’s domestic seaborne coal trade by 10% in the long run, Fenwei Energy Information Services Co. forecasts.


----------



## basilio (28 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Its an investment opportunity. Its trillions of dollars of change. Everyone thinks its the end of capitalism- its more like the renewal .
> 
> Why on earth you guys get butthurt over business jumping on board is beyond me. I didn't doubt the science. But I don't swallow the marketing bs and neither do a lot of others. Theres just as many sharks the same as any other industry.
> 
> Theres a massive sum of money involved and plenty of VCs dropping money on good ideas.




The renewal of capitalism ?  The focus on growth at any cost ? On chasing the highest profit regardless of consequences ? The willingness to  invest in some of the most damaging products and lie through your teeth to keep making them when their failings are obvious ?

In the conversation about climate change the biggest blockers to talking action have been the fossil fuel companies.  As pure capitalists they were (and still are)  determined to extract every dollar they could from their  rich investments and on the way undermine  the reality of what their business was doing to the world.

And this industry knew from their own research the effect of CO2 emissions on global warming.

When scientists, including those in the  energy industry, understood the dangers of  excess CO2 production to our climate capitalism had its chance to re calibrate.  That was the time to recognise we had a problem and  set up the research, development and infrastructure into carbon free renewable energy over  a 30 year transition period. That could have happened from 1990 to 2020.  The same industries could have been world leaders in clean renewable energy.

By now we could be living a world with far less pollution, limited impacts of global warming and the trauma of what we are facing would be a relatively small blip.

But it hasn't happened that way has it ? Instead  the fossil fuel industry chose to set up a campaign of lies and misinformation about the science behind global warming.  Their lies were peddled to the credulous and on the way have manged to undermine the credibility of our scientific community. We now have the situation where millions of people including many on this forum *swear  *climate scientists are just  making up stories to get grants, that global warming is a scam to run one world governments, that the Arctic/Antarctic isn't melting (much) , that  huge forest fires in the Arctic Circle  are "meh", that sea levels aren't rising ect. ect.

This is our current capitalist system in full flower moXJo. 

It's a flourishing parasite that has now destroyed its host.


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2019)

rederob said:


> It's all from the denialism copybook, derived from big tobacco.
> Just as moXJO has beaten up the earlier post from wayneL claiming Thunberg has made millions, and there's now a "big business machine" backing her activism.
> It's such twaddle.
> As I repeat often, what denialists do not do is use any actual science in support of their ideas.
> Lies, diversions, and misinformation are the stock in trade of denialists and it's apparent in their many hundreds of posts in this thread alone.



More nothing.
Everything I posted is verified. You posted a lot of emotional dribble. Can't disprove it with facts so label it a "denier". True to form when you get caught out.


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2019)

basilio said:


> The renewal of capitalism ?  The focus on growth at any cost ? On chasing the highest profit regardless of consequences ? The willingness to  invest in some of the most damaging products and lie through your teeth to keep making them when their failings are obvious ?
> 
> In the conversation about climate change the biggest blockers to talking action have been the fossil fuel companies.  As pure capitalists they were (and still are)  determined to extract every dollar they could from their  rich investments and on the way undermine  the reality of what their business was doing to the world.
> 
> ...



Why on earth do you think its going to stop?  
Money will move and take advantage. I didn't fricken invent it.

 But Im not stupid enough to believe we are all going to be sitting around holding hands in greenie paradise because investment shifts.


----------



## rederob (28 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> More nothing.
> Everything I posted is verified. You posted a lot of emotional dribble. Can't disprove it with facts so label it a "denier". True to form when you get caught out.



The problem is that it was not as you claimed it to be.
A few individuals, a number of NGOs, and other tenuous references that were supposed to be part of some "*big business machine*."
All your work is based on joining dots that lead to a junk yard.
You also suggested that it was me introducing "*activism,*" whereas I showed it was clearly you.
So what fact would you like addressed now, because yours are as fanciful as the denialists always present.
(Remembering of course that you keep dodging the issue of quantifying how much of a business "activism" is.)


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2019)

rederob said:


> The problem is that it was not as you claimed it to be.
> A few individuals, a number of NGOs, and other tenuous references that were supposed to be part of some "*big business machine*."
> All your work is based on joining dots that lead to a junk yard.
> You also suggested that it was me introducing "*activism,*" whereas I showed it was clearly you.
> ...



You have shown zero...
Thats a small part of a larger objective. Lobbying both people and government is how you enact change that is favourable to what outcome you want. The easiest way is get enough people on board. And that is through activism in this case.

Now I posted up part of what happens. Only you seem to be dull enough not to get the gist but you did jump to the usual standard of "denier".  The only thing "eco-sheep"  can bring to the table. 

You are trying to argue an irrelevant point in a larger argument. Yet have zero credible sources or arguments apart from nitpicking.

Its big business that is also unified in its objectives.


----------



## rederob (28 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> You have shown zero...
> Thats a small part of a larger objective. Lobbying both people and government is how you enact change that is favourable to what outcome you want. The easiest way is get enough people on board. And that is through activism in this case.
> Now I posted up part of what happens. Only you seem to be dull enough not to get the gist but you did jump to the usual standard of "denier".  The only thing "eco-sheep"  can bring to the table.
> You are trying to argue an irrelevant point in a larger argument. Yet have zero credible sources or arguments apart from nitpicking.
> Its big business that is also unified in its objectives.



You posted this: 







moXJO said:


> I think the refusal to see what is in reality a big business machine.



And I asked you to show us this "*big business machine*" which we apparently are refusing to see - all your words.
So the onus was squarely on you to come up with something credible.  And we get Al Gore, some small NGOs, and other trifles from you as evidence.
Apparently questioning how your referenced folk can be big business is "nit picking."
Anyhow, you have again claimed in your latest post that it is big business.
So stump up some numbers to show how this activism is such big business.


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2019)

The real agenda, finally in the open


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2019)

rederob said:


> You posted this:
> And I asked you to show us this "*big business machine*" which we apparently are refusing to see - all your words.
> So the onus was squarely on you to come up with something credible.  And we get Al Gore, some small NGOs, and other trifles from you as evidence.
> Apparently questioning how your referenced folk can be big business is "nit picking."
> ...



So the post that I made with numbers involved,  from the O.G of activists for CC,  with the collusion of all activism advocate investors wasn't enough. That now I have to throw up another one for your dumb ass on how lobbying government and activism goes hand in hand. Or the trillions of dollars that are about to open up in projects in areas these same guys are VCing targeted businesses. 
Yeah sure I'll jam one up.


----------



## IFocus (28 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> But Im not stupid enough to believe we are all going to be sitting around holding hands in greenie paradise because investment shifts.




Come on Mo nothing wrong with a a big greenie man hug


----------



## rederob (28 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> So the post that I made with numbers involved,  from the O.G of activists for CC,  with the collusion of all activism advocate investors wasn't enough. That now I have to throw up another one for your dumb ass on how lobbying government and activism goes hand in hand. Or the trillions of dollars that are about to open up in projects in areas these same guys are VCing targeted businesses.
> Yeah sure I'll jam one up.



What you offered was so far removed from “big business” it was laughable.
Nothing new there.
Now try “diversion” or some other tactic.


----------



## basilio (29 September 2019)

Back to the real world.

Have many people on ASF heard of Michael Mobbs ?  Back in the 90's he turned his  Sydney terrace into a fully sustainable house. 
Own power, water , sewage system.
But he is moving. Interesting read.
Best quote ?
_And I found [my sustainable house] was put in perspective, I saw myself as quite an aberration – just alone with millions of people who have no concept of what the realities are and think that they have time ... They seem to believe that if they have superannuation, climate change won’t apply to them.”_

* Sustainability expert Michael Mobbs: I’m leaving the city to prep for the apocalypse *
Michael Mobbs outside his sustainable house in the inner-city Sydney suburb of Chippendale. Photograph: Jessica Hromas/The Guardian
The man who wrote the book on living off-grid in the city plans to retreat to a rural bolthole, saying eco-friendly progress has not kept pace with the speed of climate collapse

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...m-leaving-the-city-to-prep-for-the-apocalypse


----------



## rederob (29 September 2019)

Climate science denial is littered with mud slinging.
When push comes to shove they retreat completely or quickly shift their argument.
The catchphrase "follow the money" often used by denialists is usually linked back to Al Gore.  Yet he became wealthy for reasons other than his climate activism: a fact escaping denialists who love to use him as *their *poster boy.
If the reality I am refusing to see, according to moXJO, is a *big business machine *supporting activism, then I should be able to easily find it.  Instead I have been asking my local parliamentary representatives about what they are doing or will do regarding mitigation.  I would be very happy if there was a big business machine supporting activism that I could instead go to.
I thought moXJO could help me out, but unless I join the dots apparently I will never know.
Whenever I have "followed the money" on climate activism it has lead to the very opposite of what denialists suggest.  It's led to a myriad of well funded organisations actively denying there is a problem with CO2, or that climate is "always changing," or the scientists are mistaken.
Serious attempts at following the money mostly lead back to fossil fuel interests, but nowadays are cleverly hidden from the average journalist.
Forums in the gamut of websites around the world where opinions on climate can be aired are drip-fed with lies and distortions.  And these get built on by those who fall for their nonsense. 
WayneL's recent twitter posts in this thread are a prime example.  The article in *The Australian* (post 2556) is actually very good, and is about trying to get the UN’s sustainable development agenda for 2030 funded as it was intended.  It has nothing to do with "*a new world order" *per se  as the tweet suggests but, instead, how global financing needs to change in order to tackle climate and environmental issues at multilateral levels.
Kids marching for action on climate haven't fallen for the BS on forums like this and are not being "manipulated," contrary to so many claims from denialists.  They don't yet have the vote so are trying to get their message to decision makers in a more visible manner.
Maybe they will have better luck than the scientists whose message they are trying to have heard.


----------



## basilio (29 September 2019)

rederob said:


> The article in *The Australian* (post 2556) is actually very good, and is about trying to get the UN’s sustainable development agenda for 2030 funded as it was intended. It has nothing to do with "*a new world order" *per se as the tweet suggests but, instead, how global financing needs to change in order to tackle climate and environmental issues at multilateral levels.




Intriguing (but not surprising)  how such a story can be distorted to fit a "New world order" agenda.


----------



## chiff (29 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Climate science denial is littered with mud slinging.
> When push comes to shove they retreat completely or quickly shift their argument.
> The catchphrase "follow the money" often used by denialists is usually linked back to Al Gore.  Yet he became wealthy for reasons other than his climate activism: a fact escaping denialists who love to use him as *their *poster boy.
> If the reality I am refusing to see, according to moXJO, is a *big business machine *supporting activism, then I should be able to easily find it.  Instead I have been asking my local parliamentary representatives about what they are doing or will do regarding mitigation.  I would be very happy if there was a big business machine supporting activism that I could instead go to.
> ...



It is a version of-if you cannot win an argument ,stuff it up!


----------



## Logique (29 September 2019)

chiff said:


> It is a version of-if you cannot win an argument ,stuff it up!



Alternatively put wagging school children and a Swedish 16 year old girl up front to argue for you. Why, you'd be a perfect beast to contradict them!


----------



## basilio (29 September 2019)

Logique said:


> Alternatively put wagging school children and a Swedish 16 year old girl up front to argue for you. Why, you'd be a perfect beast to contradict them!




Try again Logique. 

You are not arguing with Greta and the people who support for work. 
*Every single thing she says* is is just the distillation of the the thousands of climate scientists, biologists, glaciologists, botanists who have been telling us for years what has been happening to our climate as a result of global warming. 

I suppose the social problem is that when a 16 year can see and articulate the issue so clearly it does challenge those who have being in denial since Moses was a lad.


----------



## moXJO (29 September 2019)

Rob is full of it.
Climate puritan's blinded by their own sanctimonious bs generally try and discredit and label you a denier without any evidence. So I will go over how the business of climate (and most other business work). And how they all tie into one another over the next few posts.

 I accept the science. But if you don't accept the science enough then guys like rob try and discredit you based on nothing. There are organizations that target anyone of note speaking out as well with similar tactics. So lets peel the lid back a bit shall we.

Lets first start with Roger Pielke Jr as the first example of how the activists side works.  He was a fairly moderate climate scientist. But his message wasn't strong enough for some in the CC community. Now if you deny or create any confusion in the science,  you will get drummed out.
Heres one of his articles pretty moderate.
He believed in reducing carbon. But not some of the data coming out on weather. His words: "*I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather.*" He was then basically silenced and branded "Big Oil".
Heres a bit about his story:https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518

He also called out Romm to debate but Romm wouldn't do it.

This happened a few years back so more data has come to light so here is an updated post from him with timeline



Couple of names we need to remember from this: Podesta, Tom Steyer, Center for American Progress.

Now lets be clear so rob doesn't go off on another tangent. I'm not interested in if Roger was right or wrong. Its the link of activism/donors/government we are looking at ultimately and how business profits. Some of their tactics also need to be exposed, along with the groups funding it.

So thats his story. 

Now we have further proof through the Podesta emails that were released over who coordinated the whole thing.
John Podesta was an advisor for the dems his brother was a lobbyist who went belly up when Hillary lost and then tied into the Ukraine scandal.  Will cover this later.

Here is one of the emails that was leaked:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19569

"The email was sent by Judd Legum, the editor of ThinkProgress, a site that’s part of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the advocacy arm of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, which was founded by Podesta in 2003.

In his email to billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, Legum described how he believed Climate Progress, the environmental arm of ThinkProgress, got Pielke to stop writing about climate change for FiveThirtyEight."

Center for American Progress also wrote more than 160 articles trashing him through the media. They wrote about 200 for George bush. Those writers ended up at vox and guardian to name a few.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/rogerpielkejr.com/2016/11/14/wikileaks-and-me/amp/

I'll cover lobbying, rentseekers, astroturfing and how activism is used in the next post. This isn't "Green" exclusive by the way. Theres lobbying on either sides.

I'm in no way saying: everyone for climate science has fake intentions. I have no doubt guys like plod, bas, kahuna have genuine motives. I am saying that business will profit immensely and will use PR exercises to do it. Just because its green doesn't mean there isn't greedy business involved.

This isn't some "conspiracy theory" all this happened there are plenty of links for further investigation. All rob has is trying to discredit off nothing.


----------



## rederob (29 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Rob is full of it.



Still no ability to show where this "big business machine" is, despite me asking and asking.
And you go the diversion path.
So let's tackle some of your points:


moXJO said:


> His words: "*I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather.*"



The frequency of hurricane type events is forecast to decline according to most climate scientists.
Frequency of extreme weather events other than hurricane/cyclone etc., has been and remains problematic because of "attribution" issues and the veracity/reliability of long term data for comparative purposes.  Nevertheless, we know for certain that a warmer atmosphere can carry more water and therefore be more likely to lead to floods when previously they did not.  We know that droughts will be more severe, even if not longer in duration.  We also know that the propensity for bush/forest fires to increase in number due to longer warm/hot seasons is most probable.  Finally, we know that atmospheric physics ensures that greater energy in a system of any sort will lead to greater intensity of a weather event.  These are points broadly accepted in climate science, but *not* reflected in Pielke's comments.
The remainder of you post was nothing to do with *activism *being a "big business machine" and more about politics.
Your point "that business will profit immensely" is trivial - that's why *businesses* are in business.  And  it's no secret that businesses can be dishonest and greedy.
I'm not really sure where you are heading.  You seem to have confused wealthy vested interests and politics with actual "activism."


----------



## moXJO (29 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Climate science denial is littered with mud slinging.
> When push comes to shove they retreat completely or quickly shift their argument.
> The catchphrase "follow the money" often used by denialists is usually linked back to Al Gore.  Yet he became wealthy for reasons other than his climate activism: a fact escaping denialists who love to use him as *their *poster boy.
> If the reality I am refusing to see, according to moXJO, is a *big business machine *supporting activism, then I should be able to easily find it.  Instead I have been asking my local parliamentary representatives about what they are doing or will do regarding mitigation.  I would be very happy if there was a big business machine supporting activism that I could instead go to.
> ...





rederob said:


> Still no ability to show where this "big business machine" is, despite me asking and asking.
> And you go the diversion path.
> So let's tackle some of your points:
> The frequency of hurricane type events is forecast to decline according to most climate scientists.
> ...



Once again you didn't read the post and just took the bits you wanted to in an attempt to discredit.



moXJO said:


> I will go over how the business of climate (and most other business work). And how they all tie into one another over the next few posts.






moXJO said:


> Now lets be clear so rob doesn't go off on another tangent. I'm not interested in if Roger was right or wrong. Its the link of activism/donors/government we are looking at ultimately and how business profits. Some of their tactics also need to be exposed, along with the groups funding






moXJO said:


> I'll cover lobbying, rentseekers, astroturfing and how activism is used in the next post. This isn't "Green" exclusive by the way. Theres lobbying on either sides.




Wealthy vested interests that fund activism through a variety of companies to get an end result. 
You want the big business and how it operates then back away with another sideline.

I'll post the lot over a series of posts.


----------



## moXJO (29 September 2019)

Activism is used to change government positions I'll post a link on a paper related to exactly this. It is then used by various pr companies to astroturf.

I know because my tribe is involved in the same thing with the nz govt.


----------



## rederob (29 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> Once again you didn't read the post and just took the bits you wanted to in an attempt to discredit.



I commented on what was worth commenting on, and your claim was false.
You said:







moXJO said:


> Now if you deny or create any confusion in the science, you will get drummed out.



This is just a rubbish claim.  If you offer up good science it gets accepted for what it is.  Pielke's claims on weather events were curious in that climate science was not saying the things he attributed to them, so your quote is a black kettle.


moXJO said:


> Wealthy vested interests that fund activism through a variety of companies to get an end result.



You claimed activism is a *big business machine*, and it clearly is nothing of the sort.  
You continue to be very confused in your posts.
How about you post on actual climate science and leave the periphery to those who like to play in the mud?


----------



## moXJO (29 September 2019)

rederob said:


> I commented on what was worth commenting on, and your claim was false.
> You said:This is just a rubbish claim.  If you offer up good science it gets accepted for what it is.  Pielke's claims on weather events were curious in that climate science was not saying the things he attributed to them, so your quote is a black kettle.
> You claimed activism is a *big business machine*, and it clearly is nothing of the sort.
> You continue to be very confused in your posts.
> How about you post on actual climate science and leave the periphery to those who like to play in the mud?



Mines backed up with history yours is backed up with dribble. He never had a problem with people debating his ideas. But thats not what happened and now you're lying about that.


----------



## moXJO (29 September 2019)

rederob said:


> You claimed activism is a *big business machine*, and it clearly is nothing of the sort.
> You continue to be very confused in your posts.
> How about you post on actual climate science and leave the periphery to those who like to play in the mud?



"Is" part of the big machine.
You asked the question. I have links from the horses mouth and now you want me to stop?

I'd rather expose you as a climate puritan dribbler....


----------



## Logique (29 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> "Is" part of the big machine.
> You asked the question. I have links from the horses mouth and now you want me to stop?
> I'd rather expose you as a climate puritan dribbler....



Indeed moXJO, the grown ups are wise to them, so next, they wheel out the poor indoctrinated children.  We're supposed to attack the children, that is the trap they hope we'll fall into.

Explod, you're better than this. You of all people, to associate with this! To exploit children in this way, you know it's not right.

Moderators and host Joe: this and any subsequent 'Climate' threads, should be disallowed on ASF. 

Any moral authority the 'climate emergency' boosters may have had, it has been lost


----------



## kahuna1 (29 September 2019)

For a million years .... the deep permafrost has been frozen.

It contains 2 trillion or so tons of CO2 trapped. For the record that's 3 times all CO2 humanity has released !! Mixed with even worse frozen Methane.

Much like fossil fuels did .... old vegetation squished into coal or Algae into oil ... this stuff IS ... or should I say frozen. None of this is in IPCC estimates of maybe 2 degrees by 2100 ... because its not meant to occur ever ... according to Saudi Arabia and USA oil and gas interests. 

This Video is how futile debating or even discussing the issue is.
75% by  extent of cover protecting the permafrost from being release IS GONE ...
90% by volume .... basically all multi year ice is now gone.

I did ask some of the more virulent and dogma types denying any climate  issue what aspects of science they did not agree with .... 20 of them. One idiot disputed every single one of them. ALL of them.

Every single one .... CO2 levels going back a million year, via ice bubbles trapped in deep Antarctic .... nope ... CO2 heats things ? Nope .... Measured via 20 ground stations and since 1979 satellites on the temperature .... denied.


I note ... this strange debate whether asbestos filled carcinogenics as to whether they are good for you if also added to cigarettes is denied .... disputed and strangely supported by some. Inhale .... PLEASE inhale after you have built such a cigarette !!


Sadly a picture speaks volumes.




I NOTE ...  the nuttiest of the climate deniers, now follows me from thread to thread on this site.

I love you !!! Little man. Inhale !!

On the Arctic Ice and Permafrost ... does it look like its going to melt soon ? Pre 2050 ? It would seem to be a starting date for the release of more CO2 than 150 years of humanity has managed to be released to start and likely occur.


----------



## Knobby22 (29 September 2019)

It's not about morals.
It's not about world government.
It's not about political correctness or whose paying for what. These are all irrelevant.

It's just reality, .........unfortunately.


----------



## moXJO (29 September 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> It's not about morals.
> It's not about world government.
> It's not about political correctness or whose paying for what. These are all irrelevant.
> 
> It's just reality, .........unfortunately.




They are not irrelevant. If governments and major players do not get on board then it will continue on. 
How long did it take just for health warnings on cigarettes? 
It took an extremely long time and millions died.

Which goes back to my original point. Climate change is being sold to those who are already on board.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 September 2019)

moXJO said:


> They are not irrelevant. If governments and major players do not get on board then it will continue on.
> How long did it take just for health warnings on cigarettes?
> It took an extremely long time and millions died.
> 
> Which goes back to my original point. Climate change is being sold to those who are already on board.



I agree. I suppose I was trying to say there are a lot of distractions, deliberate or not, and this stops progress. I suppose it's human nature.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 September 2019)

Whilst I've decided to steer clear of this thread for the reasons I've stated, I'll make one exception and say this.

I do find it frustrating the extent to which this issue has become subject to saturation coverage to the point of excluding other things which are perfectly legitimate.

Without going into detail I want the green one. That's the green one as in the red one. All I can find online diverts me to the subject of CO2 which has nothing to do with it at all. Google automatically associates "green" with "CO2" it seems.

It's like finding that someone's tuned every button on an older type car radio to the same station, finding that the drinks fridge in a shop contains nothing but 10 different brands of water or being forced to listen to the recorded announcement on a hot food van non stop all day. Making, baking, cooking all the while..... 

The issue is serious, I get that, but it's annoying to say the least and not helping the cause in the slightest when it just becomes a nuisance.


----------



## rederob (30 September 2019)

Logique said:


> Indeed moXJO, the grown ups are wise to them, so next, they wheel out the poor indoctrinated children.  We're supposed to attack the children, that is the trap they hope we'll fall into.



Actually you should address the issue they raise.
All you do is keep shooting the messenger.
If that is the best you have, then don't bother posting here.


Logique said:


> Any moral authority the 'climate emergency' boosters may have had, it has been lost



Given that Thunberg's message is consistently about the *science *of climate change, you are creating a false argument.


moXJO said:


> Which goes back to my original point. Climate change is being sold to those who are already on board.



That comment flies in the face of *WHY global *marches took place.  
*Action *on climate change mitigation is too slow and inadequate, and that's apart from the outright denial and obfuscation that continues, even from you.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Whilst I've decided to steer clear of this thread for the reasons I've stated, I'll make one exception and say this.
> 
> I do find it frustrating the extent to which this issue has become subject to saturation coverage to the point of excluding other things which are perfectly legitimate.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you saying people are being pressured to buy products because they are "green", ie don't require as much co2 to make ? I haven't seen much advertising flogging green products, but then I don't watch commercial tv that much.


----------



## Logique (30 September 2019)

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/poor-ignorant-exploited-scoldilocks/


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Given that Thunberg's message is consistently about the *science *of climate change, you are creating a false argument.



Only as a platitude Robbee. This girl would not be able to have a serious scientific debate with any credible not alarmist scientist.

When are you gonna figure out she's a globalist's marrionette?


----------



## bi-polar (30 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> she's a globalist's marrionette



Globalist reptilians manipulate kids because smoke is distracting to all type of snakes. They flee every time a bush is set on fire. You can dig a bottomless pit in your backyard and light a fire. Cover the hole with leaves and moss to have the smoke last for one or two days to achieve the desired result. The reason a hole is recommended is to avoid the fire spreading to other areas in case of a strong wind.  Reptilians and humans are identified by their responses to fires.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Only as a platitude Robbee. This girl would not be able to have a serious scientific debate with any* credible not alarmist scientist*.




Are we looking for unicorns now Wayne?
Those "credible but not alarmed"climate scientists you are spruiking would make rocking horse poo look rich.

*There is absolutely no credible climate science that isn't seriously alarmed about the current trajectory of global warming*. Zilch. Zero. 

The range of alarm might go from serious to catastrophic  but that's it.  And why do we want to waste breath beating our gums on just how far down the track of disaster we are instead of  recognising we have a very serious problem and doing our utmost to dig our way out ?


----------



## bi-polar (30 September 2019)

In stark contrast to snakes, attention is given to the image of the ostrich in Chinese historical books, in which the saying that an ostrich had the ability to eat fire and iron is recorded. The heating doesn't worry them with their head in the sand.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 September 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here.




That my attempts to buy something “green” are being frustrated by interpretation of the word “green” to mean “environmentally friendly” or something about CO2.

In actual fact I want green as in red or blue. Nothing at all to do with CO2 or any other environmental issue.

So my point is that the issue seems to have become dominant to a somewhat ridiculous extent.


----------



## bi-polar (30 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> word “green” .



Don't try buying a gay shirt.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> That my attempts to buy something “green” are being frustrated by interpretation of the word “green” to mean “environmentally friendly” or something about CO2.
> 
> In actual fact I want green as in red or blue. Nothing at all to do with CO2 or any other environmental issue.
> 
> So my point is that the issue seems to have become dominant to a somewhat ridiculous extent.




Well maybe you should specify " I want a widget in colour green please" . 

Avoids the ambiguity.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2019)

basilio said:


> Are we looking for unicorns now Wayne?
> Those "credible but not alarmed"climate scientists you are spruiking would make rocking horse poo look rich.
> 
> *There is absolutely no credible climate science that isn't seriously alarmed about the current trajectory of global warming*. Zilch. Zero.
> ...




I see, so:

Credible scientist - those bas agrees with.

Non-credible scientist - those bas doesn't agree with.

Mkay, I'll be sure to let them know of your adjudication


----------



## Logique (30 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> I see, so:
> *Credible scientist* -* those Bas agrees with*.
> Non-credible scientist - those bas doesn't agree with.
> Mkay, I'll be sure to let them know of your adjudication.



Indeed Wayne, about right. 97% of scientists agree.   A back-and-forward argument is fine by me. But imho, "Radio Climate Change" isn't how an ASF thread should be used.

As if (genuinely revered host) Joe hasn't got enough to deal with!


----------



## bi-polar (30 September 2019)

Radio Climate Mouth,  Alan Jones has defended himself and also spoke with Swedish climate scientist Dr Nils Axel-Morner who says it’s “completely nonsense” to claim sea levels are rising.
The air is cooler by about 4.8363813 degrees than 1788 and lands are shrinking and getting more sea-water on them.  Extreme cold is snapping the Greenland glaciers to at least make up some of the shrunken soil volumes.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2019)

bi-polar said:


> The air is cooler by about 4.8363813 degrees than 1788




Intriguing Bi polar... I am so fascinated at the degree of certainty given to the relative temperatures from 1788 to 2019.  By the way  are these morning temperatures or afternoon readings ? On the sunny side of the slopes or  in the shade. Just wondering...

No doubt the razor sharp  questioning skills of Alan Jones would have elicited the answers  (correct or whatever..)

Keep up the good work.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Credible scientist - those bas agrees with.
> 
> Non-credible scientist - those bas doesn't agree with.




O God No Wayne  !! I think there are far more "credible" people than me to judge how credible a scientists work is in this area.

I believe they are called peer review processes. Essentially if someone has some research they believe adds value to the scientific  endeavour they write a paper for a respected scientific journal and the paper is evaluated to see if  it meets good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledges and builds upon other work in the field, relies on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, backs up claims with evidence, etc.).  

And if its good it gets published. 

If it isn't it goes on Watts Up or Heartland or the new host of "Pay for Print don't worry about Peer Review" journals.


----------



## bi-polar (30 September 2019)

A razor sharp mouth would know instantly that it won't matter , the drop is the same in morning or afternoon.  Obviously the distance from the First Fleet's mooring point to shore has increased and reduced the total value of real estate which so troubled Governor Bligh and raised the relative capital cache of the Rum Corps.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2019)

basilio said:


> O God No Wayne  !! I think there are far more "credible" people than me to judge how credible a scientists work is in this area.
> 
> I believe they are called peer review processes. Essentially if someone has some research they believe adds value to the scientific  endeavour they write a paper for a respected scientific journal and the paper is evaluated to see if  it meets good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledges and builds upon other work in the field, relies on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, backs up claims with evidence, etc.).
> 
> ...



Peer review, while important, says nothing about the veracity of the science.

Every piece of equine exercise physiology, nutrition and biomechanics paper I read is peer reviewed.

Every.
Single.
One.

That doesn't take away the fact that 90% of it is unmitigated drivel.

Dammit, and don't get me started on hoof capsule physiology/purfusion... Nobody knows WTF is going on in there.

Peer review
Schmeer review


----------



## Logique (30 September 2019)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09...imed-successor-of-christ-by-church-of-sweden/

Wait for the Likes from Bas and Red.  I'm not sure what bi-polar likes. Does anyone?


----------



## bi-polar (30 September 2019)

come on 
anyone
anyone


----------



## rederob (30 September 2019)

Logique said:


> View attachment 97739
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Given it is not climate science, why are you bothering to post it?
As for wayneL's posts - more of the same rubbish - you could form a club.


----------



## bi-polar (30 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> 90% of it is unmitigated drivel.



You may have unwittingly stumbled across a verifiable fact. Or private opinion?


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2019)

rederob said:


> Given it is not climate science, why are you bothering to post it?
> As for wayneL's posts - more of the same rubbish - you could form a club.



Oh really.

Wanna sit down with me and go through some of the dross? I feckin dare you Robbee.

Show me how peer review does anything except dot I's and cross T's.

Have a look at some of the other soft sciences... pychology, gender theory, woman's studies anyone?

It's subjective BS and you know it.


----------



## bi-polar (30 September 2019)

Arctic orbital spacecraft and ice volume calculations are soft Lib agenda? Horse medicine is for real men?


----------



## rederob (30 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> Wanna sit down with me and go through some of the dross? I feckin dare you Robbee..



You have had dozens of opportunities here to present evidence supporting your claims.
You are a consistent failure.
Deal with the science please.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2019)

rederob said:


> You have had dozens of opportunities here to present evidence supporting your claims.
> You are a consistent failure.
> Deal with the science please.



And if you'd read back through the thread I have linked to various papers and scientists several times, but your grade A confirmation bias is so intellectually blocking for you that it is now basically a waste of time.

You will never concede even the most robust of points.


----------



## rederob (30 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> And if you'd read back through the thread I have linked to various papers and scientists several times, but your grade A confirmation bias is so intellectually blocking for you that it is now basically a waste of time.



Why not read some of the comments made regarding your linked papers.
You consistently misuse "ad hominem" and do not seem to understand what "appeal to authority" means, given you are especially good at it.
And when you are not stuffing up language, you swing into terminologies like "confirmation bias", and "left wing" to apparently disparage the posters you respond to.  As soon as posters - like you - do this, they have pretty well lost all credibility because they have deflected whatever they thought was their point.
I have yet to see your comments reflect the competence necessary to present any meaningful argument, and this is again event in the tenor of this last reply of yours.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2019)

@rederob I tender your interchanges with other good faith actors here, as evidence of your bad faith.

You are not interested in debate.


----------



## rederob (30 September 2019)

wayneL said:


> @rederob I tender your interchanges with other good faith actors here, as evidence of your bad faith.
> You are not interested in debate.



I have been keenly interested in climate science for decades, and am happy to discuss or debate it with anyone.
How about you resurrect your last link to a science paper and we have a good look at it?


----------



## wayneL (1 October 2019)

I'll play @rederob, but I'll make sure to have time for proper discussion.


----------



## wayneL (2 October 2019)

This just serendipitously popped up on my suggested videos on YouTube. I have no idea what the channel is about and I'm not really I follow will have any climate change channels on YouTube. But thought it was interesting


----------



## bi-polar (2 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> was interesting




Interesting . Her Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation,  halfway through, is halfway correct . Half the slopes match and half are opposite .  She's 50% right ( or not).


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2019)

Thread...


----------



## bi-polar (4 October 2019)

Have a look at some of the other soft sciences... pychology, gender theory, woman's studies anyone?


----------



## basilio (4 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> Thread...






In fact the headlines showed  that countries in far north latitudes Canada, Siberia, Greenland, Sweden etc are warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world.
If one looks at the NASA website it is clear that global warming is stronger at the poles.  There is plenty of evidence that the warming is having far reaching changes in these areas as well as high latitudes - Tibet for example.

https://theconversation.com/arctic-...the-far-north-means-for-the-rest-of-us-123309
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12335-tibet-is-warming-at-twice-global-average/


----------



## bi-polar (4 October 2019)

Tibet's anomalous warmth is
 1) volcanoes
2) tsunami
and 3) great Tibetan cycle of Shogyen Galen Dharamsala the Radiance.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2019)

This is the sort of psychopathology you clowns are creating...


----------



## bi-polar (4 October 2019)

Well, Natalia Mateo is under massive pressure and pc stress , don't blame her , have some compassion.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Well, Natalia Mateo is under massive pressure and pc stress , don't blame her , have some compassion.



Nothing to do with CC my friend, its from trying to find a toxicly masculine boyfriend among all the nihilistic beta cucks 

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1098253757513576448/1Gkx6lfQ.jpg


----------



## basilio (5 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> This is the sort of psychopathology you clowns are creating...





Not true Wayne.
Yes a women got up at AOC and did a good job of looking like a nutcase spruiking the problems of "Global Warming" and suggesting the Jonathan Swift solution

*However she was not a climate activist but a troll who went specifically to the forum on behalf of the Lyndon LaRouche PAC to get this sort of publicity and smear climate warming concerns.
*
It will be interesting to say if any of the thousands of people who retweeted that  hoax ever acknowledge it was a lie - or even accept it is. 

*Did an AOC Supporter Suggest ‘Eating Babies’ to Fight Climate Change?*

*The bizarre statement came up at a New York City town hall event in October 2019.*
*https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/babies-climate-change-aoc/*


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2019)

Haha great troll then... Just a matter of time though.


----------



## basilio (5 October 2019)

Can't lose can you ?  If the outrageous incident is true _"My God what a pack of dangerous crazies"_

If it's a troll smearing people concerned about climate change _" Ah well it's only a matter of time"
_
Interesting of course that there is no suggestion that the people *setting up, creating and spreading *this smear have anything to answer for.


----------



## bi-polar (5 October 2019)

Scomo the clown stood up like a nutcase and raved  "This is coal - don't be afraid!" and claimed he could eat it without any emissions which alarmed mothers with babies.


----------



## explod (6 October 2019)

A comment by a friend of mine today:-

" I find it ironic when I did my env science degree at UQ some 20 years ago, the lecturers and professors were warning exactly what is playing out. One professor was particularly concerned about food production (it was an ag college) and look at what is playing out. Farmers in Australia are taking this very seriously, they are looking at worst case scenarios so they can make decisions around the long term viability of their operations or what crops they can adapt to. And try telling my friend in Western Samoa this is all a hoax, his community is watching this unfold. It doesn’t take a genius to look at the cause and effect of continuing on this path. And as Michael says if the science is found to ever be wrong at least we won’t be pigs swilling in our own trough and our kids will have an intelligent economic system that respects the earth" and another:-

"almost every single one of mr cane's 'facts' is a distortion, if not a downright misrepresentation. each falsification is created in the same way and is a standard practice of every climate change contrarian

i prefer the word 'contrarian' to denialist. mr cane, and his like, are simply contrary—as in mary, mary—for the sake of being contradictory. they are generally people with a noticeable lack of formal education who wish to make up for that inadequacy by demonstrating that they can 'do' science or maths just like someone who has considerably more expertise 

their standard practice works as follows: 

all graphs of natural phenomena show rises and falls—ebbs, flows, increases, decreases—over an historical period. by isolating small sections of these graphs, or samples of statistics extracted from them (i.e., zooming in on those instances of fall, ebbs and decreases) you then argue that this accumulation of negatives must necessarily mean an overall negative 

zoom out to the whole graph, however, and it becomes evident that the sections of ‘falls’ on the graph are outweighed by the ‘rises’, and that the overall trend of the graph is upwards 

the other ploy of contrarians is to argue graph-by-graph (or one set of statistics at a time). in fluid or dynamic systems (such as climate) overall trends are much more important than individual instances of change. for example, while rainfall in one isolated region may appear to have increased, the evaporation rate may also have increased. on top of that, while precipitation totals might very well have increased, that rain may have arrived in short, heavy bursts and run-off may have been far greater than normal. a contrarian, will select 1 section from the overall set of statistics to support their misrepresentation

governments often use a similar sleight-of-hand, claiming that they have injected a further $Xm in one area of expenditure (health, for instance), while quietly extracting an even greater amount from the overall expenditure in that area

the best thing to do with climate change contrarians like mr cane is to ignore their preposterous claims for the simple and glaringly obvious reason that real life events are rapidly overtaking them 

i apologise for taking up much more of your time, lisa, than replying to mr cane’s ignorance warrants…"


----------



## basilio (7 October 2019)

What UK Police think about Climate heating and Extinction Rebellion.  ( Former)


----------



## basilio (7 October 2019)

Another Extinction Rebellion activist


----------



## Knobby22 (7 October 2019)

I don't have much respect for the Extinction Rebellion protesters massing in Melbourne.
1. They aren't helping their cause.
2. They set up a cafe latte place and a camp in the gardens so they can have fun.

Truthfully it's just a bonding exercise that damages their cause and hurts the people of Melbourne. Glad I will be in Auckland from tomorrow.


----------



## bi-polar (7 October 2019)

Sweden being led by Australians.










Marchers protesting nuclear bomb tests rest in a field near airport in London March 30, 1959. In early 2019, more than 90% of the world's 13,865 nuclear weapons were owned by Russia and the United States.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2019)

What propaganda


----------



## bi-polar (7 October 2019)

slowly we inch to the rest of the sentence


----------



## basilio (7 October 2019)

Did anyone ever think that setting off nuclear bombs was a good and safe idea? 
Check this out.

*Nuclear Weapons Tests and Environmental Consequences: A Global Perspective*
Remus Prăvălie




Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
*Abstract*
The beginning of the atomic age marked the outset of nuclear weapons testing, which is responsible for the radioactive contamination of a large number of sites worldwide. The paper aims to analyze nuclear weapons tests conducted in the second half of the twentieth century, highlighting the impact of radioactive pollution on the atmospheric, aquatic, and underground environments. Special attention was given to the concentration of main radioactive isotopes which were released, such as 14C, 137Cs, and 90Sr, generally stored in the atmosphere and marine environment. In addition, an attempt was made to trace the spatial delimitation of the most heavily contaminated sites worldwide, and to note the human exposure which has caused a significantly increased incidence of thyroidal cancer locally and regionally. The United States is one of the important examples of assessing the correlation between the increase in the thyroid cancer incidence rate and the continental-scale radioactive contamination with 131I, a radioactive isotope which was released in large amounts during the nuclear tests carried out in the main test site, Nevada.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165831/


----------



## basilio (7 October 2019)

*Meet the supposedly ‘sinister’ grandparents and youth standing up for climate action*

You may have heard recently that some very dangerous people are menacing our streets. You may have heard that these no-goodniks are carrying on and on about something called ecological disaster and the climate crisis. No big deal: just the future of life on this planet.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk recently described Extinction Rebellion protestors – who belong to a movement that emphasises non-violence as a bedrock philosophy – as “dangerous, reckless, irresponsible” and “sinister.” Queensland Police Minister Mark Ryan sledged these environmentalists for being a “cohort of extremists.” The federal government’s publicity department, also known as News Corp, chimed in, calling them a “feral species.”

With the climate change movement gathering momentum around the country and around the world, more and more people recognising that we are in the early stages of a sixth mass extinction and the window of time to act is running out, one thing is certain: we are going to see many more protests in coming months. And we are going to hear many more colourful words being assigned to protestors – from politicians and News Corp commentators in particular.

So, who exactly are these horrible fiends? These wild, gormless, terrifying monsters? Let’s meet a few and stare directly into the face of danger.
http://www.climatechangeprotests.ne...-sections-of-the-media-talk-about-protestors/


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> slowly we inch to the rest of the sentence



Yes my signature has become highly inaccurate. The descent to infinite madness has accelerated to the point where it must be measured via Mach numbers.

I tender your attempt at humour as exhibit 1


----------



## bi-polar (7 October 2019)

"what propaganda.."  go on Wayne , say something.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> "what propaganda.."  go on Wayne , say something.



Let's me rephrase for clarity 

That's propaganda.


----------



## bi-polar (7 October 2019)

slowly we inch.
'what propaganda that is'  , verb included , adjective, pronoun, the lot.
Now we have the question , what the *$_)@&% is Wayne talking about.
Sweden?
13,865?
airport?
Wayne come in Wayne.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> slowly we inch.
> 'what propaganda that is'  , verb included , adjective, pronoun, the lot.
> Now we have the question , what the *$_)@&% is Wayne talking about.
> Sweden?
> ...



Zzzz...zzzzzz

The vids bazz posted


----------



## bi-polar (7 October 2019)

propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature.
carry on Wayne.


----------



## rederob (7 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature.
> carry on Wayne.



We could chip and buy wayneL a decent dictionary but, on his past form posting here he's not likely to understand that he's actually not using words which mean what he thinks.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature.
> carry on Wayne.



There is nothing more that needs to be said, bruh. Ex cops pontificating on something they know f****all about, is even more asinine than the prognostications have a 16-year-old mental case body shield.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2019)

rederob said:


> We could chip and buy wayneL a decent dictionary but, on his past form posting here he's not likely to understand that he's actually not using words which mean what he thinks.



Nice try mate. I know exactly what these words mean.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2019)

FYI

propaganda
/prɒpəˈɡandə/
Learn to pronounce
_noun_

1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"


----------



## rederob (7 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> There is nothing more that needs to be said, bruh. Ex cops pontificating on something they know f****all about, is even more asinine than the prognostications have a 16-year-old mental case body shield.



You continue to make claims without merit, and without being able to substantiate them.
Oddly enough, you attack "people" on a regular basis, yet cry "ad hom" at any opportunity.
In perhaps thousands of posts you have not displayed any appreciation of climate science, but still post your twaddle.


----------



## bi-polar (7 October 2019)

"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"
dead wrong . You don't charge people for such behaviour , suspicion is enough then shooting follows.
( if possible question the perp afterwards).


----------



## basilio (8 October 2019)

Back to dealing with reality. 

*How extreme sea level events are going to increase in Australia*
Even with immediate cuts to carbon emissions( _ If they ever happen ed_.) , scientists expect sea level rise of 30cm-60cm by 2100, exposing millions of people to flooding. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...vel-events-are-going-to-increase-in-australia


----------



## bi-polar (8 October 2019)

Less drought damage , increased rice-paddy production in central Australia and lower levels of denial .  WayneL start-up gumboot company with logo "Don't panic".


----------



## Logique (9 October 2019)

Own up Joe 

bi-polar is your thread killer. Working through the General Forum, like web crawler


----------



## rederob (9 October 2019)

Logique said:


> Own up Joe
> 
> bi-polar is your thread killer. Working through the General Forum, like web crawler



He/she seems somewhat more astute than a few that, like you, offer little here.


----------



## moXJO (9 October 2019)

Bi-polar is my current fave poster. 
He is the Stanley Kubrick of trolling


----------



## IFocus (9 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Bi-polar is my current fave poster.




My fav as well breath of fresh air for a change rather than the same old crap.


----------



## Logique (9 October 2019)

rederob said:


> He/she seems somewhat more astute than a few that, like *you, offer little here.*



Happy to compare posting histories Red  Let's see if you ever stray from the General Forum.

I think diversity of opinion is fine - can you say the same?  Just admit you got it wrong, nobody will think less of you!

The world coming to an end in 15 years?  Honestly who believes that Sell me your house, here's $100 bucks..


----------



## Logique (9 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Bi-polar is my current fave poster.
> He is the Stanley Kubrick of trolling



Nonetheless a troll, I would recommend professional help for bi-p


----------



## rederob (10 October 2019)

Logique said:


> Happy to compare posting histories Red  Let's see if you ever stray from the General Forum.
> 
> I think diversity of opinion is fine - can you say the same?  Just admit you got it wrong, nobody will think less of you!
> 
> The world coming to an end in 15 years?  Honestly who believes that Sell me your house, here's $100 bucks..



You would do well to check before shooting yourself in the foot.
As to your opinion or anyone else’s I have no interest.  Good information and analysis are far better posts.
And only fools like you comment the world comes to an end soon.


----------



## bi-polar (10 October 2019)

Logique said:


> Nonetheless a troll, I would recommend professional help for bi-p



Thank you mother . It's my comfort zone.


----------



## rederob (10 October 2019)

Logique said:


> Happy to compare posting histories Red  Let's see if you ever stray from the General Forum.



A count of our respective last 100 posts shows that I make about 100% more market related comments than you.
But real comparisons should focus on quality so here's an example of your most recent one relating to *gold*: "I make it a 6 year high. It's on the move, that's for sure."
I won't include mine as others are free to read them and compare themselves.
Why not add something meaningful if you are going to post, wherever that may be?

Footnote: Had I excluded your posts on "*banter*" from my count you would have looked like a broken down racehorse heading to the knackery.


----------



## IFocus (10 October 2019)

Logique said:


> Nonetheless a troll, I would recommend professional help for bi-p




Pot, kettle etc, let he who is........

This is trolling, no?


----------



## Logique (11 October 2019)

Out come the skirmishers.

Just to refresh you memories, Australia just had the "climate election", and science won. Which seems to have escaped the araldite army. Extinction rebellion?  Democracy rebellion more like.


----------



## bi-polar (11 October 2019)

Have to agree with you there . 
*$3.8 Billion for Climate and Environment | Liberal Party of ...*

https://www.liberal.org.au › latest-news › 2019/04/02 › 38-billion-climate-...
Apr 2, 2019 - Our commitments will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ensure Australia meets its international climate targets ...
Don't agree that Araldite should be GST free.


----------



## rederob (11 October 2019)

Logique said:


> Out come the skirmishers.
> 
> Just to refresh you memories, Australia just had the "climate election", and science won. Which seems to have escaped the araldite army. Extinction rebellion?  Democracy rebellion more like.



The independents who lost their seats after gaining them previously with strong climate change action plans would disagree with you.


----------



## bi-polar (11 October 2019)

rederob,
aagh not the logic , don't mention the logic.
*Araldite 2 Part Epoxies, a Superior Strength Adhesive from ...*

www.selleys.com.au › adhesives › household-adhesive › araldite
The ultimate strength adhesives due to the superior two part epoxy technology.


----------



## Logique (11 October 2019)

IFocus said:


> Pot, kettle etc, let he who is........
> 
> This is trolling, no?



OK point taken IF


----------



## IFocus (11 October 2019)

Logique said:


> OK point taken IF




Not that I could cast any stones..........lost my halo a long time ago


----------



## bi-polar (11 October 2019)

Hi Logique
Just back from the Pschyc clinic , strait jacket only needed when seeing a politician holding a lump of coal.
Anyway, what's your opinion about increments in dipole moment vibration in CO2 as sequential from 1 bar , 273>283K quantified by negative y solubility in saline solution.? and why?
oops , can't spell psych or sceince.


----------



## wayneL (11 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Hi Logique
> Just back from the Pschyc clinic , strait jacket only needed when seeing a politician holding a lump of coal.
> Anyway, what's your opinion about increments in dipole moment vibration in CO2 as sequential from 1 bar , 273>283K quantified by negative y solubility in saline solution.? and why?
> oops , can't spell psych or sceince.



Maybe you've got >daily sex<

(Think about it lol)


----------



## bi-polar (11 October 2019)

Logique said:


> .
> 
> Just to refresh you memories,  science won. .



The logic of science is a beautiful thing like Logique who has greater scientific ability than most and can easily answer this opportunity to expose fakes and hoaxers.


----------



## Logique (11 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Hi Logique
> Just back from the Pschyc clinic , strait jacket only needed when seeing a politician holding a lump of coal.
> Anyway, what's your opinion about increments in dipole moment vibration in CO2 as sequential from 1 bar , 273>283K quantified by negative y solubility in saline solution.? and why?
> oops , can't spell psych or sceince.



Sorry Bi-p, I was out of line with my comments, and those to Red also  .  It was quite correct of IF to pull me up on it.
I do think ASF must at all times remain a tolerant place of diverse opinions


----------



## basilio (13 October 2019)

Logique said:


> Sorry Bi-p, I was out of line with my comments, and those to Red also  .  It was quite correct of IF to pull me up on it.
> I do think ASF must at all times remain a tolerant place of diverse opinions




What might be *really *special would be voicing opinions informed by evidence. 
Or is that pushing the boat a bit too far ?


----------



## basilio (13 October 2019)

The week of Extinction Rebellion activity is over. Everyone can go back to business as normal....
And what does that mean in 2019 ?
Worth checking this story out with its eye on the past as well as the future.

*One of my favourite lines in an article on the climate crisis is by American science journalist Sharon Begley: “If a rich technologically advanced nation won’t put its own house in order, then developing countries have a perfect excuse to do nothing.” *

*She also wrote in the same article: “For those who fear that the greenhouse will arrive – and no responsible scientist denies that possibility – it seems imperative to take immediate steps to mitigate it.”*


*Great lines. Written 30 years ago.*


*Begley wrote them in the same 1989 Newsweek magazine that reported on the fall of the Berlin Wall.*

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...r-30-years-of-inaction-not-climate-protesters


----------



## basilio (13 October 2019)

Why  do so many people including many on this Forum reject outright the evidence of climate scientists on the cause and effects of human caused global warming?

*Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement*
*Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement*

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, international governmental bodies, relevant research institutes and scientific societies are in unison in saying that climate change is real, that it's a problem, and that we should probably do something about it now, not later. And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples' minds that climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal.
*Related Content*

 2013 Continues 37-Year Warm Streak
No One Trusts Geoengineering—But Pretty Soon It's Not Going To Be a Choice 
The Cold Snap Wasn’t Actually That Extreme, Global Warming Has Just Made Us Wimpy

Actually, it's not “for some reason” that people are confused. There's a very obvious reason. There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a new and incredibly thorough study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.

According to Brulle's research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

basilio said:


> Why  do so many people including many on this Forum reject outright the evidence of climate scientists on the cause and effects of human caused global warming?
> 
> *Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement*
> *Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement*
> ...



Swings both ways. Which reminds me that I need to finish posting on here


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Swings both ways. Which reminds me that I need to finish posting on here



False argument.
The publication of science is about properly informing people, but denialism is the complete opposite.
The other point is that when *you *make a claim, it carries no weight unless *you *are able to support it, so what do you have?


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> False argument.
> The publication of science is about properly informing people, but denialism is the complete opposite.
> The other point is that when *you *make a claim, it carries no weight unless *you *are able to support it, so what do you have?



Pretty sure you are the empty vessel on every one of our interactions on here. Perhaps read my post again where it says: "Which reminds me that I need to finish posting on here".
Generally that means there is more to come. But I do enjoy your attempts to discredit prematurely on a two sentence post.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Pretty sure you are the empty vessel on every one of our interactions on here. Perhaps read my post again where it says: "Which reminds me that I need to finish posting on here".
> Generally that means there is more to come. But I do enjoy your attempts to discredit prematurely on a two sentence post.



That's just another of your diversions given you keep making claims you cannot support.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> That's just another of your diversions given you keep making claims you cannot support.



Yeah I'm the one that doesn't back up claims


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Now if you deny or create any confusion in the science, you will get drummed out.



Your evidence for this was?
Nowhere... as usual.
Absolutely nothing prevents good science from being published.
More evidence from you....
... like that "big business machine" you touted, which is a complete fabrication - a figment of your imagination.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/news/busting-the-dirty-myth-of-corporate-environmental-lobbying/

I'll start here to back up post #2667

This was based on data from about 10 years ago:

https://hbr.org/2016/10/research-whos-lobbying-congress-on-climate-change


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Your evidence for this was?
> Nowhere... as usual.
> Absolutely nothing prevents good science from being published.
> More evidence from you....
> ... like that "big business machine" you touted, which is a complete fabrication - a figment of your imagination.




Its big business. In fact its a great platform to lobby from and get the upper hand on the competition. I've got plenty more to post over the next couple of days.
Keep bleating that ignorance though.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Your evidence for this was?
> Nowhere... as usual.



Awww robbie open your eyes. I provided a full post. 
And you are all the evidence I need right here. But do keep trying.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/news/busting-the-dirty-myth-of-corporate-environmental-lobbying/
> 
> I'll start here to back up post #2667
> 
> ...



Lobbying is not "denialism."
There may be overlap, but you have confused concepts.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Its big business. In fact its a great platform to lobby from and get the upper hand on the competition. I've got plenty more to post over the next couple of days.
> Keep bleating that ignorance though.



Weeks and weeks ago you made the same claims, and failed to provide anything close to medium, let alone "big."


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Lobbying is not "denialism."
> There may be overlap, but you have confused concepts.



I would argue that coal and oil lobbying isn't into "denialism" either. I never made that point. Lobbying by companies is generally to gain an edge and profit. My original statement that: "it swings both ways" in reply to bas is true. Theres a similar setup on the opposite side (though not as big at this point) that is gaining traction.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> My original statement that: "it swings both ways" in reply to bas is true. Theres a similar setup on the opposite side (though not as big at this point) that is gaining traction.



Bas posted about *DENILAISM:*


basilio said:


> *Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement*
> *Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement*



The coal lobby group in Australia has been advertising heavily for years.  When have they ever mentioned their contribution to global CO2 emissions?
How about you tell us where the million$ are on "the opposite side" as apart from Greenpeace there is not a great deal else.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Bas posted about *DENILAISM:*
> The coal lobby group in Australia has been advertising heavily for years.  When have they ever mentioned their contribution to global CO2 emissions?
> How about you tell us where the million$ are on "the opposite side" as apart from Greenpeace there is not a great deal else.



Smoking lobbyists were not into "denialism" either. They already knew the facts behind it (decades after). Profiting off a situation while feeding false data is not "denialism".


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Smoking lobbyists were not into "denialism" either. They already knew the facts behind it (decades after). Profiting off a situation while feeding false data is not "denialism".



Truly delusional comment.  Try some facts.
AGW denialism is straight out of the tobacco lobbyist's playbook.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Truly delusional comment.  Try some facts.
> AGW denialism is straight out of the tobacco lobbyist's playbook.



Corporations lying is not "denialism".
You believing that no one is making money from climate change is denialism.  Business profiting from lying is not.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Corporations lying is not "denialism".
> You believing that no one is making money from climate change is denialism.  Business profiting from lying is not.



Get a decent education - your comments are beyond the pale.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Get a decent education - your comments are beyond the pale.



Propagandist last time I checked. Although I know how you lot like abusing the "denialist" label  (buzzword for CC advocates).


----------



## wayneL (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Corporations lying is not "denialism".
> You believing that no one is making money from climate change is denialism.  Business profiting from lying is not.



Exactly. 

Whilel there are still big dollars being made in fossil fuels, if one were to follow the money faithfully there's huge fortunes being made via the green agenda. Look to see who the biggest alarmists are and follow the money.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Propagandist last time I checked. Although I know how you lot like abusing the "denialist" label  (buzzword for CC advocates).



This is a summary of my earlier link:
*"At the beginning of the fifties, research was published showing a statistical link between smoking and lung cancer. At the same time the tobacco industry’s own research began to find carcinogens in smoke and began to confirm the relationship between smoking and cancer. This posed a serious problem for the industry: whether to admit to the health problems and try and find marketable solutions, or whether to basically deny everything."*
Climate science denial actually engaged some of the very same tobacco health denialists in the early days, and their theme is wholly borrowed from the lies and distortions of that disgusting industry.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> This is a summary of my earlier link:
> *"At the beginning of the fifties, research was published showing a statistical link between smoking and lung cancer. At the same time the tobacco industry’s own research began to find carcinogens in smoke and began to confirm the relationship between smoking and cancer. This posed a serious problem for the industry: whether to admit to the health problems and try and find marketable solutions, or whether to basically deny everything."*
> Climate science denial actually engaged some of the very same tobacco health denialists in the early days, and their theme is wholly borrowed from the lies and distortions of that disgusting industry.



Its propaganda  not denyaganda. "Denialist" insinuates that they refuse to believe the facts. That isn't whats going on. They know the facts and are spreading misinformation. I know denialist, denier, denialism has been picked up as the "label" but its not a solid fit.

Those that believe those lies would be labeled under "denialists" in my book.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> Exactly.
> Whilel there are still big dollars being made in fossil fuels, if one were to follow the money faithfully there's huge fortunes being made via the green agenda. Look to see who the biggest alarmists are and follow the money.



How exactly, wayneL?
The tobacco industry publicly *denied *and continues to *deny *that it is clear that smoking causes lung cancer - that is, because not everyone dies of cancer, it clearly is not a "cause."
Until recently the industry has *denied *its product is addictive.
Tobacco companies *deny *that they target the young.
These are bald faced *LIES.*
Your point about the green agenda is true in that renewables is a huge and expanding industry.  Beyond that it's your usual dross.
Oh, tell us about these extremely wealthy alarmists seeing you appear to be following the money.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> "Denialist" insinuates that they refuse to believe the facts. That isn't whats going on.



OMG, you live in an alternative universe.  Try the likes of Bolt, Jones and a few crazies in the Coalition, and the One Nation twit called Malcolm Roberts who continue to be on the public record claiming the facts are lies.  Every day there are media articles I could link to which show some new fool re-creating climate facts because they believe climate change is a massive scam.


moXJO said:


> Those that believe those lies would be labeled under "denialists" in my book.



No, again you confuse concepts.  "*Gullible*" better applies to that group.
Denial is plain and simple *NOT BELIEVING THE SCIENCE*.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> .
> No, again you confuse concepts.  "*Gullible*" better applies to that group.
> Denial is plain and simple *NOT BELIEVING THE SCIENCE*.



You literally mixed these two things up when they are same group.

Corporations know the truth and spread misinformation to profit. They may believe the science but put out lies so business doesn't suffer. Thats a propagandist. Denier is a new buzzword label.

All the above that you mentioned can be classed as deniers.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> You literally mixed these two things up when they are same group.



If you believe lies you are stupid!
The distinction is that stupid people don't need to deny anything, just believe stupid stuff!  For example, they will say "climate always changes" and CO2 is good for plants!  They don't need to think about the science, because everything is just "weather" and you can't predict that.
On the other hand, denialists, when confronted with the science, claim it is false, fraudulent, manipulated or doesn't prove anything.


moXJO said:


> All the above that you mentioned can be classed as deniers.



Nope - except that it seems to work for you.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> If you believe lies you are stupid!
> The distinction is that stupid people don't need to deny anything, just believe stupid stuff!  For example, they will say "climate always changes" and CO2 is good for plants!  They don't need to think about the science, because everything is just "weather" and you can't predict that.
> On the other hand, denialists, when confronted with the science, claim it is false, fraudulent, manipulated or doesn't prove anything.
> Nope - except that it seems to work for you.



They deny the overwhelming science based on a few notes of propaganda from polluters.
 "Co2 is good for plants" isn't a lie now is it. We could triple  C02 and plants would love it. 
Its used as misinformation.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Nope - except that it seems to work for you.



You know "denier" was originally "those who rejected  religion"
Pretty apt reboot of the word I suppose....


----------



## basilio (14 October 2019)

Does lead in paint or in petrol actually cause any problems or  do just a few unlucky people get a bit sick ?

Isn't asbestos a great product ? Cheap. excellent as a protector against heat. Shame a few unlucky people fall ill. But thems the breaks folks.

Aren't the pokies a great way to pass a harmless evening of fun and merriment ? Of course  you have to be careful not to over do it but you are all big people and you don't need a nanny state to tell you how to live do you ?

You have pain ?  Poor guy.  Here , we have some of the best , legal painkillers around. And we can make sure you get all you ever want and don't worry nothing ill go wrong because  we wouldn;t promote something that was going to addict you would we?

_______________________________________
MoXJo is perfectly correct. In the world of Big Business Profit is No 1 (and 2 and 3 ) Issues of public morality, product safety,  consequences  of misuse  need to be weighed against ....  How much profit will we make? /can we get away with it? / who do we have to convince that there is no real problem?/ what will it take to make this disappear ?

The above examples can be multiplied 10 times over. The consequences in individual human suffering have been huge - but that is where the problem largely stops .

The use of the same mindset and tactics by the fossil fuel industry to undermine the facts about the effect of excessive CO2 emission on our climate has had consequences far beyond the sickness and premature deaths of millions of people.

The fact  is that the industry was well aware of the science since the mid sixties. Nonetheless it  has steadfastly used every trick it could to obscure, cast doubt, deny, ridicule and misrepresent the issue. The consequences will be catastrophic for our world.


----------



## Logique (15 October 2019)

basilio said:


> What might be *really *special would be voicing opinions informed by evidence.
> Or is that pushing the boat a bit too far ?



Joe, this post tells you why *Global Warming threads* need to be *banned on General Chat*. It seems that 135 pages of evidence isn't enough for Bas ..!

What most disappoints me, is that _Explod_, a poster I respect, would put a 'Like' on the source post.

Big shout out to _moXJO_ and _Wayne_, who are fighting the battle for normal people on this thread.


----------



## Logique (15 October 2019)

basilio said:


> What might be *really *special would be voicing opinions informed by evidence.
> Or is that pushing the boat a bit too far ?



Explod, you add a 'Like'? You're better than this!
Bas, imho, is a ruthless propagandist, driven by ideology.  Is that what you want to buy into?


----------



## Knobby22 (15 October 2019)

Arctic extra slow in freezing up this year despite autumn well under way in the Northern hemisphere.
You can see on the orange line where the freezing used be up to at this time of year.
It appears the water is too warm despite no sunlight.
Traders still able to send their ships around!


----------



## SirRumpole (15 October 2019)

I refer people to the poll on this site

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/global-warming-how-valid-and-serious.9058/

Where over 50% say GW is serious and a matter of urgency, and another 30% say that we should take some action to reduce greenhouse gases.

That means that those who say GW is not a problem represent only 20% of the members of this site who aren't generally known for their Left leaning views.


----------



## wayneL (15 October 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I refer people to the poll on this site
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/global-warming-how-valid-and-serious.9058/
> 
> ...



Empirical data has nothing to do with the opinions of people on a stock forum. That is merely a reflection of the marxist control of the narrative.

As ever, I refer people to my well-documented moderate views on this.


----------



## IFocus (15 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> Empirical data has nothing to do with the opinions of people on a stock forum. That is merely a reflection of the *marxist control *of the narrative.
> 
> As ever, I refer people to my well-documented *moderate views* on this.




Bit of conflict going on there............carry on gents


----------



## rederob (15 October 2019)

IFocus said:


> Bit of conflict going on there............carry on gents



Yep, it's the Marxists again.
Apparently they use empirical data .
Can you imagine that!
Then they go and put it into these massive Reports, and Interim Reports.  These are the most "moderated" reports in science.
Unfortunately it looks like their conservatism is being overrun by events.
Which goes to show that empirical data has nothing to do with the *moderate *views of people on a stock forum.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Corporations know the truth and spread misinformation to profit. They may believe the science but put out lies so business doesn't suffer.




I will simply say that those making the most of it for their own gain are those playing both sides. Same with a lot of issues where the aim is conflict regardless of who "wins".

One example on another topic would be the endless "gender wars" perpetuated by a certain mainstream news organisation. Either everyone who works there is incapable of forming personal relationships or it's a deliberate ploy to keep the focus on manufactured nonsense. My bet's firmly on the latter.

Much the same with climate. There's certainly a few stirring up both sides whilst they make big $ with half way solutions in the middle. So long as there's a perceived problem but no emergency then it suits them just nicely since a half way solution is just what they have to offer.


----------



## rederob (16 October 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Much the same with climate. There's certainly a few stirring up both sides whilst they make big $ with half way solutions in the middle. So long as there's a perceived problem but no emergency then it suits them just nicely since a half way solution is just what they have to offer.



Huh?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Huh?




Referring to what's really going on with some of the "debate" about all this, suffice to say that compared to coal the use of oil or gas can achieve emissions reductions in the 17% - 80% range depending on circumstances.

That's a "half way" approach and is the one which ends up happening by default if nothing else gets done. So it's all rather easy if the aim is oil (mostly diesel) or gas - just oppose everything else.

In the Australian domestic energy context coal's stuffed I think everyone knows that. Anyone campaigning for or against it at this point is really just playing politics - trying to claim credit for closures that are a given to happen anyway or trying to claim they tried their best to keep it going. Outcome is the same either way in the absence of someone actually building something new.

Where the debate lies is with the idea of total reliance on renewables versus part renewables and part fossil in the form of mostly gas and a bit of diesel.

The Victorian state government is a classic case in point. They've got a policy aiming for 50% renewable electricity. They also have policies of making sure pretty much everyone has access to gas and uses it. So they'll have 50% renewable electricity but nowhere even remotely close to 50% renewable energy overall.

So Victoria are aiming to phase out coal but they sure aren't phasing out gas, hence the two LNG import terminals proposed for the state.

Now I don't have anything against the gas industry as such but I do think there's a lot of misleading stuff going on with all this. Looking across the political spectrum there are those who are pro-coal and those who are anti-coal but there's less attention to our rising oil consumption and that we're rolling out new gas infrastructure with a lifespan measured in decades or longer. We might be getting out of coal but we're still ramping up oil and we're doubling down on gas - the "half way" solution. 

That's not surprising and the same would happen basically anywhere. If there's no agreement to build coal, nuclear or renewables then oil and/or gas ends up being used by default as a relatively quick, easy and low risk option albeit not necessarily a cheap or ideal one.


----------



## wayneL (16 October 2019)

IFocus said:


> Bit of conflict going on there............carry on gents



Yes badly worded. Duh.

But if you guys can't see the man behind the curtain... actually you guys are WITH the man behind the curtain.

...and I gotta give the corporatists equal credit there.


----------



## rederob (16 October 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Referring to what's really going on with some of the "debate" about all this, suffice to say that compared to coal the use of oil or gas can achieve emissions reductions in the 17% - 80% range depending on circumstances.
> 
> That's a "half way" approach and is the one which ends up happening by default if nothing else gets done. So it's all rather easy if the aim is oil (mostly diesel) or gas - just oppose everything else.
> 
> ...



I remain confused.
You said:







Smurf1976 said:


> Same with a lot of issues where the aim is conflict regardless of who "wins".



I get the info about power generation but that seems more about policy failure in a setting of platitudes rather than action.
Moreover, power industry players are currently "gaming the system" until they are offered the investment certainty needed to fix what is a cascading mess.
"Climate" is impacted by the industry but I can't see they are fostering "conflict" except with an inept federal Energy Minister.


----------



## Logique (18 October 2019)

Only too obvious to casual thread readers, I find the the Climate threads the most exasperating!

These threads, as much as anything, could see me go the way of former posters such as _Calliope_, _Todster_ and especially the outrageous _Nunthewiser _(Joe, I'm sure remembers! The _Nun_ was out there..)

I actually quite liked these posters, as I do _Bas_ and _Red_. They are outspoken, and rebels. I don't agree with them on climate change, but so what, they add colour and life!


----------



## IFocus (19 October 2019)

Logique said:


> Only too obvious to casual thread readers, I find the the Climate threads the most exasperating!
> 
> These threads, as much as anything, could see me go the way of former posters such as _Calliope_, _Todster_ and especially the outrageous _Nunthewiser _(Joe, I'm sure remembers! The _Nun_ was out there..)
> 
> I actually quite liked these posters, as I do _Bas_ and _Red_. They are outspoken, and rebels. I don't agree with them on climate change, but so what, they add colour and life!




Hmmm Red and Bas are mainstream, they argue the main consensus, the rest are rebels IMHO.

Both have had the kitchen sink thrown at them and yet both stay with quoting evidence from the mainstream and by and large refrain from the personal attacks.

As some one who has had my fair share of nasty personal remarks thrown my way over the years  (which I am OK with lets me know I am right ) qualify's me to make a totally un-bias opinion. 

Totally agree regards the posters you named


----------



## moXJO (19 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Huh?



You need my help so you understand that rob?


----------



## basilio (20 October 2019)

Always interesting to recognizes the history of research on climate science an then the denialism from vested interests that can only see their profits fall and not the existential damage they are causing to our future.

* Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures*
By Dana Nuccitelli, September 19, 2019






	

		
			
		

		
	
Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Hanna Franzen/EPA

_This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 300 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story._

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has ignited the climate movement, most recently taking a zero-carbon ocean voyage to America to attend the September 23rd UN climate summit in New York City. She’s become so effective and inspiring that those who want to maintain the status quo—predominantly wealthy and powerful old white men—have begun to attack her. Greta has been called “the international mascot for climate alarmism … mentally unstable,” “a millenarian cult leader,” a “deeply disturbed messiah of the global warming movement,” a “teenage puppet,” a “petulant child,” and much more.

*Greta articulated her views in a TEDx talk in which she accurately described the state of climate science and the fact that if we are to meet the Paris climate targets, developed countries in particular must rapidly reduce their carbon pollution. As Greta notes, the world has thus far failed to act, in part because most people don’t realize that rapid change is required.

But climate scientists have been warning about a potential climate crisis for decades, while the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers failed to act on those warnings. As a result, they frittered away the opportunity to transition away from fossil fuels with relative ease. Because of those decades of inaction, we now face a daunting task.*

While some older Americans may “have no patience for teenagers who lecture adults,” Greta’s generation has every right to criticize them for endangering humanity’s future prosperity. Let’s examine the history of climate change warnings and missed opportunities.
https://thebulletin.org/2019/09/greta-thunberg-is-a-painful-reminder-of-decades-of-climate-failures/


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2019)

Nuttercelli has never been the best at sophistry has he? What a dog turd of an article.


----------



## basilio (20 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> Nuttercelli has never been the best at sophistry has he? What a dog turd of an article.



What a dog turd of a response.

_*We wasted decades; now time is running out. *Crucially, the longer we wait to substantially curb carbon pollution, the more difficult and expensive it will be to avoid a climate crisis. This is elegantly illustrated in a chartsometimes referred to as the “ski slopes.” Had global emissions peaked in the 1990s, we could have met the Paris targets by slowly and gradually reducing carbon pollution in the ensuing decades—a “bunny slope” path. Had they peaked in the early 2000s, we could have met the Paris goals with more moderate emissions cuts—the “intermediate slope.” But emissions have not yet peaked as we approach the year 2020, and we’re nearing the “double black diamond” slope requiring extremely rapid pollution cuts if we’re to avoid dangerous warming beyond the Paris targets.

In short, despite decades’ worth of warnings from climate scientists, the elder generations squandered away the opportunity for a relatively easy transition away from fossil fuels toward a stable climate future. Much of the blame lies with the fossil fuel industry and its costly climate disinformation campaign, but there is plenty of blame to go around._


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2019)




----------



## Logique (21 October 2019)

IFocus said:


> Hmmm Red and Bas are mainstream, they argue the main consensus, the rest are rebels IMHO.
> 
> Both have had the kitchen sink thrown at them and yet both stay with quoting evidence from the mainstream and by and large refrain from the personal attacks.
> 
> ...



Cheers IF


----------



## orr (22 October 2019)

basilio said:


> What a dog turd of a response.




Don't take it to heart Bas. 
Keep in mind the people you're arguing with are in lock step with 'intellects of the like of Craig Kelly, Malcolm Roberts, James Dellingpole, Miranda Devine, Pauline Hanson, Ray Hadley. Take a moment and Just imagine that these people were in charge of maintenance of an aircraft you were about to board(saves the concerns as what to do at a supposed destination though). All have a proven record to be impervious to reason and logic are incapable of formal thinking applied to the consequence of cause and effect. And all in the pockets of vested interest.
Oh and Via the 'Green Left World Government Social Alliance Trotskyite Spartacus anti Capitalist' Chapter of the Deeper Deep state  Universal conspiracy...


----------



## wayneL (22 October 2019)

@orr whatever their IQs are, I would stake money that the average would be at least 3 sigmas higher than yours.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2019)

There comes a point in life where if someone hasn't done something then the truth is they at best don't view it as a priority and at worst are actively avoiding it.

If someone is, say, 50 years old and living in Australia and has never been to Sydney then unless there's some abnormal circumstance, eg being in prison or having some serious permanent medical condition, then the truth is they're not really that keen on visiting Sydney. They'd have been there by now if they were.

With not too many exceptions if there's any band that you haven't seen live then it's not through lack of opportunity. It would be easier to list the bands which haven't toured over the past decade than those which have, between stand alone shows and festivals there's been an incredible range and volume of live performances. If you didn't see whoever then it wasn't due to lack of opportunity given the abundance of current and retro performers who have toured in recent years.

Same with anything. Ask anyone who quit smoking, learned a foreign language or went to uni as a mature age student. The task itself wasn't impossible, *the key was having decided that they really did want to achieve it*.

Looking at the climate issue, it's been in the mainstream consciousness since about 1987 and in that time we've collectively made all manner of excuses as to why something else was more important.

Listed in no particular order, the following all have something in common: personal comfort, nuclear issues, development of the Third World, not damming rivers, tourism, scenery preservation of agricultural land, fashion, urban aesthetics, economic ideology of competitive free markets, reducing urban smog, being on time.

What those things have in common is that society has in practice deemed every one of them and many more to be more important than reducing CO2 emissions. Of themselves they may well be important causes, and I agree many of them are, but they have collectively acted to ensure that CO2 never makes it to the top of the priority list.

Do anything big to cut emissions and someone deems it too big and refers to one of the above as to why. Do anything minor to cut emissions and it's dismissed as too little to matter and merely "greenwashing" which of course it is. Can't win.

If this is going to be fixed then hard decisions and sacrifices have to be made and stop the nonsense and that goes for all sides politically.

Liberals - stop opposing things which save money that's just silly. You guys support free markets and all that, right? Do so then, stop meddling and get out of the way.

Labor - stop opposing things which create more employment than they lose. See the bigger picture and work out a way to effect the transition. Nobody's saying the workers can't be in a union or whatever if that's what you want, there's no need to be bogged down with detail like that.

Greens - stop coming up with excuses about impacts which can be reversed. See the bigger picture and realise that "big" is exactly what we need to be focusing on and that small scale stuff might look nice but it's not going to fix the problem. Also realise that capitalism's going to be funding it so embrace it.

Local government - see the bigger picture beyond your own municipality. However ugly you think some panels on a roof or a transmission line or whatever might be, they're damn beautiful compared to a hole in the ground and a smokestack wherever that happens to be. Move with the times and embrace the future - "prestige" areas included drag them along too.

Public - stop applying different standards. Nobody ever did an ROI calculation and pondered whether or not leather seats or a bigger TV was "viable" and nobody complains that land was cleared to build and expand the cities or build roads so quit that line of thinking when it comes to things which reduce emissions. It's an excuse and nothing else. Consistency please.

Business - bring an end to the problem of split incentives which are ultimately a consequence of doing the accounting with bits missing. Approach that the same way as everything else and much will be achieved. Also for those actually spending money to pollute, well that's just silly.

Until that happens though, the only rational conclusion is that as a society we're like the 80 year old who didn't do whatever during their lifetime. Truth is they didn't want to - if they really had wanted to go to Paris or learn to play piano then they'd have found some way to make it happen rather than keep making excuses.


----------



## basilio (22 October 2019)

Post of the year Smurf..
That overview of why "we" havn't done anything about reducing emissions has  a lot of resonation.
I wouldn't totally agree with it but there is enough there (in my view) to encourage a more collective response to what is a collective issue. Well worth pinching!!


----------



## rederob (22 October 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> There comes a point in life where if someone hasn't done something then the truth is they at best don't view it as a priority and at worst are actively avoiding it.



There was a short period where Labor and the Coalition agreed on an approach to mitigate CO2 emissions, but Coalition ideology gave that short shrift.
Later on Gillard introduced a *carbon pricing* scheme which came into effect on 1 July 2012, and that too was put to the knife once Abbott came into power.
So it has not been for want of trying, or acting, but on pure ideology that we have been so backward in tackling carbon emissions.
So the truth is we elected people who did care, and did act, but later on preferred to believe the economy was more important than the environment.  That message range loud at the last election, so we get what we deserve.


----------



## rederob (22 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> @orr whatever their IQs are, I would stake money that the average would be at least 3 sigmas higher than yours.



I owe @cynic an apology as there is someone who actually makes more useless comments at ASF.


----------



## IFocus (23 October 2019)

orr said:


> Don't take it to heart Bas.
> Keep in mind the people you're arguing with are in lock step with 'intellects of the like of Craig Kelly, Malcolm Roberts, James Dellingpole, Miranda Devine, Pauline Hanson, Ray Hadley. Take a moment and Just imagine that these people were in charge of maintenance of an aircraft you were about to board(saves the concerns as what to do at a supposed destination though). All have a proven record to be impervious to reason and logic are incapable of formal thinking applied to the consequence of cause and effect. And all in the pockets of vested interest.
> Oh and Via the 'Green Left World Government Social Alliance Trotskyite Spartacus anti Capitalist' Chapter of the Deeper Deep state  Universal conspiracy...




Love your logical thinking Orr


----------



## moXJO (23 October 2019)

Is Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer considered "tainted" in climate change circles?


----------



## basilio (23 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> Is Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer considered "tainted" in climate change circles?



Absolutely not.

But the climate deniers who  construct stories from "quotes" by climate policy writers which when examined  show how duplicitous teh deniers are (no surprise here) stink to high heaven.

*How Climate Science Deniers Manufacture Quotes to Convince You the United Nations Is One Big Socialist Plot *
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/...nce-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot


----------



## moXJO (23 October 2019)

basilio said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> But the climate deniers who  construct stories from "quotes" by climate policy writers which when examined  show how duplicitous teh deniers are (no surprise here) stink to high heaven.
> 
> ...



What was his quote "deniers" use?

The whole "denier" label was a construct to smear those who questioned anything about the science or made the wrong noise. Originally stolen from "holocaust denier". You were originally a nazi from memory but that didn't market as well.
Look up dictionary terms and its pretty much guaranteed to have CC mentioned.


----------



## moXJO (23 October 2019)

basilio said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> But the climate deniers who  construct stories from "quotes" by climate policy writers which when examined  show how duplicitous teh deniers are (no surprise here) stink to high heaven.
> 
> ...



Carbon trading is redistribution of money. Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer has stated recently that low incomes should be subsidized. I thought the whole premise of Carbon trading was to enable developing countries to get greener faster? 

Its a true statement but its misinterpreted.


----------



## rederob (23 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> The whole "denier" label was a construct to smear those who questioned anything about the science or made the wrong noise. Originally stolen from "holocaust denier". You were originally a nazi from memory but that didn't market as well.
> Look up dictionary terms and its pretty much guaranteed to have CC mentioned.



"This was a take from the *denial *that tobacco caused cancer and had nothing to do do with what you claimed, especially because a good number of the "denialists" from the tobacco camp moved into denying that CO2 could be responsible for warming the planet.

*A. McCormick, (BAT 1962), Smoking and Health: Policy on Research, Minutes of Southampton Meeting, : “When the health question was first raised we had to start by **denying **it at the PR level. But by continuing that policy we had got ourselves into a corner and left no room to manoeuvre. In other words if we did get a breakthrough and were able to improve our product we should have to about-face, and this was practically impossible at the PR level.”*​
*Helmut Wakeham, (Philip Morris, 1970), Head of Research and Development of Philip Morris, writes: “Let's face it. We are interested in evidence which we believe denies the allegations that cigarette smoking causes disease.” 32 *​


----------



## moXJO (23 October 2019)

rederob said:


> "This was a take from the *denial *that tobacco caused cancer and had nothing to do do with what you claimed, especially because a good number of the "denialists" from the tobacco camp moved into denying that CO2 could be responsible for warming the planet.
> 
> *A. McCormick, (BAT 1962), Smoking and Health: Policy on Research, Minutes of Southampton Meeting, : “When the health question was first raised we had to start by **denying **it at the PR level. But by continuing that policy we had got ourselves into a corner and left no room to manoeuvre. In other words if we did get a breakthrough and were able to improve our product we should have to about-face, and this was practically impossible at the PR level.”*​
> *Helmut Wakeham, (Philip Morris, 1970), Head of Research and Development of Philip Morris, writes: “Let's face it. We are interested in evidence which we believe denies the allegations that cigarette smoking causes disease.” 32 *​



"Cigarette denier" was never a thing.


----------



## rederob (23 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> "Cigarette denier" was never a thing.



So why are you saying that when it was clear that it was about the 







rederob said:


> *denial that tobacco caused cancer*


----------



## moXJO (23 October 2019)

The phrase "cigarette denier" was never used against smokers. 
Climate change "denier" has been spewed out as a buzzword to anyone that looks cockeyed at anything to do with CC.


----------



## rederob (23 October 2019)

moXJO said:


> The phrase "cigarette denier" was never used against smokers.
> Climate change "denier" has been spewed out as a buzzword to anyone that looks cockeyed at anything to do with CC.



Another false claim - keep it up!


----------



## moXJO (24 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Another false claim - keep it up!



Umm no.... The only other times it was used in such a way consistently was:
Denier of religion or God. And that was a longggg time ago.
And "Holocaust denier". And this is the money shot.
"Denier" is simply a label to slur. Bit like "deplorables" that Hillarys team came up with. Try and dehumanize your opposition and silence  any questioning.  

If I go back through the thread I'm sure "nazi" was thrown around as well. That got bumped because well, a step to far. And it got blowback.


----------



## moXJO (24 October 2019)

> *denial that tobacco caused cancer*



That says "denial" by the way. Not denier.
I know L and R can be easy to mix up (Not as hard as a Chaplin speech). 
But I'll hold your hand till we get there.


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2019)

Visceral Vs. Logical


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2019)

Everyone can take a breather, we are doing o.k

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...is-commitment-anu-report-20191023-p533dr.html

Which obviously leaves the opening, for the chanters to scream, "we have to do better".

From the article:
_ANU researchers Andrew Blakers and Matt Stocks said Australia's emissions would fall by 4 per cent between next year and 2022 with up to 17 gigawatts of wind and solar power "locked-in" and set to be deployed by the end of next year.

Emission reductions in the power sector are falling at 10 megatonnes a year due to the fast rate of wind and solar photovoltaics being brought into the system.

Overall emissions out to 2022 would fall as increases in other parts of the economy would be more than offset by the reductions from electricity production_.
_If current renewable energy deployment rates were continued out to 2030, the researchers found this would cut emissions by 125 megatonnes. Australia currently produces 540 megatonnes_.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 October 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Everyone can take a breather, we are doing o.k
> 
> https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...is-commitment-anu-report-20191023-p533dr.html
> 
> ...




I note:
_They said solar PV and wind are now cheaper than new-build fossil or nuclear power stations and will soon compete directly with existing black coal power stations.
_
So as long as they let the market decide (not the politics) ...should be OK.
I think when the new hydro scheme is finished it will make a big difference.


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I note:
> _They said solar PV and wind are now cheaper than new-build fossil or nuclear power stations and will soon compete directly with existing black coal power stations.
> _
> So as long as they let the market decide (not the politics) ...should be OK.
> I think when the new hydro scheme is finished it will make a big difference.




As we have been saying, storage is the issue as it always will be with renewables, the main issue is intermittency and storage is the only thing that can overcome that.
The cost of renewables is comparable with fossil fuel, but twice as much is required and or storage to compliment it is required.
The public whipping themselves into a lather over it wont change it, it will take time, but it is happening as quickly as practicable IMO.


----------



## rederob (24 October 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The public whipping themselves into a lather over it wont change it, it will take time, but it is happening as quickly as practicable IMO.



There is no incentive for "storage" so why build it?
Renewables have no priority in the delivery mix, so it makes no sense to add a battery to wind or solar which presently have zero fuel costs.
Then there are the Tassie and Snowy battery projects in the literal pipeline which stymie private sector interest in batteries.
Lithium ion or flow batteries (plus small-scale localised pumped hydro) could very quickly address the intermittency concerns of the network with sensible policies in place, but we don't appear to have an Energy Minister with his light on, upstairs.


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2019)

rederob said:


> There is no incentive for "storage" so why build it?
> Renewables have no priority in the delivery mix, so it makes no sense to add a battery to wind or solar which presently have zero fuel costs.
> Then there are the Tassie and Snowy battery projects in the literal pipeline which stymie private sector interest in batteries.
> Lithium ion or flow batteries (plus small-scale localised pumped hydro) could very quickly address the intermittency concerns of the network with sensible policies in place, but we don't appear to have an Energy Minister with his light on, upstairs.



Nice day for fishing.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 October 2019)

Government's emissions claims don't stack up.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...r-emissions-abatement-kyoto-protocol/11630780


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 October 2019)

rederob said:


> Renewables have no priority in the delivery mix, so it makes no sense to add a battery to wind or solar which presently have zero fuel costs.




Having your generation go to waste is pretty good incentive unless you've managed to get someone else to pay for it even when it's not physically delivered.

9am to 4pm today there was constant spill of varying amounts of large scale solar generation, including literally the whole lot between 10:30 and 13:00. Not the first time and sure won't be the last, it's becoming a reasonably common event.

Agreed it may not provide a financial incentive in practice due to hedging arrangements and so on but in a rational market it would.

It does of course highlight that we need storages capable of being charged constantly for 7 hours on a day like today, and on some days it's more.



> Then there are the Tassie and Snowy battery projects in the literal pipeline which stymie private sector interest in batteries.




4985 MW of dispatchable generation closing over the next 10 years across the NEM plus there's already a shortfall on what's required for a secure system in Victoria.

Snowy and Hydro Tas between them are planning to add 3200 - 3500 MW over the next decade. Snowy 2.0 and Marinus Link 1 & 2 with associated generation.

AGL are in the process of commissioning 210 MW of new gas-fired plant in SA.

It would be fair to say that Snowy and HT between them are pulling the rug out from under further investment in gas-fired generation to some extent but there's nothing stopping anyone jumping in and building the required small pumped hydros and a few batteries and doing so promptly. There's a need for 1500 MW in the very near future and SH or HT certainly aren't standing in the way of it. 

In the 2030's, which isn't that far away given the lead time, there's even more opportunity for the private sector with a huge amount of existing plant closing mostly in the 2030 - 2035 period and that includes some currently operating batteries reaching end of life and being scrapped at that point.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 October 2019)

To put the previous post into perspective, roughly 1100 MWh of large scale solar output lost in SA today and about a tenth as much went into battery charging.

So scaling up the "big" batteries, all of them collectively, ten fold would have sorted it for today but not everyday so they need to be bigger than that.

Then there's wind curtailment and I haven't even tried to work that out other than to say it's significant and there was some today also.

Market's there right now if someone wants to get into it. Trouble is, there's no fortune to be made in doing so indeed simply breaking even over the full 15 year lifecycle with batteries is far from certain.

The battery I've got at home wasn't installed to make a profit and it's unlikely to do so. Call it a privately funded experiment if you like, I wanted a battery so I bought a battery, but energy arbitrage alone won't repay the cost even at a 0% rate of return and it's much the same for large scale installations. Any profit comes about by ancillary services, backup power, avoiding network costs, assigning some significant value to the public relations side of it as a marketing exercise and so on not from the actual energy being stored.

Nothing stopping anyone having a go at it though if they've got the money and no pressing need to get a return on it so can take a risk that it may or may not work out financially.


----------



## rederob (24 October 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Having your generation go to waste is pretty good incentive unless you've managed to get someone else to pay for it even when it's not physically delivered.



Begs the question of having your battery storage also go to waste, does it not?  So if renewables are not incentivised, why add the *significant* extra expense of a battery?
At least in Europe they worked it out.
We all know there is a big problem ahead this summer, let alone in the next 5-10 years.
The private sector needs policy clarity if it is going to invest the billions necessary to meet the looming demand gap, and 2019 has been more of the same inaction.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 October 2019)

rederob said:


> We all know there is a big problem ahead this summer, let alone in the next 5-10 years.




Yep - it's one of those things where nobody can say for sure that the bomb goes off this summer but sooner or later it'll end in tears.

Not enough capacity and a significant amount of what does exist is getting very old and worn out. It's only a matter of time but exactly when is anyone's guess.



> The private sector needs policy clarity if it is going to invest the billions necessary to meet the looming demand gap, and 2019 has been more of the same inaction.




Agreed absolutely. It's very hard for anyone to work toward getting from A to B if they don't even know where B is or how they'd know they were there.

If the future for XYZ involves aggregating wind and solar, retailing and working with someone else who does the storage then I'm sure they could make a viable business out of that but they need to know that's where they're going. Or if they're going to build the storage and someone else does the solar. Or whatever but there needs to be some sort of basis upon which to plan yes.

At the moment there appears to be a conscious plan to not plan. I mean that comment seriously and literally. It's not that there's no plan as such. There is indeed a "plan" and that "plan" is to consciously choose to not plan.


----------



## sptrawler (25 October 2019)

What I find hard to reconcile, is we have all the answers, yet those that oversee the economy and the electrical grid don't.
We are such a wasted resource.


----------



## basilio (25 October 2019)

sptrawler said:


> What I find hard to reconcile, is we have all the answers, yet those that oversee the economy and the electrical grid don't.
> We are such a wasted resource.




Interesting observation SP. I'm certain Smurf and his peers are up to their neck in advice to governments on what needs to be done to deal with creating a 21st century power supply that is fit for purpose.

The fact that this government steadfastly refuses to recognize that advice and insists on taking a path over a cliff is, IMO, criminally negligent.

The destruction of the original NBN proposals also springs to mind.


----------



## rederob (25 October 2019)

basilio said:


> Interesting observation SP. I'm certain Smurf and his peers are up to their neck in advice to governments on what needs to be done to deal with creating a 21st century power supply that is fit for purpose.



A very simple first step is putting a price on carbon.
The Coalition cannot do this, however, as ideologically this is equivalent to the "carbon tax" which is anathema to them.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 October 2019)

sptrawler said:


> What I find hard to reconcile, is we have all the answers, yet those that oversee the economy and the electrical grid don't.
> We are such a wasted resource.




In the context of energy, the numbers themselves tell the story and it's nothing more than high school level maths beyond that point.

Where the problem arises is best explained by a practical example. Consider AGL's planned LNG import terminal in Victoria. Putting asside the CO2 issue and just looking at the business side the problem is immediately apparent:

*AGL plans to be an LNG importer and major supplier of gas into the Victorian gas system.

*The largest gas-fired power station in Victoria is owned by Origin Energy.

*The second and third largest gas-fired power stations in Victoria are both owned by Energy Australia.

*The fourth and fifth largest gas-fired power stations in Victoria are owned by Snowy Hydro, one of them sitting right next to another facility owned by AGL.

*All gas in Tasmania is sourced from Victoria so what happens there is also relevant. AGL however have nothing at all to do with gas in Tasmania, at least not once it leaves Victoria.

Now AGL can no doubt work out how much gas they're going to sell to homes and small business and they can get a pretty good estimate of the overall market there and what others will sell too, noting that others may in practice be retailing gas which AGL physically supplies.

It would however be really helpful to know what Origin, Energy Australia and Snowy were going to do with power generation given they have the potential to use huge amounts of gas, more than AGL proposes to import, or alternatively could use none at all.

The obvious solution would be to engage them in some planning and work it out. Trouble is that'll probably end up with someone in jail, perhaps literally, on the basis of collusion and dividing up the market and so on. There's also the problem that the others themselves probably don't know and would say something about government policies and uncertainty.

Now to be clear I'm not suggesting that AGL have done anything wrong or that they don't have skilled people able to come up with proper business plans and so on but it's an example of the barriers placed in the way due to an excessive focus on economic ideology. What could be a "get all the data and work it out precisely" exercise becomes a "make some assumptions and do some modelling" exercise which will never be as accurate.

The problem there is that if they build it too big then AGL's shareholders will justifiably be unhappy that the company spent more than it needed to spend on what ended up as an under-utilised facility. If they build it too small they'll find themselves in the cross hairs of government looking for someone to blame for a gas shortage. Heads you win, tails I lose.

Now realise that the same basic concept gets in the way of everything relating to all this. Things which seem so incredibly simple to a technically focused person are obstructed by rules and regulations driven by anything from economics to pure politics.

Now add in that all too often the government simply doesn't like the rational outcomes and there's another problem.

There's no particular brilliance or special abilities required to work this stuff out really. The data's ultimately in the public domain and we're talking addition and subtraction not anything complex mathematically. What is difficult though is having to guess what others will do, and knowing that that in itself is a product of politics which is anyone's guess really.

AGL wouldn't have announced closure of Torrens Island A (power station) for shutdown in 2017 if they'd known at the time that Alinta were going to shut Northern. Alinta wouldn't have shut northern at the time if they'd known that Engie were going to shut Hazelwood. Etc. 

If we're going to get this right then it's not rocket science as such, just commonsense and planning really. Trouble is, planning is precisely what government hasn't wanted anyone to be doing.


----------



## IFocus (25 October 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Where the problem arises is best explained by a practical example. *Consider AGL's planned LNG import terminal in Victoria*. Putting asside the CO2 issue and just looking at the business side the problem is immediately apparent:




Its really hard to believe we are going to import gas


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 October 2019)

IFocus said:


> Its really hard to believe we are going to import gas



I generally don't like the words "boom" and "gas" in the same sentence but that's what it's looking like with 5 separate proposals now - two in NSW, two in Vic and one in SA.

The plan is to not plan.


----------



## sptrawler (25 October 2019)

basilio said:


> Interesting observation SP. I'm certain Smurf and his peers are up to their neck in advice to governments on what needs to be done to deal with creating a 21st century power supply that is fit for purpose.
> 
> The fact that this government steadfastly refuses to recognize that advice and insists on taking a path over a cliff is, IMO, criminally negligent.
> 
> The destruction of the original NBN proposals also springs to mind.



As has been proven with the NBN, it was a waste of taxpayers money and was a perfect example of politicians playing in something they had no expertise in. The whole thing was an ego trip brain fart.
If the Government gets involved in the power grid, it should be as a last resort, or else the public will wear all the mitigating costs associated with the decommissioning of coal generation.
That will end up in tears as has happened with the NBN, the generators have taken on the responsibilty of supplying reliable electricity and also taken the profits from doing so.
It is their responsibility not the taxpayers responsibilty to bring about the orderly decommissioning of their plant.
I can understand it could be reasonable to expect the taxpayer to install storage, as the taxpayer is getting the benefit from renewables and storage is an inert component required by renewables.
What would be criminally negligent IMO, would be the Government making I'll conceived policy, on something they have no understanding of ala the NBN.
What needs to happen is the AEMO and it's technical section, to come up with a plan that incorporates transmission, generation and distribution and the orderly transition to renewables.
Then when the Government has that information, they need to structure a policy to support it and bring it about.
To have the Government make policy about something they have no technical knowledge about, ends up like the NBN, where country towns have fibre and cities still have ADSL, dumb arse policy based on social outcomes rather than a sustainable business plan.
But that's what happens, when you let politics and emotions, take over from a technical and practical approach.


----------



## sptrawler (25 October 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> In the context of energy, the numbers themselves tell the story and it's nothing more than high school level maths beyond that point.
> 
> Where the problem arises is best explained by a practical example. Consider AGL's planned LNG import terminal in Victoria. Putting asside the CO2 issue and just looking at the business side the problem is immediately apparent:
> 
> ...




To me it reeks of the companies taking the pizz, they want to offload their coal liabilities, without taking any responsibility for the resultant system reliability issues, well that's from the outside looking in.
They install gas plant, import gas, any increase in gas price can be passed on.
Meanwhile coal mine, coal miners, coal handling, coal wear and maintenance factor comes off your bottom line. Win win.
This will end up in tears IMO, higher electricity costs in a big way, which will hurt the economy in a big way.


----------



## sptrawler (26 October 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> In the context of energy, the numbers themselves tell the story and it's nothing more than high school level maths beyond that point.
> 
> Where the problem arises is best explained by a practical example. Consider AGL's planned LNG import terminal in Victoria. Putting asside the CO2 issue and just looking at the business side the problem is immediately apparent:
> 
> ...




Smurf, the real problem is the system was a State function, but with technology and the interconnect it in reality is becoming a Federal function and obviously it is a convoluted issue.


----------



## basilio (26 October 2019)

California seems as if it has been burning for years.  In any case each year brings a darker story of uncontrollable wildfires fuelled by higher temperatures and drier conditions.

Be more than a little interesting to see the impact on the economy and the insurance industry.

Could be a lot like us...
*California: wildfires ravage state as 2 million face looming blackouts – as it happened*
Thousands of people have been ordered to evacuate as dry, windy conditions fuel fires across the state

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-smoke-spreads-across-san-francisco-area-live


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 October 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Smurf, the real problem is the system was a State function, but with technology and the interconnect it in reality is becoming a Federal function and obviously it is a convoluted issue.




I don't disagree but the problem there is that the federal government, of any persuasion, has a track record of not being good at technical things and also not being overly business savvy.

Realistically, the states, private enterprise and individuals are going to be the ones to fix (or not fix) this in practice. I say that simply looking at what's actually occurred thus far. To the extent there's any progress it's from the states or it's from local government, business or individuals, it's not from the national government.

I thus repeat my conclusion that, and I mean this with respect to all involved, those seeing this as a political issue aren't looking at it from the right perspective if the aim is to actually fix it. Approaching it from a practical (technical etc) and business (financial) perspective is going to be far more effective in practice.

Invest in those with solutions or developing them. The surest way to fix it is to make it cheaper to be non-polluting than to pollute. Money talks - nobody's going to be too keen on continuing with coal if it's cheaper to move to something else. Etc. Technology and business will bring about a fix far more effectively than politics will.

Implement solutions in your own life and support those businesses doing likewise. Vote with your wallet.

The only point I can see in banging on about politics is a political one not an environmental one. It's point scoring basically - it might change the government but it's not going to be how we fix, or don't fix, the issue. If 30+ years of that approach hasn't worked then it's unlikely it'll work anytime soon so a different approach is required which doesn't involve going around in circles be it on ASF or anywhere else.


----------



## basilio (30 October 2019)

Where global heating is taking us.

*Greenland ice cap melt measured by satellites — and it's enough to cover Tasmania in almost 5m of water*
In late July, polar scientist Martin Stendel was sweltering at his desk in Copenhagen as Europe suffered its worst ever heatwave. 

Key points:
Greenland's ice cap is melting, and that water is draining into the ocean, contributing to sea level rise





In July this year, it's estimated more than 30 billion tonnes of ice melted in three days

Australian scientists have been able to use NASA satellites to accurately weigh how much ice is melting


As temperatures climbed to more than 15 degrees Celsius above average, the meteorologist realised the record heat was about to hit the arctic.
"I looked at the forecast, and one could see that this heatwave, or this anomalous temperature, was on its way to Greenland," Dr Stendel said.
Greenland holds the second-largest reserves of fresh water on the planet, after Antarctica.
But year in, year out, the Greenland ice cap has been melting, and that water is draining into the ocean, contributing to sea level rise.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...ers-weighed-by-australian-scientists/11630970


----------



## IFocus (30 October 2019)

basilio said:


> Where global heating is taking us.
> 
> *Greenland ice cap melt measured by satellites — and it's enough to cover Tasmania in almost 5m of water*
> In late July, polar scientist Martin Stendel was sweltering at his desk in Copenhagen as Europe suffered its worst ever heatwave.
> ...





Saw that Bas more alarmest, marxist, leftestspittle, money hungry funded scientists, what about the mini ice age, fake news, nothing to see here, Blah blah  news .....bit in your face those fact huh.


----------



## basilio (3 November 2019)

More reality.

 Print Email  Facebook  Twitter  More
*UN chief Antonio Guterres warns Asia to quit 'addiction' to coal as climate change threatens region*

The United Nations chief has warned Asia to quit its "addiction" to coal, as climate change threatens hundreds of millions of people vulnerable to rising sea levels across the region.

Key points: 





UN chief Antonio Guterres told Asia it is "lagging behind" and said the rollback of coal could help curb rising global temperatures 

Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter

According to the Minerals Council of Australia, most of Australia's coal production is sold overseas, and mainly to Asia

The warning follows fresh research this week predicting that several Asian megacities, including Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City and Mumbai, are at risk of extreme flooding linked to global warming

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...ef-warns-asia-quit-addiction-to-coal/11667416


----------



## basilio (3 November 2019)

*Has the climate crisis made California too dangerous to live in? *
Bill McKibben
As with so many things, Californians are going first where the rest of us will follow

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...isis-made-california-too-dangerous-to-live-in


----------



## SirRumpole (6 November 2019)

11,000 Lefty Marxist scientists declare climate emergency [sarcasm for those not acquainted with the term]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...gency-11000-scientists-sign-petition/11672776


----------



## basilio (6 November 2019)

They also spell out *why *they believe we are going to hell in a hand basket.
Its a long story but it can be summed up simply

If we don't  move now we are stuffed.


----------



## wayneL (6 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> 11,000 Lefty Marxist scientists declare climate emergency [sarcasm for those not acquainted with the term]
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...gency-11000-scientists-sign-petition/11672776



I wonder if you have examined the credentials of these purported scientists.

(It's embarrassing for your case)


----------



## SirRumpole (6 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I wonder if you have examined the credentials of these purported scientists.
> 
> (It's embarrassing for your case)




OK, list them all, one by one, all 11,000.


----------



## rederob (6 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I wonder if you have examined the credentials of these purported scientists.
> 
> (It's embarrassing for your case)



Well there is certainly one ill informed regular here, and "It's embarrassing for your case."


----------



## wayneL (6 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Well there is certainly one ill informed regular here, and "It's embarrassing for your case."



You?


----------



## wayneL (7 November 2019)

Thread


----------



## basilio (7 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, list them all, one by one, all 11,000.




Its easy to find the credentials of the 11000 plus people who signed off on this call for action. They cover  a huge range of scientists across many disciplines as well as people who work in the environment and recognise the disaster that is unfolding.

The odd ones in the list ? Who knows. Who cares. Well clearly Wayne and co whose entire reason for existence is to steadfastly deny any possible evidence or reason that establishes humanity is in a diabolical situation of its own making.

Furthermore one of the main reasons why we are still travelling down that path is because a strongly dedicated team of people with do whatever it takes to stop action on this disaster.  Lets call them the suicide squad.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806


----------



## rederob (7 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> Thread



Sadly wayneL seldom checks his sources as Hanjo Bohme is a member of the Alliance of World Scientists and remains active in environmentalism in Namibia despite official retirement.
Most of the students listed are postgrad or phD.
All the signatories can be reviewed, so it's not a secret what they do or where they are from, and it was not a prerequisite that they be involved in climate.
It's a shame when posters try to cast a slur on the sciences (or any professions for that matter) as a whole because they think that maybe one of many does not fit the mold.


----------



## wayneL (7 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Sadly wayneL seldom checks his sources as Hanjo Bohme is a member of the Alliance of World Scientists and remains active in environmentalism in Namibia despite official retirement.
> Most of the students listed are postgrad or phD.
> All the signatories can be reviewed, so it's not a secret what they do or where they are from, and it was not a prerequisite that they be involved in climate.
> It's a shame when posters try to cast a slur on the sciences (or any professions for that matter) as a whole because they think that maybe one of many does not fit the mold.




It's not a case of that Robbie, much is made of the gross number where is you and I both though that the gross number is nowhere near the number of people qualified to make such a declaration.

there are also other factors at play which I'm not even going to bother discussing with you.


----------



## rederob (7 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> there are also other factors at play which I'm not even going to bother discussing with you.



You are full of excuses and of no substance, so that was at least a wise choice you made.
As for the number of signatories, it was very much an in-house request for member scientists to read what was proposed to be published, and if acceptable to add their names.
But that's somewhat beside the real point, which is that there is currently no science with an alternative to AGW that is close to credible... and that as time goes by the evidence just gets stronger.


----------



## wayneL (7 November 2019)

rederob said:


> You are full of excuses and of no substance, so that was at least a wise choice you made.
> As for the number of signatories, it was very much an in-house request for member scientists to read what was proposed to be published, and if acceptable to add their names.
> But that's somewhat beside the real point, which is that there is currently no science with an alternative to AGW that is close to credible... and that as time goes by the evidence just gets stronger.



I'm sorry, that's just untrue. The thing is that your record of denial for anything apart from the approved narrative, and Alinskyesque argumentation is clear and on record here. 

I like my debates to be fruitful and ini terms of a mutual experience of discovery, it is not possible with you.

My own client base is quite broad, from CSIRO scientists, employees of the UN, a nuclear physicist in the UK renewables program and so on an so forth. That's conversations fruitful and mutually respectful.... And from where I have formed a great majority have my opinions.

You on the other hand immediately reach for the tawdry tactic of ad hominem, so any discussion is basically in exercise of futility.


----------



## wayneL (7 November 2019)




----------



## rederob (7 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm sorry, that's just untrue. The thing is that your record of denial for anything apart from the approved narrative, and Alinskyesque argumentation is clear and on record here.



You mean the regular links in make to climate science, as distinct from your regular links to pseudoscience and nonsense.
There is no such thing as "approved narrative" as it is a concoction dreamed up by denialists spin doctors to suggest there is a type of conspiracy of knowledge which is somehow not a good thing!


wayneL said:


> I like my debates to be fruitful and ini terms of a mutual experience of discovery, it is not possible with you.



Given that I will quote the science, and you are in actual denial of its veracity, what is there to debate?


wayneL said:


> My own client base is quite broad, from CSIRO scientists, employees of the UN, a nuclear physicist in the UK renewables program and so on an so forth. That's conversations fruitful and mutually respectful.... And from where I have formed a great majority have my opinions.



I present the science and generally have no need for anyone's opinions on climate matters.  I suspect 30 years of IPCC Reports is reasonably adequate.


wayneL said:


> You on the other hand immediately reach for the tawdry tactic of ad hominem, so any discussion is basically in exercise of futility.



What is very clear is that you do not know what an ad hominem is given your propensity to misuse the term.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 November 2019)

Meanwhile I hear yet another story of someone who's managed to find a way around the Victorian government's rules requiring the use of gas in a new home, only to be stopped by the local council which is insisting on it for hot water.

Meanwhile my own little experiment, which I admit is deliberately testing the "system" from an administrative perspective, has run into a hurdle with someone in the Philippines who isn't aware of the new rules commencing 1 December 2017. I'll go through the motions of asking "layman's" questions and seeing where that goes, this is an intentional test after all, but no doubt most would just give up rather than bash their heads against the wall over something that's of no practical benefit to them personally.

So hopefully all this CO2 and climate caper is just an elaborate hoax. We're pretty much stuffed if it isn't given we can't even manage to do the simplest most mundane things to address it without someone stuffing it up. Hence I, and rather a lot of people who've seen all this from the other side, have lost interest in it - it'd be easier to walk from Brisbane to Perth than to get some of the simplest things done it seems.


----------



## wayneL (8 November 2019)




----------



## basilio (8 November 2019)

Interesting that the Forbes/ Roger Pielke is attempting to spin the story that CC is not really causing any problems.

Far more instructive IMV to read an analysis with facts behind it.  I wonder  which version the insurance companies accept ?
This is long story but well worth considering.  

*2018's Billion Dollar Disasters in Context*
Author: 
Adam B. Smith
February 7, 2019





NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) tracks U.S. weather and climate events that have great economic and societal impacts. Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained 241 weather and climate disasters where the overall damage costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index, as of January 2019). The cumulative cost for these 241 events exceeds $1.6 trillion.

During 2018, the U.S. experienced a very active year of weather and climate disasters. In total, the U.S. was impacted by 14 separate billion-dollar disaster events: two tropical cyclones, eight severe storms, two winter storms, drought, and wildfires. The past three years (2016-2018) have been historic, with the annual average number of billion-dollar disasters being more than double the long-term average. The number and cost of disasters are increasing over time due to a combination of increased exposure, vulnerability, and the fact that climate change is increasing the frequency of some types of extremes that lead to billion-dollar disasters.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2018s-billion-dollar-disasters-context


----------



## wayneL (8 November 2019)

We must thank Adam for his continuous exposing of the level of intellect of the green movement.


----------



## rederob (8 November 2019)

basilio said:


> Interesting that the Forbes/ Roger Pielke is attempting to spin the story that CC is not really causing any problems.



What is really sad is that wayneL does not check the information he relies upon.
RP jr. is the pot calling a kettle black.  If you cannot, as he claims, reliably use this data as an indicator of climate change, why is he using the very same data?  To illustrate this point, he says this
*Anyone wanting to look at trends in climate and weather, including extreme events, should always look first at data on climate and weather, not economic loss data.*​
If that's not bad enough, it gets worse!
Despite the article having yesterday's date it falsely links to the most recent U.S. National Climate Assessment which says 
*“... in U.S. regions, no formal attribution of precipitation changes to anthropogenic forcing has been made so far, so indirect attribution of flooding changes is not possible...."*​Yet this is an actual excerpt from the 2018 Report (*the true most recent*)
*The quality and quantity of water available for use by people and ecosystems across the country are being affected by climate change, increasing risks and costs to agriculture, energy production, industry, recreation, and the environment.
Rising air and water temperatures and changes in precipitation are intensifying droughts, increasing heavy downpours....*​Holding up a serial abuser of information who makes it his business to "call out" what *he *sees as poor science is not a sound basis for presenting a case.


----------



## wayneL (9 November 2019)

Oh puleez Robbee, your intent is to support your religious fervour, rather than discussion. Rog is pretty up on extreme weather events, perhaps none moreso. 

I would rely on that moreso than some curmudgeon on the internet whose MO, is to be a rude c***.


----------



## rederob (9 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> Oh puleez Robbee, your intent is to support your religious fervour, rather than discussion. Rog is pretty up on extreme weather events, perhaps none moreso.
> 
> I would rely on that moreso than some curmudgeon on the internet whose MO, is to be a rude c***.



You continue to rely on postings you do not understand.
Even when their errors are pointed out, you choose to ignore those facts.
You make claim after claim without substance and, despite your protestations of others using ad hominems, from what I have seen in your postings you are by far the worst offender on the forum, eg, "I would rely on that moreso than some curmudgeon on the internet whose MO, is to be a rude c***."

Why not at least try to show others here you actually know something about climate science rather than rely on substandard snippets from elsewhere which actually prove otherwise.


----------



## basilio (9 November 2019)

Unprecedented bushfires in NSW and Queensland -  in early November ! Why ?

* Climate change partly to blame for early bushfire season *
New analysis confirms the relationship between climate drivers such as El Niño, climate change and the Australian bushfire season

...* Pulling it all together*
Our research has made clear that climate modes bring large and rapid swings to the fire weather, while human-induced climate change gradually increases background fire weather conditions. The trend generally means an earlier start to the bushfire seasons than in the past.

Climate change is definitely playing a role in producing the earlier start to bushfire seasons and overall more extreme seasons, particularly in southeastern Australia. However, the natural variations in climate modes continue to play a key role, meaning we should not expect every bushfire season to be worse than the last as a result of climate change.

Similarly, a few milder bushfire seasons among a string of record high seasons do not mean that climate change should be dismissed.


Chris Lucas is a senior research scientist at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Sarah Harris is manager research and development at the Country Fire Authority
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...nge-partly-to-blame-for-early-bushfire-season


----------



## wayneL (9 November 2019)

rederob said:


> You continue to rely on postings you do not understand.
> Even when their errors are pointed out, you choose to ignore those facts.
> You make claim after claim without substance and, despite your protestations of others using ad hominems, from what I have seen in your postings you are by far the worst offender on the forum, eg, "I would rely on that moreso than some curmudgeon on the internet whose MO, is to be a rude c***."
> 
> Why not at least try to show others here you actually know something about climate science rather than rely on substandard snippets from elsewhere which actually prove otherwise.



And you continue to rely on disparagement of any dissent from the UN narrative.  

Skeptical Science is an exclusionary bubble, Robbeee.


----------



## satanoperca (9 November 2019)

Here is one for the oldies on this site, a perspective from a 14 year old boy, my son.

So driving home from the dentist, I ask my son the following questions:

1. Do you believe climate change is real?
Son : Yes, the climate is changing dad, but it seems that due the rapid increase in the human population in the last 100 years, mans actions are contributing to the climate changing faster.

2. Do you have any evidence to back up that statement?
Son : Can I site a scientific journal, no. Can I use common sense to see we are polluting the earth, yes.

3. How do you know we are polluting the earth?
Son : Well, I have only lived a short time, but I guess that 30 years ago the water in Port Phillip Bay was clean and you could swim in it without the risk of getting sick. We spent time last year up in the Daintree forest, it was common knowledge that the great barrier reef is dying faster than ever before.
We live in Albert Park, just down from the entrance of the Yarra River.

4. A few more questions, then, are your concerned about climate change?
Son : Yes, among my friends it is one of our greatest concerns about our future.

5. Does it trouble you?
Son: Yes

6. And here is the kicker! Do you think governments will change there approach to pollution and climate change?
Son: his words exactly : "Are you ******* kidding, there is no chance, humans are greedy, the climate will change, man will keep polluting the planet and eventually the planet will screw mankind. That is what I have to accepted"

Dad thinks to himself and after reading the crap that goes on in this thread, he is right. Man nor govnuts will change, the only SURVIVOR in the long long term will be the planet earth, the question is, will man still be around. Shame really, will my son have the chance to have grand children?


----------



## rederob (9 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> And you continue to rely on disparagement of any dissent from the UN narrative.
> Skeptical Science is an exclusionary bubble, Robbeee.



Why not tell the truth?
I look at what is posted and if it makes no sense or is fallacious, or lacks rigour then I point out why.
Then there is what you post by way of comparison.  
You have a site record going back well over 10 years and rarely have posted anything suggesting you understand what climate science entails.
By the way, your continuing use of a "narrative" actually relates to peer reviewed science, while the main role the UN plays is to ensure the involvement of the best climate scientists from as many nations as possible in synthesising the science.


----------



## sptrawler (9 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Here is one for the oldies on this site, a perspective from a 14 year old boy, my son.
> 
> So driving home from the dentist, I ask my son the following questions:
> 
> ...



Interesting times, the end result will be the same even if we clean up our act, the population is growing exponentially we are improving medications to ensure people live longer.
Sooner or later, we will not be able to support the population.IMO


----------



## rederob (10 November 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Interesting times, the end result will be the same even if we clean up our act, the population is growing exponentially we are improving medications to ensure people live longer.
> Sooner or later, we will not be able to support the population.IMO



If the IPCC's projections are about right, then there are massive possible differences to climate occurring over the next 50 years depending on taking no action, and acting decisively.
As to population, only some regions are experiencing increasing rates of growth, with mature economies stable to declining in rates.  
If the projections of population growth hold true, then we need only feed another 3 billion people.  While this might seem a bit daunting, a lot of "productive" land is not devoted to actual food production.
The idea that we cannot influence the future is only realised by doing nothing.


----------



## basilio (11 November 2019)

Nice to know what our National Party Politicians really think.

According to the  National Party Leader Apparently anyone who links the catastrophic ongoing bushfires in NSW with climate change is a "raving inner city leftist lunatic."

There goes CSIRO, BOM and every real climate scientist in Australia.

It also tells us how climate change denialism is well rooted in some politicians

*Deputy PM slams people raising climate change in relation to NSW bushfires*

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ate-change-and-bushfires-20191111-p539ap.html


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2019)

I'm not really sure whether climate change or nuclear war will get us first, only that politicians seem to be the most stupid people on earth, followed closely by those who vote for them.


----------



## greggles (11 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> politicians seem to be the most stupid people on earth, followed closely by those who vote for them.




I'd reverse that order. The politicians know exactly what they are doing. They rely on voter stupidity, apathy and political tribalism to enable them to hang on to power and push their own agendas.

Whoever said a people gets the government it deserves was on the money.


----------



## wayneL (11 November 2019)

The big question, of course, is who are the idiots?

We all imagine ourselves as enlightened and intelligent, the other side being moronic troglodytes.

We all have strong opinions which coincidentally match our political persuasion, each imagining that our opinions being completely objective.

What's missing is critical thinking and not for a moment do I believe one side has a Monopoly on that.

But what I think would be an interesting exercise would be for people from both sides to have an engaging discussion and an examination of actual data... In other words an objective discussion.

Unfortunately I am not hopeful that that may occcur anytime soon.


----------



## rederob (11 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> What's missing is critical thinking and not for a moment do I believe one side has a Monopoly on that.
> 
> But what I think would be an interesting exercise would be for people from both sides to have an engaging discussion and an examination of actual data... In other words an objective discussion.



Given it is often the case that you are shown your contributions are without merit, and you are unable or unwilling to defend them, you are on the money with what is sometimes missing here.


----------



## basilio (11 November 2019)

* Dear Michael McCormack: the only 'raving lunatics' are those not worrying about climate change *
The Australian deputy PM has decried the ravings of people linking bushfires to global heating. But the consequences of a lack of action are not confined to an inner-city cabal


...  (Waybe)  Let me say this next bit very clearly. The best way to decline Michael’s now rolling invitation to be tribal is to respond with reason, not with emotion.
With that basic objective in mind a couple of things can be noted.

Dear Michael. It is possible to do more than one thing at once.

Perhaps multitasking has never been a particular strength of the deputy prime minister’s, and that’s fine, because juggling is certainly not for everyone, but I’ll venture it is possible for emergency services to extinguish fires and for politicians and various experts to speak informatively about the underlying causes of fires so catastrophic that they have been designated a state of emergency in the middle of November, not in mid-to-late summer.

I reckon those things can happen simultaneously – both the analysing and the doing – without anything terrible happening or without anything fundamental being compromised.

I think we are that clever. Truly, I do.

To nominate just one example of how to do this, Richard Thornton, the chief executive of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, did this very successfully on Monday. He was asked whether now was an appropriate time to talk about climate change. Thornton said: “It’s always a good time to have a conversation around … what the impacts of climate change are going to be.”

He said it was too early to say definitively these particular fires were the result of climate change, but “what we are seeing, and what we do know, is fire seasons are starting earlier”.

“We know that cumulatively over the length of the fire season, there is a higher amount of fire danger during those times, so we’ve got a 1C increase in temperature over the long-term averages. All of the normal variations that we see between good years and bad years, now sits on top of an extra 1C in temperature – and that drives our fire weather that we see.”

...  While the Coalition really wants climate change to be a story where an apocalyptic, sneering inner-city cabal is pitted against the sensible ones in just enough electorates to maintain Scott Morrison’s continued occupation of the prime ministership – the reality eclipses the graphic novel.

People are worried about their future in the cities and in the region. Farmers hand-feeding their stock in a crippling drought are worried about climate change. People currently preparing their fire plans, and fleeing the flames, are also worried about climate change.

Just to be clear.

*Worrying about climate change, worrying about whether enough is being done, worrying enough to try and do something, is not a manifestation of lunacy.


Lunacy is not worrying about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...s-are-those-not-worrying-about-climate-change*


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> Unfortunately I am not hopeful that that may occcur anytime soon.




Watch Q&A tonight if you know where the ABC is on the dial.


----------



## basilio (11 November 2019)

*What are the links between climate change and bushfires? – explainer*
Temperature, fuel load, dryness, wind speed and humidity all affect fire risk and are compounded by global heating
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...etween-climate-change-and-bushfires-explainer


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2019)

basilio said:


> Nice to know what our National Party Politicians really think.
> 
> According to the  National Party Leader Apparently anyone who links the catastrophic ongoing bushfires in NSW with climate change is a "raving inner city leftist lunatic."
> 
> ...




That approach seems to be like saying to an assault victim "we will give you the best medical treatment we can, but we'll let the perpetrator go so he can do it again to someone else".


----------



## wayneL (11 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Watch Q&A tonight if you know where the ABC is on the dial.



This response is by the left will continue to lose elections.


----------



## macca (11 November 2019)

Funny ain't it !!

Aboriginals survived by altering the landscape with regularly burning of the bush, mainly in winter but also when the wind was blowing away from their favoured areas.

All the early diaries and journals mention that the landscape was primarily large trees with ferns and grass below. They could and did ride a horse at the gallop mile after mile across the plains.

Up until recent times farmers survived the fires by regularly reducing the rubbish among trees by burning off in winter.

Remote areas and towns survived by reducing scrub by "burning off" during winter

No huge planes, no helicopters, no hundreds of fire fighters, fires fought with a 1000g water tank on a truck (if lucky enough to have one)wet bags, green branches off trees and cleared fire breaks around the houses.

All these holocausts are far worse than they need to because the powers that be are too Bl***dy stupid to admit they are wrong.

Of course it is a tragedy when people die and when they lose properties but please think about the thousands of wallabys, koalas, echidnas, snakes, nestlings, goannas, etc etc etc that have either been burnt or sacrificed on the altar of the stupid misguided Greens.


----------



## rederob (11 November 2019)

macca said:


> Remote areas and towns survived by reducing scrub by "burning off" during winter
> 
> No huge planes, no helicopters, no hundreds of fire fighters, fires fought with a 1000g water tank on a truck (if lucky enough to have one)wet bags, green branches off trees and cleared fire breaks around the houses.
> 
> ...



Many of these areas experiencing severe bushfires have had precious little to burn off for a number of years as livestock have been increasingly hand fed.  
And while it was possible to burn off safely in the past, more recently the bushlands have been tinder-dry year round, so it has not been safe to burn off at any time of year.
Country fire authorities are not stupid, and they understand the threat imposed as a result of not having had the former opportunities to do controlled back-burns in vulnerable areas.  Farmers too are not stupid, and more than anyone fear the threat of bushfires so do more than most to ensure they will not be affected: sadly some did not realise how severe the fires now are.
You might be barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## IFocus (11 November 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Interesting times, the end result will be the same even if we clean up our act, the population is growing exponentially we are improving medications to ensure people live longer.
> Sooner or later, we will not be able to support the population.IMO




Satanoperca your boy is on the money suspect it will be his children or grand children that will have to deal with the fall our be it climate or wars for resources / food / arable land.


----------



## wayneL (11 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Many of these areas experiencing severe bushfires have had precious little to burn off for a number of years as livestock have been increasingly hand fed.
> And while it was possible to burn off safely in the past, more recently the bushlands have been tinder-dry year round, so it has not been safe to burn off at any time of year.
> Country fire authorities are not stupid, and they understand the threat imposed as a result of not having had the former opportunities to do controlled back-burns in vulnerable areas.  Farmers too are not stupid, and more than anyone fear the threat of bushfires so do more than most to ensure they will not be affected: sadly some did not realise how severe the fires now are.
> You might be barking up the wrong tree.



This is just bullshxt Robbee, sorry.

Get out of your echo chamber Komrade.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> This is just bullshxt Robbee, sorry.
> 
> Get out of your echo chamber Komrade.




Seems allright to me. Why bs wayne ?


----------



## wayneL (11 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Seems allright to me. Why bs wayne ?



There are several current articles detailing the folly of green policies over decades. I have a client with a high position in the SES, who has been telling me the same thing for years.

Years ago I had a client in the WA Dept of CALM, who was saying the same thing way back then. 

You lot will believe what you want to believe, but the people on the ground say different.


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2019)

Unfortunately as Wayne says, there has been a two pronged attack against burning off, one by the greens, the other by budget constraints from what Ive heard.
The pictures of koalas being burnt, was never a good look, but it is also easy to be smug and say well the wildlife numbers have increased, due to reduction in prescribed burning.
Then when out of control bushfires take off, the chant is global warming, it is very easy to mould the chant to the flavour of the day, when no accountability is attached.
The ash wednesday fires in Victoria where very bad and they werent attributed to global warming.
Anyway the whole debate by the left wing is becomming very sad IMO, they will end up allienating themselves, from all avenues and platforms for debate. Just my opinion
They are becomming an example of what Turnbull said about some, " miserable ghosts", driven by hate.
Again just my opinion and no doubt plenty will dissaree.


----------



## basilio (11 November 2019)

A heart felt observation from someone who is totally across what has happened in Glen Innes.

By the way I don't know where anyone gets this "_bushfires attributed to global warming"._

Not the case. Never claimed.  Never has been.

Global Warming just makes the the climate hotter and hotter. Drys the bush out more and more. Creates extreme weather conditions.
So. When there is a fire, whether by lightning, human error,  or human activity, the scene is set for a potential conflagration unmatched by  most pre global warming situations. Check out the previous posts.

* We've been in bushfire hell in Glen Innes – and the scientists knew it was coming *
Carol Sparks
My community deserves the unvarnished truth from me, its mayor. Ignorance and arrogance delivered us ashes
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-innes-and-the-scientists-knew-it-was-coming


----------



## macca (11 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Many of these areas experiencing severe bushfires have had precious little to burn off for a number of years as livestock have been increasingly hand fed.
> And while it was possible to burn off safely in the past, more recently the bushlands have been tinder-dry year round, so it has not been safe to burn off at any time of year.
> Country fire authorities are not stupid, and they understand the threat imposed as a result of not having had the former opportunities to do controlled back-burns in vulnerable areas.  Farmers too are not stupid, and more than anyone fear the threat of bushfires so do more than most to ensure they will not be affected: sadly some did not realise how severe the fires now are.
> You might be barking up the wrong tree.




I won't be as abrupt as WayneL but to put it simply, we do not have a choice, we MUST reduce the rubbish. 

I will explain how the Greens have the best of intentions but have it completely back to front. By allowing the bush to grow without reduction we are making the fires far worse than they have ever been in our known history of the past 50 thousand years.

The only flora and fauna left alive in Oz after 50 thousand years of aboriginal bush management have adapted to the "burnt off as often as possible" environment.

A simple example which the Green brigade ignore, Koalas have only one defence mechanism to escape fires. They cannot run fast at all, maybe a bit of a scoot for 10 metres  but that is only to reach the nearest tree. 

When they smell smoke they climb up the nearest tall tree, right to the very top, I know because I have seen them do it on my place. Now, if the fire is in winter, the flames run along the ground, perhaps 1 to 2 metres high, quite often only 1/2 of that.

A small amount of smoke does not worry them as they may be 10m above it but in fact they have no choice, that is all they are capable of doing to survive.

Before urbanisation and pet dogs, there used to koalas all over the place in Port Stephens, they still wander through peoples backyards (if no dogs). They wander across roads, sit in the middle of roads, in parks, heaps of them in both areas that I have lived.

Those very same koalas survived the bush being burned every year by the Worimi tribe and the early settlers. The local land council still burn off their areas every year, they are officially exempt from all the red tape and the wildlife flourishes there.

When I was a young bloke, 60 years ago, the bush used to be burnt off alternate years, one side of the main (only) road one year, the other side the next. The wildlife simply crossed the road and was safe because it was done in the winter months and the fire was easy to contain.

Now, because of the red tape that does not happen, the fires have mountains of fuel and in the right conditions the rubbish on the ground ignites, flares, crowns and then the wind can grab it and away it goes.

About 5 years ago we had a fire on nearby Crown land, this used to be burnt off one third per year, so a three year cycle. This was stopped, after 10 years it went up in 3 days, 39 koalas were found burnt, charred or dead. There would have been more that were cremated and not found.

Volunteers walked through the still smouldering trees and logs trying find as many as possible. Can you imagine how they felt ? It is heart rending to see these poor defenseless animals being slaughtered to appease the city green vote.

The same thing happens to all the wildlife, people talk about Australia wiping out our wildlife and they are right !! The Greens and their misguided policies are ensuring that it happens ASAP


----------



## explod (12 November 2019)

This.

Carol Sparks is the mayor of Glen Innes Severn council.

Quote..."Already there are armchair experts ready with free advice about meeting with disaster. Let it be made perfectly clear that all the area that burned has already been a fire ground for two months. There were hazard reduction and backburns under state authority last month and last year. The properties were all well-prepared and extensively defended. People who have lived with fire risk for decades knew exactly what to do, and they did it. The full expertise and advice of fire controllers has been heeded at every turn.

I’ll put my 20-year Rural Fire Service medal up against your free advice any day of the week.

The anger is real. The anger is justified. Because this disaster was all foreseen and predicted. For decades the link between a hotter, drier climate, land-clearing, excessive irrigation and increased fire risk have all been attested in scientific papers."...

I grew up on a farm, my Dad grew up on my Grandfathers farm. We were weather watchers, part of the local brigade, sat on the back of the lead truck myself holding the trailing firelighter at just 10 years. Remember Dad being very angry at the Victorian Premier (Sir Henry Bolte) allowing the ball and chains into Heytsbury to clear the bush there for farming, it was sandy soil and the farms failed but interestingly soon after in the late 60s the first bad droughts began.

As a young policeman at Camperdown (about 1975) remember a fire starting near Chatsworth racing through to the Otways. I was the only member on duty west of the stony rises where it passed, it jumped the two chain firebreaks as if they were not there but as said burnt out at the foot of the Otway forests. Why, though it was summer the forests then were thick and therefore cooler, retained moisture and green at the edges.

The Green membership is growing in the country areas as it is becoming clear that our core members do understand. Flaming is not advancing anyone, its time to unite together and try and do something about it all if it is now possible.

As for trees, they are our source of rain and the air we breath.


----------



## rederob (12 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> There are several current articles detailing the folly of green policies over decades. I have a client with a high position in the SES, who has been telling me the same thing for years.
> 
> Years ago I had a client in the WA Dept of CALM, who was saying the same thing way back then.
> 
> You lot will believe what you want to believe, but the people on the ground say different.



Green policies *do not* determine what governments at any level and local authorities actually do wrt to fire management.
Most States have very detailed fire management strategies and these extend to individual managed park areas.  
Here's the NSW Fire Management Manual as an example of the detail and thoroughness of their approach, so I believe what I know is being put into practice, as distinct from ancient anecdote or whatever.
That said, large swathes of the countryside are outside of boundaries of government controlled fuel load strategies and that burden then falls to local Councils and individual landholders.
Separately, a matter sometimes overlooked is that responsible agencies who do not abide by their fire management strategies nowadays open themselves to litigation, and where grand scale property, crop and livestock destruction occurs, let alone loss of life, the costs could run into countless millions.
The idea that "green policies" trump loss of life and bankrupting litigation is, imho, somewhat fanciful.
I am walking distance from a koala sanctuary, and kangaroos freely roam nearby streets - an occasionally heartstopping moment when they jump out in front of you while on an evening walk!  Those keen to protect the environment value wildlife and if that is your so called "green" then they would be rather conflicted if it came to hugging a tree instead of a koala.  I reckon they are smarter than that, and this is yet another smoke screen from folk that feel the need to blame someone very different from themselves.


----------



## basilio (12 November 2019)

*Mr Morrison, I lost my home to bushfire. Your thoughts and prayers are not enough *

https://theconversation.com/mr-morr...ur-thoughts-and-prayers-are-not-enough-126754


----------



## wayneL (12 November 2019)

@rederob you are conflating "green" with "The Greens".

The Greens are not really green in the true sense, but green policies are handy for them.

Conservation? Now that's a different beast. I would consider mysef an ardent conservationist, but not a greenie, with all the moronic baggage that entails.

It's a subtle but extremely important difference. Greens (and "The Greens") are morons.


----------



## chiff (12 November 2019)

Where I am,in a small village,in a bushfire prone area in the Adelaide Hills there are fuel reduction burns every year.The greens have never had any influence in this around us.What is getting harder for the Forestry and CFS is that the days to burn off are getting fewer and the risk of burn-offs getting away from them is real-and happens. One way to reduce the risk is for councils to stop letting people live in these 'at risk' areas.The CFS or RFS cannot protect many of them when a decent fire starts.
After every big fire the blame game starts.One I remember in the 80s, propagated by local farmers, was the planting of pine plantations.
Now the politicians are trying take the' heat' off themselves by blaming others.Everything old is new again.I know state governments take fire risks more seriously.


----------



## rederob (12 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> @rederob you are conflating "green" with "The Greens".



I spoke of "green policies" and separately said 'if that is your so called "green"' and never mentioned The Greens as a party so nothing was being conflated.
However, I found no evidence that your claim had any element of truth to it.
Aside from that, your remark that the Greens are morons is indefensible and unwarranted, and truly make your contributions here a disgrace.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2019)

This is another area where the science should prevail and politics, at all levels and of all persuasions, should be firmly pushed aside.

Nothing more can be said really.


----------



## rederob (12 November 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> This is another area where the science should prevail and politics, at all levels and of all persuasions, should be firmly pushed aside.
> 
> Nothing more can be said really.



Sadly @Smurf1976 the science has been consistent on this for decades, but somehow it is wrong to include it when talking about the increased risk of bushfires.
It seems another case where some people simply refuse to believe what science is offering.


----------



## explod (12 November 2019)

A quick explainer for all those blaming the Greens for the current bushfire crisis. The Greens support managed fuel reduction burns and immediate action on climate change. The Greens oppose funding cuts to emergency services including fire fighters.

https://greens.org.au/vic/policies/bushfires-policy


----------



## explod (12 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> @rederob you are conflating "green" with "The Greens".
> 
> The Greens are not really green in the true sense, but green policies are handy for them.
> 
> ...





"morons" you say, care to extrapolate on your meaning on that Ole Pal


----------



## explod (12 November 2019)

Received from De Natale tonight:-

"
Hi James

*Right now, communities across New South Wales and Queensland are battling another day of extreme fire danger. *

To those who live in those areas, and to everyone who has already had to leave their beloved home, we’re thinking of you. 

*To the more than 3000 firefighters who are on the ground right now, thank you for everything that you do* and for the support and care you have shown to everyone who has been affected by the fires already. It's tough to imagine any higher form of courage than defending homes and towns in these unprecedented conditions. 

And for those watching from afar and keeping in touch with friends and families in New South Wales or Queensland to make sure they are okay, it is easy to feel terrified and helpless. 

But there are things that you can do today.

*Support our rural firefighters*
*Donate to the QLD Rural Fire Brigade*
*Donate to the NSW Rural Fire Brigade*


*Help those who’ve lost their homes*
*The Red Cross *are providing services on the ground
to families affected by the fires.


*Care for injured wildlife*
Fires near Port Macquarie have devastated bushland for
breeding koalas.* Port Macquarie Koala Hospital *are treating
injured koalas and providing water to dry areas. *The Rescue
Collective *are supporting burnt wildlife rescued from the QLD fires. 


*This week, like so many before, has also seen the Morrison government use every trick in the book to avoid being drawn on the link between the climate emergency and the bushfire emergency.*

In spite of the science, the Deputy PM has even gone so far as to call those of us, myself included, who make the link between catastrophic bushfires and climate change “disgusting” and “raving inner-city lunatics”.

But, if now is not the time to highlight the government’s disgraceful climate inaction, when is? Just as lobbyists for the US gun industry trot out calls of ‘too soon’ after every mass shooting, so too are the pro-coal advocates attacking anyone who dares connect these fires to the climate crisis. To be silent now is to endanger the lives of Australians.

Those who have experienced the kind of devastation taking place in parts of the country today, like former NSW Fire and Rescue Commissioner Greg Mullins, are also raising the alarm:

_If anyone tells you, "This is part of a normal cycle" or "We’ve had fires like this before", smile politely and walk away, because they don’t know what they’re talking about._

_Together with 22 other retired fire and emergency service chiefs, we felt we had a duty to tell people how climate change is super-charging our natural disaster risks. I wish we were wrong, but we’re not.”_

*It beggars belief that the Liberals can be so beholden to their fossil fuel donors that they will refuse to develop policies that keep Australians safe. *It was the Liberals who cut the NSW Rural Fire Services by $40 million, and it was the Libs again who refused to meet with fire chiefs earlier this year who had pleaded with them to better prepare for the catastrophic weather events.

To dismiss and ignore the needs of our fire services is gross negligence and will continue to put lives at risk this summer.

So today, rather than buy into yet more dangerous misinformation peddled by right-wing media and politicians, we again acknowledge that we are in a climate emergency and again call on the government to act immediately by:


Phasing out coal, oil and methane gas to ensure pollution reduction targets are consistent with science.
Supporting the rapid transition to a renewable energy economy that will produce tens of thousands of new jobs.
Investing significantly to enhance our capacity for improved land management and national disaster responses.
*Lastly, to everyone feeling deeply concerned by our “head in the sand” government, take heart from the knowledge that, more than ever, people are coming together to demand climate action. *This government cannot hide forever and, with lives and livelihoods at stake, it is up to all of us to keep the pressure up. 

Change is coming. In the meantime, please stay safe and look after each other. 






*Richard Di Natale*"


----------



## IFocus (12 November 2019)

chiff said:


> Where I am,in a small village,in a bushfire prone area in the Adelaide Hills there are fuel reduction burns every year.The greens have never had any influence in this around us.What is getting harder for the Forestry and CFS is that the days to burn off are getting fewer and the risk of burn-offs getting away from them is real-and happens. One way to reduce the risk is for councils to stop letting people live in these 'at risk' areas.The CFS or RFS cannot protect many of them when a decent fire starts.
> After every big fire the blame game starts.One I remember in the 80s, propagated by local farmers, was the planting of pine plantations.
> Now the politicians are trying take the' heat' off themselves by blaming others.Everything old is new again.I know state governments take fire risks more seriously.




Anyone that actually knows the current issues understand the window for controlled burns is now critically smaller SFA to do with any political movement or persuasions.

There has been plenty of notice of this, off course drowned out by those with a political ideological agenda.

My own place 5 acres I stopped burning off 5 years ago because I just couldn't be confident of the risk of the burn off getting away.

Note the major Margret River fires were a controlled burn off that got away.

I have just sold up and moved to a lower fire risk zone simply because on a 40 degree day with a strong NE wind the whole area will just go boom nothing to do with the green movement.

BTW grew up in the Perth hills (Stoneville)  Jarrah trees right up to our house on 30 acres never an issue of bush fire Dad burnt off every year remember him saying how things had changed where now he thought it was a death trap.

If you don't believe the climate has / is changing fine, just look the other way.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2019)

Cretins like McCormack who don't listen to firefighters on the ground who keep saying that that the fires are starting earlier, lasting longer and are more intense than ever don't deserve to be in Parliament.

Whether climate change is at fault (which seems pretty obvious) or not , the reality is that more resources will have to be put into fire prevention and mitigation. To cut funds to firefighters in these conditions is criminal (in the most serious sense of the word), it may well have cost lives.

Governments who fail to properly fund fire services on the grounds that it's only a temporary situation and we will always have fires blah blah blah are simply ignoring the reality that the situation is getting worse very quickly and they have to accept the responsibility of reducing the threat before more people are killed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2019)

On the climate issue I'll simply note that apart from all the data and scientific analysis etc, what I've personally observed says much the same.

There are places that had permanently flowing water, always at least trickling, when I was a kid. Last few times I've been there it's bone dry unless it's actually raining at the time.

Likewise I remember as a kid we used to get ice on the windows of the house. On the inside of the glass that is. These days in the same area I'm assued at it's rare for there to be ice anywhere.

And so on. Lots of little things like that which many have observed and they mostly do point in the same general direction.

On the bushfire management aspect though, well I won't post the details of location on a publicly accessible forum just in case there's an arsonist or two reading it (no offence to anyone but you never know who may see this) but there are places I've walked through which are knee deep in leaves, dry small branches etc and in case that's not bad enough they're fairly steep too. Now I walked there from a starting point in an urban area on the fringe of a capital city and we're talking an hour or two's walking to get to that sort of conditions. 

There have certainly been conditions when that could have been burned off in a controlled manner and to not have done so is negligent yes.


----------



## basilio (12 November 2019)

Excellent analysis of the situation around controlled burning. The challenge is the shorter times now available and the heightened risk of burns getting away 

Barnaby Joyces' rubbish is just that.  Should be kicked out of Parliament as far as  the eye can see. And he can take his fellow deniers with him

* Factcheck: Is there really a green conspiracy to stop bushfire hazard reduction? *
Firefighters are trying to contain dozens of fires across two states, but a familiar blame game has already begun.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-conspiracy-to-stop-bushfire-hazard-reduction


----------



## IFocus (13 November 2019)

Thanks Bas for those that don't read the Guardian for ideological reasons argue with this bloke.......


A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written this week that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.

He said: “Blaming ‘greenies’ for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”"


----------



## chiff (13 November 2019)

I heard one NSW resident say where he lived was classed as sub-tropical.Rainfall at times was around two metres (80 inches).This year the rainfall was 400mm -16 inches
The forests are dry and if a fire starts it really goes.These temperature and rainfall patterns are changing,as the evidence shows.It is called climate change.


----------



## wayneL (13 November 2019)

Judith Curry's view, 10 years after climategate

https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/...10-years-later/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> Judith Curry's view, 10 years after climategate
> 
> https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/...10-years-later/amp/?__twitter_impression=true



Is there a reason you do not post actual science?


----------



## wayneL (13 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Is there a reason you do not post actual science?



The science is everywhere for us to read Robbee. 

And I'm kind of shocked that you didn't know that Judith is a scientist whose career has been particularly concerned with climate. What is important for us non scientists is sensible interpretation of the science, preferably by scientists.

That said, there are a number of agendas and it is important for us to try to wade through them.

This article does a good job. 

Now if you wanna stop being a tw@t for the sake of it, just for a moment, you might want to read the whole thing.


----------



## chiff (13 November 2019)

For the National party in particular to be so anti- climate change makes one wonder why they are so compromised on this issue.Perhaps they are getting large donations from vested interests.Rinehart was bold enough to award Joyce 40k in public (which he at first accepted ,but then paid back).If this  subverting of a democracy happens in public,who knows what goes on in private.
I would have thought after Joyce's involvement with the demise of the MDB his credibility would be zero.


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> And I'm kind of shocked that you didn't know that Judith is a scientist whose career has been particularly concerned with climate. What is important for us non scientists is sensible interpretation of the science, preferably by scientists.



You didn't present any science from Curry but instead referred to events many times "officially" investigated at the insistence of climate change deniers, and every time exonerated.
Again, you just throw mud because you seem unable to grasp the science.


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

Is the climate changing? YES
Has the climate always been changing? YES
Has man contributed to the more rapid change in climate? YES, but yes is to simple and answer. Is it 10%, 50% or 100%? I will leave it up Rederob and Wayne to nut that out.

But consider just two factors that have change massively in the last 100 years :
1. We have burnt a crap load of fossil fuels, while that by itself might not be a contributing factor to climate change, I firmly believe without have to be a scientist, the next one is
2. We have cleared more than 50% of the forest on the earth, trees and the natural cleaners/lungs of the planets and we have been removing them at an accelerated rate.


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Has man contributed to the more rapid change in climate? YES, but yes is to simple and answer. Is it 10%, 50% or 100%? I will leave it up Rederob and Wayne to nut that out.



Put aside the percentage contributions and look at the trajectory, ie trend.
Think about what will alter the trend, ie make it cooler.
Then think about what will maintain the present trend, or increase its pace.
Not a great deal of science is needed to understand that the "levers" to achieve warming were pulled a long time ago, and these very same levers are still being pulled.
Unfortunately some of these levers produce amplifications, and that's where the science starts to get trickier, although the trend direction is not changing.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2019)

It would be interesting to know what percentage of our annual CO2 emissions came from the recent bushfires.


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Put aside the percentage contributions and look at the trajectory, ie trend.
> Think about what will alter the trend, ie make it cooler.
> Then think about what will maintain the present trend, or increase its pace.
> Not a great deal of science is needed to understand that the "levers" to achieve warming were pulled a long time ago, and these very same levers are still being pulled.
> Unfortunately some of these levers produce amplifications, and that's where the science starts to get trickier, although the trend direction is not changing.




A simple solution might be just to plant more trees.

I was at my local pub on the weekend talking to a local, he had worked with the Melbourne City council recording every tree in the area details, height, age, species, location etc. What I did not know is that every tree has a value placed on it, the valuation is based on a lot of inputs. While that in itself was interesting, the more interesting aspect of the conversation was the surveys they did on how large trees in the city provide 2 important features to the well being of the city, cooling in summer and heat retention in winter.


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It would be interesting to know what percentage of our annual CO2 emissions came from the recent bushfires.



A guess, more CO2 than all the fossil fuels burnt in Australia over a 1 year period.
So again, if we have taken the mechanism that mother nature uses to capture the CO2 away, we are in for some trouble.
Plant more trees.


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> A guess, more CO2 than all the fossil fuels burnt in Australia over a 1 year period.
> So again, if we have taken the mechanism that mother nature uses to capture the CO2 away, we are in for some trouble.
> Plant more trees.



A lot depends on what burnt, not just area.
However, bushfires are akin to biomass for energy in that what was emitted can be reconsumed via regeneration of plant mass.


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

rederob said:


> A lot depends on what burnt, not just area.
> However, bushfires are akin to biomass for energy in that what was emitted can be reconsumed via regeneration of plant mass.




But there is the issue, we have been clearing to many forests, natures natural carbon sink has been removed.

A simple example of bio systems is a fish tank (tropical), with no plants you need massive filters which have to cleaned regularly or you plant out the tank, the plants to the filtration for you.

So, instead of our pollies doing point scoring over this issue, how about they just come up with a new initiative that I am sure 90% of the population would agree and support - a mass plantation of native trees across Australia.

They could get smart and utilise resources that are available and they are currently paying for :
1. Anyone who is on the dole, will get paid an extra $100 pw if they contribute 3-4 days planting trees.
2. Any new immigrant will have to plant xxxx trees in their first year here.
3. Anyone who wants a temporary work visa has to plant xxx trees.
4. Anyone given a community correction order is to plant trees.
There are some many resources out there for the govnuts to use.
etc 
etc
We could also ask for the assistance of retirees with the admin and project planning for some sort of reward.

If people object, stone them, only kidding.

An yes I understand the logistics of such and exercise, but it is more than achievable and think about how the world would see us.


----------



## wayneL (13 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> But there is the issue, we have been clearing to many forests, natures natural carbon sink has been removed.
> 
> A simple example of bio systems is a fish tank (tropical), with no plants you need massive filters which have to cleaned regularly or you plant out the tank, the plants to the filtration for you.
> 
> ...



The increased co2 is having some positive aspects in this regard, see:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

This is the same reason food production/yields  are increasing.

I'd still like to see less clearing, but there are some positives.

PS, hoping that passes our Marxist curmudgeon, that suppository (sic but apt) of all knowledge .


----------



## chiff (13 November 2019)

I am reminded of Japanese soldier stragglers after WW2.They either did not know the war was over,or if they did refused to surrender.


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> But there is the issue, we have been clearing to many forests, natures natural carbon sink has been removed.
> 
> A simple example of bio systems is a fish tank (tropical), with no plants you need massive filters which have to cleaned regularly or you plant out the tank, the plants to the filtration for you.
> 
> ...



Here's the scale of the task.
Here's the science.
Let's assume that Australia did it's bit to begin and planted 200 million trees next year.  These would need to be protected from disease, pests and animals, and watered to ensure they continued to grow until of a sustainable height/age.  
Lots of steps have been missed out, like the science of first selecting the right types of trees for the regional areas chosen, and the logistics of growing, transporting and planting them.
And that's after there was agreement as to exactly where they were going to be planted or could be planted.
While I reckon it's a great idea, I cannot see anyone with the vision to get it off the ground, let alone sustain it.  And that's aside from getting the public to swallow the cost which will run into billion of dollars *and *take several decades to have its benefits realised.


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Here's the scale of the task.
> Here's the science.
> Let's assume that Australia did it's bit to begin and planted 200 million trees next year.  These would



Apologies - let's assume that Australia did it's bit to begin and planted about *100 BILLION* trees.
Which means I underestimated costs by a massive margin.


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Here's the scale of the task.
> Here's the science.
> Let's assume that Australia did it's bit to begin and planted 200 million trees next year.  These would need to be protected from disease, pests and animals, and watered to ensure they continued to grow until of a sustainable height/age.
> Lots of steps have been missed out, like the science of first selecting the right types of trees for the regional areas chosen, and the logistics of growing, transporting and planting them.
> ...




Thanks for the links, but lets break down a few of your comments, starting backwards.

Billions to save the planet or do our bit, well how is the NBN and those subs working out.
Could the public swallow it, anyone under 25years would be able to, hence the protests, my son being on of the protesters. As for the rest of the population, well to bad.

Without spending 2 much time on it, I am sure there is enough people with some level of intelligence to make it happen. The funny thing about trees, given enough time the have offspring. So planting density would need to be considered.

As for disease, animals and everything else, no different to what happens in the wild at the moment and could easily be modeled.

As for the right trees, as long as they are indigenous to the area, who cares.

I will agree with you, trying to get people to agree where would be the hardest task.

So lets take one of my ideas, those on the dole, let say there are 200,000 of man/woman of resources at any one time to be utilized, then planting 200,000,000 trees, would only require each person to plant 200 trees, say it takes 5 min for each one, 12 an hour, 16 hours work. Doesn't seem unfeasible does it.

Could look at in another way, current new start is $250 pw, so having to give up 16hours of your life as a once of for $250 continuous payment sounds good to me. Only if I could scale it for my own benefit.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> As for the right trees, as long as they are indigenous to the area, who cares.




Eucalypts are one of the most fiercely burning trees around due to the flammability of eucalyptus oil.

Maybe consideration should be given to planting other species that are more fire resistant.


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Eucalypts are one of the most fiercely burning trees around due to the flammability of eucalyptus oil.
> 
> Maybe consideration should be given to planting other species that are more fire resistant.



This one is a counterintuitive, as the fierce burning produces the necessary heat to release seeds for regeneration.


satanoperca said:


> let say there are 200,000 of man/woman of resources at any one time to be utilized, then planting 200,000,000 trees, would only require each person to plant 200 trees, say it takes 5 min for each one, 12 an hour, 16 hours work.



Let's look at some basic assumptions, remembering that I did amend the figure to 100 billion (500 times more trees):

Seedlings immediately available = no
Soils are suitable = ?
They live exactly where the trees will be planted = no
They have received training in planting = no
They already have the equipment needed to plant the trees = no
They can prepare every hole and complete a planting in 5 minutes = not unless there is an automated process
Post-planting maintenance = how?
Now a few costs:

Project management
Scientists
Soil testing
Preparation of seedlings and logistics to move to planting areas
Relocation of people to carry out plantings
Training
Transportation to work sites
Equipment
Supervision and management
Fencing
Post-planting maintenance 
replacing lost seedlings
watering

Having worked federally for both the Employment and Social Security (Centrelink) departments I know you have a snowflake's chance in Hades of getting a fraction of the numbers needed unless there are other incentives available to the unemployed.
Aside from that, I suspect an all up unit cost of $1 a seedling is possibly optimistic, so I hope this thumbnail gives an idea of the scope of what is necessary.


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

No Sir, eucalyptus are part of our ecology. 

We should be replacing what was there as fire is a very important part of our landscape which evolved of 10 of thousands of years.


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

rederob said:


> I know you have a snowflake's chance in Hades of getting a fraction of the numbers needed unless there are other incentives available to the unemployed.



Thanks Rob, made me laugh as I know you are correct.
That is the world we live in, asks someone who takes from you (the tax payer) to do something positive for the country and get told to f---k off, and the softies in our society accept this.

Simple, if you can walk, you plant or get a job and stop complaining.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2019)

rederob said:


> This one is a counterintuitive, as the fierce burning produces the necessary heat to release seeds for regeneration.




Better not to have the fires in the first place I would have thought.


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Better not to have the fires in the first place I would have thought.



As @satanoperca noted, without fires the native forests cannot regenerate, so the project would fail over time - that's our Mother Nature!


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

Sir, you need to learn more about the ecology of the Australian landscape, try some of Tim Flannery's writings.

Fires are good, just like sharks, they serve a purpose for this planet. Humans serve no purpose except to destroy.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Sir, you need to learn more about the ecology of the Australian landscape, try some of Tim Flannery's writings.
> 
> Fires are good, just like sharks, they serve a purpose for this planet. Humans serve no purpose except to destroy.





Are you saying the current fires and loss of life (human and animals) is good ?


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Are you saying the current fires and loss of life (human and animals) is good ?



No I am not saying it is good, good is a cold beer, it is part of life, accept it


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> No I am not saying it is good, good is a cold beer, it is part of life, accept it



I think you nailed the solution... offer a beer per tree planted and then we get half the population on board, not just the U/E .


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> No I am not saying it is good, good is a cold beer, it is part of life, accept it




I bet you wouldn't say that if your own house went up in flames.


----------



## rederob (13 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I bet you wouldn't say that if your own house went up in flames.



You realise he initially agreed with you that it was *NOT *good - but yes, a cold beer is.


----------



## satanoperca (13 November 2019)

Don't be stupid.


SirRumpole said:


> I bet you wouldn't say that if your own house went up in flames.



I would consider where I live first and evaluate the risks.
While I have appreciated your comments on the forum, sometimes you are just a naive dick


----------



## macca (13 November 2019)

Well after reading the posts, watching many TV clips and scanning the acres of newsprint on our current fire situation it seems to come down to two options.

We can burn it off in the winter when it is cool or mother nature will burn it off when it suits her.

Our choice.......................


----------



## IFocus (14 November 2019)

About the Greens thing........


----------



## satanoperca (14 November 2019)

Got to love the man (not).
From the above article:
"
“*It’s been a major issue for us,* I just haven’t had time to campaign on it in between trying to prevent vulnerable young women in NSW having control over their own bodies and advocating for giant tax-dodging multinational companies,” explained embattled MP Barnaby Joyce.

“So *we don’t want to play the blame game* at this time, *but* you can point your index ********* finger at the *Greens* for this issue,” 

I must have been in a coma for the last decade, when where the Greens in power, upper or lower house or both.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Don't be stupid.
> 
> I would consider where I live first and evaluate the risks.
> While I have appreciated your comments on the forum, sometimes you are just a naive dick




And you admitted your naivety at #2842.


----------



## satanoperca (14 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> And you admitted your naivety at #2842.



That's it? 
No statement, just a stupid flame! Really.


----------



## basilio (15 November 2019)

Some interesting stories about indigenous approaches to land management through controlled burning. Effective - but not simple or cheap.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/indigenous-burning-before-and-after-tathra-bushfire/10258140

*Our bushfire history shows politicians could learn a lesson from Indigenous Australia*
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...tion-climate-change/11700594?section=analysis


----------



## basilio (15 November 2019)

The 'Politics" of bushfires and climate change

* We mustn’t bring politics into the disastrous situation that was created by ... wait for it ... POLITICS *
First Dog on the Moon
Should we only talk about climate change outside the fire season? That’ll soon be one (single) Thursday in July (at long as it’s raining)
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tion-that-was-created-by-wait-for-it-politics


----------



## basilio (15 November 2019)

More great analysis from a smart dog
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ientifically-its-linked-to-the-climate-crisis


----------



## wayneL (15 November 2019)

Meanwhile....


----------



## basilio (15 November 2019)

Always interesting to follow up contributions to the debate  as per Waynes clip above.

It may indeed be true.  Having said that on the same web page you can find these stories.
https://www.chinadialogue.net/artic...4-Southeast-Asia-turning-away-from-coal-power
https://www.chinadialogue.net/artic...ange-and-the-bleak-prognosis-for-human-health


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2019)




----------



## basilio (16 November 2019)

More distortions, more deceptions, more Roger Pielke Jnr, more Wayne BS
There is plenty of quality detailed analysis of the effect of global warming on size and strength of hurricanes. 
It is clear both from facts on the ground and the effects of extra energy and moisture in the atmosphere that extreme weather events are becoming more extreme.
The scientific basis for this can be found here.

*Global Warming and Hurricanes*
An Overview of Current Research Results

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/


----------



## rederob (16 November 2019)

wayneL said:


>



Sadly another example of how poor RP Jr. is at analysis, but beyond the poster to realise.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2019)

Ah denial. Carry on my religious friends.


----------



## rederob (16 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> Ah denial. Carry on my religious friends.



Read the article from RP and try to understand that his claims do not discount the veracity of the science at all.  
For example, let's review this from RP:
_*If a hurricane from early in the 20th century resulted in no reported damage, then according to G19 it did not exist. That’s one reason why we don’t use economic data to make conclusions about climate. A second reason for the mismatched counts is that G19 counts many non-hurricanes as hurricanes, and disproportionately so in the second half of the dataset.*_​But the science is about *more events of greater intensity*, so neither of RP's above points is relevant.
Add to the above his false claim:
*These conclusions have been reinforced by the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. National Climate Assessment, and most recently of the World Meteorological Organization.*​Whereas the scientific consensus (WMO/IPCC) is that:
*Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. *​The real point, however, is that the science paper has proposed an improved methodology, ans RP is still stuck in the mud.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2019)

I suggest you put that to RP directly Robbie.


----------



## rederob (16 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I suggest you put that to RP directly Robbie.



He appears not to understand climate science, so you keep using him as a poster boy and I will show why he should not dabble in climate science.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2019)

Katherine Murphy has a crack at everyone over climate.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ur-government-sells-out-the-climate-for-votes


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2019)

rederob said:


> He appears not to understand climate science, so you keep using him as a poster boy and I will show why he should not dabble in climate science.



Comedy gold Robee.

Faced with something that does not agree with your religious canon, is unthinkingly considered blasphemy which must be smeared and as hommed(sic).

Go on, I dare you, have a debate with Rog on "the science".


----------



## rederob (16 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> Comedy gold Robee.
> 
> Faced with something that does not agree with your religious canon, is unthinkingly considered blasphemy which must be smeared and as hommed(sic).
> 
> Go on, I dare you, have a debate with Rog on "the science".



There is nothing to debate on the science, but if you think of something, do let us all know.
By the way, I gave reasons why RP's article was flawed, so when will you actually start to offer the same in support of what you add to threads, and cease with your personal remarks which make your commentary even more worthless.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2019)

Personal remarks.... Oh that's even funnier Rob.

Come on, don't be a coward take him on.


----------



## rederob (16 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> Personal remarks.... Oh that's even funnier Rob.
> 
> Come on, don't be a coward take him on.



You cannot help yourself, can you!
What is to be debated?


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2019)

rederob said:


> You cannot help yourself, can you!
> What is to be debated?



You find yourself in disagreement with Roger pielke Jr, and quite content to say so here yet you do not have the cajonies to address him personally, via the readily available social media.

I would be quite interested in his responses to what you have to say here.

So, the question not having my mind is, are you interested in reasonable debate or are you more interested in propagandizing the membership on a stock forum?


----------



## rederob (16 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> You find yourself in disagreement with Roger pielke Jr, and quite content to say so here yet you do not have the cajonies to address him personally, via the readily available social media.
> 
> I would be quite interested in his responses to what you have to say here.
> 
> So, the question not having my mind is, are you interested in reasonable debate or are you more interested in propagandizing the membership on a stock forum?



This is the third time I have asked about what would be up for debate.
You as usual offer nothing.
But you are very good at making derogatory personal remarks.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2019)

rederob said:


> This is the third time I have asked about what would be up for debate.
> You as usual offer nothing.
> But you are very good at making derogatory personal remarks.



Coward.


----------



## Humid (16 November 2019)

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/we...vember-day-since-records-began-ng-b881384352z
The other half of the country


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2019)

Humid said:


> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/we...vember-day-since-records-began-ng-b881384352z
> The other half of the country



I remember wife and I competing in 42odd° at State Dressage Champs in Nov, back in mid 80s.

ItsI weather bro


----------



## Humid (16 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I remember wife and I competing in 42odd° at State Dressage Champs in Nov, back in mid 80s.
> 
> ItsI weather bro




Don’t remember much about the 80s but do remember going to the trots but can’t nail the exact temperature at the time
Bro


----------



## explod (17 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I remember wife and I competing in 42odd° at State Dressage Champs in Nov, back in mid 80s.
> 
> ItsI weather bro



They did not have bush fires everywhere in October/nov back then. And I remember those temperatures in shearing sheds years before that, but up to 10 degrees hotter now.  Of course many of those properties have since turned to desert.


----------



## IFocus (17 November 2019)

Did some one mention WA weather, Perth is dry as all set to go boom

Update from that annoying Marxist, letfestspitlle organisation that no doubts fiddles with the data note the lack of water this year (purple line) and please look away from the pre 1975 average least you become infected with the dreaded...........climate change facts.........

Oh cyclones, please note insurance in the North West has increased due to increase risk of cyclone intensity could some one get said companies to pointlessly argue with PR lest they be branded cowards?

Cheers.....carry on


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2019)

IFocus said:


> Did some one mention WA weather, Perth is dry as all set to go boom
> 
> Update from that annoying Marxist, letfestspitlle organisation that no doubts fiddles with the data note the lack of water this year (purple line) and please look away from the pre 1975 average least you become infected with the dreaded...........climate change facts.........
> 
> ...



I grew up in Perth bro, Perth was always dry in November.

Relatives report farmers having had a good season but I haven't seen the actual rainfall figures, would be interested in those.

Dammit, I remember seasons that started as late as August and disaster crops way back in the 80s. Equally I remember bumper crops and farmers bulging at the pockets.


----------



## Humid (18 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I grew up in Perth bro, Perth was always dry in November.
> 
> Relatives report farmers having had a good season but I haven't seen the actual rainfall figures, would be interested in those.
> 
> Dammit, I remember seasons that started as late as August and disaster crops way back in the 80s. Equally I remember bumper crops and farmers bulging at the pockets.




https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/climate-trends-western-australia


----------



## chiff (18 November 2019)

Humid said:


> https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/climate-trends-western-australia



I remember looking outside the Post Office in Bunbury in 1980-the average yearly rainfall was just over 40 inches (1000 mm) .It was roughly the same in Perth.I believe it is nowhere near that now.


----------



## IFocus (18 November 2019)

Humid said:


> https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/climate-trends-western-australia




................


----------



## IFocus (18 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I grew up in Perth bro, Perth was always dry in November.
> 
> Relatives report farmers having had a good season but I haven't seen the actual rainfall figures, would be interested in those.
> 
> Dammit, I remember seasons that started as late as August and disaster crops way back in the 80s. Equally I remember bumper crops and farmers bulging at the pockets.




Members of my family have been farming since the 50's, technology and science  have a lot to do with crop returns these days Kojonup are going to have a good year not sure of the northern and eastern wheatbelt year to date rainfall in down.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 November 2019)

IFocus said:


> please look away from the pre 1975 average




The abrupt step changes in south-west WA rainfall, which are also observed at the same times in Tasmania, are one of the more intriguing changes to have occurred.

There's no gradual trend, it's just "bang" someone flicked a switch and here's a permanent change. Not even slightly gradual, it happened just like that.

It's more severe in WA but the same can be seen in Tas at the same times which rules out any purely local factors as the cause.

In both cases the change is basically the almost complete elimination of higher rainfall months or years, thus pushing down the average, with no real change in what constitutes a "dry" month or year. Eg in Tas the wettest years have all but disappeared, thus lowering the average, but the lowest on record hasn't got any lower when measured over a large area (as distinct from an individual town etc) and that was back in 1967. So it's not an increase in dry as such but an absence of wet periods.


----------



## basilio (19 November 2019)

*Climate change impacts for Western Australia*
28.08.14 By Climate Council
Western Australia, particularly the south-west, is vulnerable to climate change. Changing rainfall patterns, rising sea levels and increasing intense weather events pose a threat to the states water supply, agriculture, coastal infrastructure and natural habitats.
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/climate-change-impacts-for-western-australia/


----------



## chiff (20 November 2019)

basilio said:


> *Climate change impacts for Western Australia*
> 28.08.14 By Climate Council
> Western Australia, particularly the south-west, is vulnerable to climate change. Changing rainfall patterns, rising sea levels and increasing intense weather events pose a threat to the states water supply, agriculture, coastal infrastructure and natural habitats.
> https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/climate-change-impacts-for-western-australia/



Interesting rainfall map..Esperance get a reasonable rainfall ...Albany reminds me of Robe in SA ...if you wanted to move  for the climate I would pick there.Robe is invariably the coolest place in SA ...north wind seems to come across bay. They say Esperance has a mining railway thru the mi


----------



## chiff (20 November 2019)

chiff said:


> Interesting rainfall map..Esperance get a reasonable rainfall ...Albany reminds me of Robe in SA ...if you wanted to move  for the climate I would pick there.Robe is invariably the coolest place in SA ...north wind seems to come across bay. They say Esperance has a mining railway thru the mi



Thru the middle of town...kind of spoils a nice place.(didn't all come out  previous post)


----------



## IFocus (20 November 2019)

chiff said:


> Thru the middle of town...kind of spoils a nice place.(didn't all come out  previous post)




Its a very nice area but can get extremes of weather as the fronts sweep thought over 40 one day and below 20 the next also plenty of wind, Albany is much more temperate.


----------



## wayneL (20 November 2019)

IFocus said:


> Its a very nice area but can get extremes of weather as the fronts sweep thought over 40 one day and below 20 the next also plenty of wind, Albany is much more temperate.




That southerly buster can be bloody unpleasant in winter though. Still, it's a nice spot


----------



## PZ99 (21 November 2019)

King Island if you're doing it for the weather


----------



## explod (27 November 2019)

We are in real trouble now:-

"Bushfires devastate rare and enchanting wildlife as 'permanently wet' forests burn for first time"

/www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-27/bushfires-devastate-ancient-forests-and-rare-wildlife/11733956?pfmredir=sm&amp%3Bsf224684165=1&fbclid=IwAR2OkB5Gn7wu0K3cpaMux-bw_IwRElZSoUK7jpPzpVc3hUiFuc0IBMSyvE8

"
The rainforests along the spine of the Great Dividing Range, between the Hunter River and southern Queensland, are remnants of Gondwana, the ancient supercontinent that broke up about 180 million years ago.

"Listening to the dawn chorus in these forests is literally an acoustic window back in time," ecologist Mark Graham tells RN's Saturday Extra.

"It's like listening to what the world sounded like in the time of the dinosaurs."

The forests are mountaintop islands that have been "permanently wet" for tens of millions of years.

But now, these forests are being burnt for the first time"


----------



## basilio (28 November 2019)

Amazing how correct kids can be when the follow the science.

*For some climate systems, the window to act may have already closed, scientists say, urging immediate action*

*



*
*It's time to listen to the kids, one of the authors said.*
*(ABC News: Danielle Bonica)*
*In protests around the world this year, kids on strike from school have been setting the agenda on climate change.*


*Key points:*



*

It may already be too late to stop parts of the Antarctic ice sheet from melting completely

Tipping points are likely to happen at between 1C and 2C, and we're on track to hit 3C

The Amazon rainforest, coral reef systems and Greenland are all feared to be approaching points of no return
*
And their key message has been that we're facing a "climate emergency" and we need to act now.

They've been accused of overcooking it. They've been told to stay in school and to let the adults sort it out.

*But the kids are right. The world is now dangerously close to tipping points that will set in motion unstoppable ecosystem collapses. This is a climate emergency.*

*That's the message from scientists writing in Nature today, who say that for some systems, the window to act may have already closed.*
A decade ago, it was widely thought that most tipping points wouldn't be reached until around 5 degrees Celsius of warming, but now evidence is mounting that they're more likely to happen at between 1C and 2C above pre-industrial levels, according to Will Steffen from ANU's Climate Change Institute, one of the authors of the paper.
Currently we're at a global average of about 1C degree of warming.

"The more we learn, the riskier it looks," Professor Steffen said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-28/climate-emergency-kids-are-right/11735942


----------



## explod (28 November 2019)

Hard to put up a like Bas but it is too late and accelerating.

It's going to be very tough for my eight grandchildren and I now try to switch off as its just too sad.


----------



## basilio (29 November 2019)

explod said:


> Hard to put up a like Bas but it is too late and accelerating.
> 
> It's going to be very tough for my eight grandchildren and I now try to switch off as its just too sad.



It is tough.. Perhaps I should put up some cat/dog clips to lighten the mood?
____________________________________________________
Interestingly enough I saw a Ross Gaurnaut presentation this week. He has put together a book called Superpower which outlines ho Australia can become a renewable energy powerhouse in Asia .

The book pulls together a series of lectures he did earlier this year.

It's very good.  His research and analysis is excellent.  It is a very persuasive outline of why, on an economic basis alone, Australia has a great future using renewable energy for all local and international industrial/commercial/domestic activity.

He is not blind to the consequences of global warming. He doesn't pretend they are not happening or indeed might not overwhelm us. 

He does offer a powerful, constructive approach to tackle the issue and is showing business interest the opportunities available. 

Well worth a read and support IMV.
https://www.rossgarnaut.com.au/australian-economy/superpower-australias-low-carbon-opportunity/


----------



## basilio (2 December 2019)

Review of  spring weather  in Australia in 2019 of 2019.

* Australia endures its driest and second-hottest spring on record *
Climate records were broken across the country as the spring of 2019 was dominated by drought and bushfires 

Australia has experienced its driest spring on record and its second-hottest in terms of maximum temperatures, only 0.04C behind the record set in 2014.

An average of only 27.4mm of rain fell across the nation for the season, according to the Bureau of Meteorology, while temperature records tumbled from coast to coast as the country endured severe and catastrophic bushfires.

The driest spring on record follows the hottest ever summer, the third-warmest autumn, the sixth-warmest winter, the hottest March on record, the third-hottest July, and the hottest month ever recorded in Australia (January 2019).


In November, the intense heat, bone-dry conditions and high winds meant catastrophic fire danger levels were declared for parts of New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia and in the Greater Sydney region for the first time.

Catastrophic is the highest level of fire danger, the equivalent of the conditions on the day of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, which were Australia’s deadliest.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ts-driest-and-second-hottest-spring-on-record


----------



## sptrawler (2 December 2019)

Someone had better put some precipitators and scrubbers on this puppy in Kagoshima. The locals spend all day sweeping up ash, the EPA would have been all over us at the Power Station.


----------



## sptrawler (2 December 2019)

basilio said:


> Review of  spring weather  in Australia in 2019 of 2019.
> 
> * Australia endures its driest and second-hottest spring on record *
> Climate records were broken across the country as the spring of 2019 was dominated by drought and bushfires
> ...



I hope Bas, that you have thrown caution to the wind and bought an electric car, to save us.
Over here in Japan, they have a much bigger population than us and they give plastic bags away like no ones business. lol
A lot of perception management going on in Australia. IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Someone had better put some precipitators and scrubbers on this puppy in Kagoshima. The locals spend all day sweeping up ash, the EPA would have been all over us at the Power Station.




That's why startups are best done late at night.


----------



## basilio (3 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I hope Bas, that you have thrown caution to the wind and bought an electric car, to save us.
> Over here in Japan, they have a much bigger population than us and they give plastic bags away like no ones business. lol
> A lot of perception management going on in Australia. IMO




Nah not worth it.
Honestly there is far more value in hunting down and  removing some of the current biggest contributors to global warming.  That would make far more difference than my meager output..

Just working my list out at the moment .


----------



## rederob (3 December 2019)

basilio said:


> Just working my list out at the moment .



Just had to check with my better half who dryly said;
Rain, dear.






No CO2, but better than Teslas on the cold start.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2019)

basilio said:


> Nah not worth it.
> Honestly there is far more value in hunting down and  removing some of the current biggest contributors to global warming.  That would make far more difference than my meager output..
> 
> Just working my list out at the moment .



I would start with the most vocal climate alarmists.

Gore, DiCaprio, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, most of f****** Hollywood, and 99% of the hypocritical turds in The Greens.

The science shows that we moderates are the most carbon frugal.


----------



## basilio (3 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> I would start with the most vocal climate alarmists.
> 
> Gore, DiCaprio, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, most of f****** Hollywood, and 99% of the hypocritical turds in The Greens.
> 
> The science shows that we moderates are the most carbon frugal.




There is a fundamental  logical problem there isn't there Wayne ol boy....

You have spent the last umpteen years trashing the science on global warming, damning the evidence, decrying the scientists and saying,  as everything melts around us, that any global warming will be mild and acceptable.

So really what rationale do you have for wanting to set up a hit list beyond ... just setting up a hit list ? If you don't  believe global warming is that bad then why bother making any effort to reduce it ?

My comments are a dark bad joke. Not sure where you're coming from.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2019)

@basilio  this only shows that you have never sought to understand me, only to lump me in among be so called deniers

Read and understand my posts, bro.

TBH, I I'm totally f****** offended by anyone onsuming beyond their value to society whether they are left or right alarmist or moderate.

But the harsh truths for you my friend, is that it is you and your ilk who are consuming beyond your value to society, and there is irrevocable science on that, on that,  the science **is settled.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> @basilio  this only shows that you have never sought to understand me, only to lump me in among be so called deniers
> 
> Read and understand my posts, bro.
> 
> ...




I don't think any of us can assume the "value to society" of anyone else here.

For all we know people could be volunteer firefighters or charity workers or simply have professions that contribute to society in general while being investors on the side, so let's not jump to conclusions shall we ?


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think any of us can assume the "value to society" of anyone else here.
> 
> For all we know people could be volunteer firefighters or charity workers or simply have professions that contribute to society in general while being investors on the side, so let's not jump to conclusions shall we ?




Oh F*** off Horace!

That is not in anyway whatsoever my point. Try reading for comprehension, bro.


----------



## explod (3 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> @basilio  this only shows that you have never sought to understand me, only to lump me in among be so called deniers
> 
> Read and understand my posts, bro.




Few can, I cannot and in my view that is your ploy. Your endeavour to appear intellectual and above others is a ploy in my view to keep those uncertain away from the solid truth. My narcistic Mother used the same ploy to control us (8 of us) as we grew up so I'm well versed in the method.

Global warming caused by recent industrial humankind is absolutely certain and it's time to move on and party.

Some would be better to move on and stop making fools of themselves.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Oh F*** off Horace!
> 
> That is not in anyway whatsoever my point. Try reading for comprehension, bro.




Naughty wayne. I think I can comprehend the phrase "consuming beyond your value to society". If I have it wrong, what did you actually mean ?


----------



## basilio (3 December 2019)

explod said:


> Few can, I cannot and in my view that is your ploy. Your endeavour to appear intellectual and above others is a ploy in my view to keep those uncertain away from the solid truth. My narcistic Mother used the same ploy to control us (8 of us) as we grew up so I'm well versed in the method.
> 
> *Global warming caused by recent industrial humankind is absolutely certain and it's time to move on and party.  (*_well  perhaps something constructive as well ?)_
> 
> *Some would be better to move on and stop making fools of themselves.*



 Plus 1


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> I would start with the most vocal climate alarmists.
> 
> Gore, DiCaprio, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, most of f****** Hollywood, and 99% of the hypocritical turds in The Greens.
> 
> The science shows that we moderates are the most carbon frugal.




I'll certainly make the observation that actions speak far louder than words and that many of these people are all talk and no go.

Surest way to undermine any message is hypocrisy.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)

explod said:


> Few can, I cannot and in my view that is your ploy. Your endeavour to appear intellectual and above others is a ploy in my view to keep those uncertain away from the solid truth. My narcistic Mother used the same ploy to control us (8 of us) as we grew up so I'm well versed in the method.
> 
> Global warming caused by recent industrial humankind is absolutely certain and it's time to move on and party.
> 
> Some would be better to move on and stop making fools of themselves.



Thank you for your statement of religious faith. Consider yourself fortunate for not having to endure the humiliation of yet another set of alarmist forecasts failing in 20 or 30 years. You will not suffer the anger of the current youth for having been deceived by such an obvious ruse, having wasted so many years wallowing in nihilism and hopelessness.

Believe me they will be angry.


----------



## explod (4 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Thank you for your statement of religious faith. Consider yourself fortunate for not having to endure the humiliation of yet another set of alarmist forecasts failing in 20 or 30 years. You will not suffer the anger of the current youth for having been deceived by such an obvious ruse, having wasted so many years wallowing in nihilism and hopelessness.
> 
> Believe me they will be angry.



The so described alarmist forecasts are here now and happening.

If the recent events of climate disaster in so many places almost every day had happened over the last 3 million years such places would never have been settled. 

You'd be better off going back to sleep ole Pal.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2019)

An alarmist is what a denialist calls a realist.

A denialist is what an alarmist calls a skeptic.

Don't you love English.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> An alarmist is what a denialist calls a realist.
> 
> A denialist is what an alarmist calls a skeptic.
> 
> Don't you love English.



I prefer science and data unfettered by political agendas, FWIW.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)

explod said:


> The so described alarmist forecasts are here now and happening.
> 
> If the recent events of climate disaster in so many places almost every day had happened over the last 3 million years such places would never have been settled.
> 
> You'd be better off going back to sleep ole Pal.



I'm so sorry you  won't live to see your folly.


----------



## IFocus (4 December 2019)




----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)

IFocus said:


> View attachment 98883



Would love to have a beer or 12 with you in twenty years. All night shout for whoever was decieved.

I'll pay for top shelf single malt if I'm wrong


----------



## SirRumpole (4 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Would love to have a beer or 12 with you in twenty years. All night shout for whoever was decieved.
> 
> I'll pay for top shelf single malt if I'm wrong




What will it take to admit you are wrong ?


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)




----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> What will it take to admit you are wrong ?



Well, my actual views are well documented by me here.

So far I am not wrong, whereas the alarmists have been spectacularly so.

If I'm wrong I'll admit it


----------



## explod (4 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm so sorry you  won't live to see your folly.



Rubbish, a scientist I know personally said four years ago that we'll be stuffed in five years. I was sceptical then but can see it now.

I'm only 73 my Mother is still very with it at 96.

So where are you coming from Wayne, how about in clear grade two words telling us ??


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)

explod said:


> Rubbish, a scientist I know personally said four years ago that we'll be stuffed in five years. I was sceptical then but can see it now.
> 
> I'm only 73 my Mother is still very with it at 96.
> 
> So where are you coming from Wayne, how about in clear grade two words telling us ??



I have always been clear. I apologise if my tendancy to sesquipedalianism violates your 2nd grade, 250 word vocabulary.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Well, my actual views are well documented by me here.
> 
> So far I am not wrong, whereas the alarmists have been spectacularly so.
> 
> If I'm wrong I'll admit it




2016 is the hottest year on record, followed by 2017 and 2019. See a pattern there ?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 December 2019)

explod said:


> I'm only 73 my Mother is still very with it at 96.




Narcissism has its virtues apparently.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> 2016 is the hottest year on record, followed by 2017 and 2019. See a pattern there ?



Yep, retrospective adjustments.

This is not withstanding my oft stated position.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2019)

Reality is that we're never going to compete against low cost countries on price and trying to do so is simply a race to the bottom on all standards including environmental. Simple as that really, the rest is just detail.


----------



## basilio (4 December 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Reality is that we're never going to compete against low cost countries on price and trying to do so is simply a race to the bottom on all standards including environmental. Simple as that really, the rest is just detail.




That seems to be the accepted  message.
There is another perspective offered by Professor Ross Gaurnaut in his book Superpower.

Long story short he says that if Australia used its sun and wind renewable energy capacity to create "limitless" (a hell of a lot) cheap energy there would be a comparative advantage to us to process many minerals which are currently sent offshore.

I've read the book. Seen the lectures.  The idea has legs. Whether it will run depends on political will. And then it has to be "successful" .
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.c...s-emergence-as-post-carbon-energy-superpower/


----------



## basilio (5 December 2019)

*Australian businesses, unions and farmers say Paris agreement requires zero emissions plan*
Australia Climate Roundtable says climate goals require ‘deep global emissions reductions’

Rare to get this sort of unanimity on a topic like Climate Change action.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...a-to-cut-net-greenhouse-gas-emissions-to-zero


----------



## basilio (5 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Yep, *retrospective adjustments.*
> 
> This is not withstanding my oft stated position.



Yep.  The latest way to spell   LYING DENIAL .


----------



## moXJO (5 December 2019)

These bushfire's must be producing a fair bit of carbon. Smoke was thick as pea soup in various places round Sydney.


----------



## explod (6 December 2019)

"The Rudd CPRS was all carrot and no stick. It failed to state the blindingly obvious: it is criminal for anyone to emit fossil carbon now that we know the consequence of our action. Any trading scheme that sells an industry a “right” to emit is complicit in that crime. On the other hand, a carbon tax that taxes all fossil carbon as soon as it leaves the ground, or crosses our borders, is taxing a bad, much better than taxing a good. Roger Clifton, Crikey comment
The press gallery is happy to support Labor’s claim about the Greens wrecking the CPRS because it fits one of its favoured narratives: that “extremists” on both sides have wrecked the chance of effective climate action, and that if only the “sensible centre” would be allowed to govern things would be OK. But when it comes to climate action, this is both wrong and irrelevant. Climate change is caused by basic physics. You either reduce carbon emissions or you cook the planet. The CPRS wouldn’t have reduced emissions — just given huge taxpayer-funded handouts to polluters. The press gallery’s centrist “fault on all sides, extremism is wrecking civility” hand-wringing will never change the basic maths, just guarantee we’re stuck in a permanent loop of climate failure. Keryn Robinson, Crikey comment"


----------



## basilio (7 December 2019)

The new climate reality. Unadjusted.

*Smoke and bushfires are the new norm, so how do we beat the 'airpocalypse'?*
While towns along the east coast battle the blazes threatening to devour their homes, Sydney is fighting a different enemy: the pall of smoke that's choking the city.

The air quality is already three times worse than at any moment in the past five years — and it's not showing signs of slowing down.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12...on-how-our-lives-will-need-to-change/11761098


----------



## basilio (7 December 2019)

How Climate has affected the world we grew up in and  the likely impact on our childrens world.
*See how global warming has changed the world since your childhood*
Global warming is already changing the world before our eyes — let’s see what has happened in your lifetime.

When were you born?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-06/how-climate-change-has-impacted-your-life/11766018


----------



## orr (7 December 2019)

basilio said:


> When were you born?




For a few contributors to the Global Warming threads you'd see by their arguments it's not unreasonable to assume '_Yesterday_'.. 

The current climatic situation is weather. It's extremes though  have been predicted by climatic forecasters warnings.
A couple of the 'maligned' climatic forecasters Flannery,Hanson amongst these are of noted absence in the ' L_uke Warming Brigades_'  more recent contributions.

Crow is most difficult to swallow...  not Least when the observed facts shove it down your neck.
Luckily there's(for the time bening) the Andrew Dolt hole and the intellectually void Murdoch compound to crawl into...with that as a choice I'd take the bunker solution of the Ziclon-B and a luger.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2019)

Harvard study shows what we all already knew

https://www.ecology.news/2019-08-26-wind-turbines-create-more-global-warming.html


----------



## Knobby22 (12 December 2019)

It's funny that the article quoted starts sounding scientific and then uses the words climate fanatics and I thought, could they be cherry picking? Surely not!

So I read the article where it came from and noted the following:

Stanford professor John Dabiri criticized the study, saying the simulations relied on a proxy for wind turbines that increases aerodynamic drag at the earth’s surface (see “John Dabiri: Innovators Under 35”).

“It is well known that this type of modeling assumption does a poor job of predicting the flow in real wind farms,” he said in an e-mail.

Dabiri, an expert on wind turbine designs, says a “more realistic” earlier simulation found “little temperature change near the surface.”

The American Wind Energy Association swiftly challenged the framing of the conclusions as well.

"Because the recent study only focuses on localized impacts over a short time period, it greatly overstates the surface temperature impact of renewable resources relative to fossil fuels," read a statement forwarded to _MIT Technology Review,_ attributed to the trade group's former senior director of research, Michael Goggin. "If the paper instead looked across the global and long-lasting timescales that matter, renewable resources would fare hundreds of times if not infinitely better than fossil resources."


And from one of the Harvard  authors:
- I'm sure this paper will be misinterpreted or misrepresented by some to argue against the rollout of wind power.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2019)

The greater point Knobby, in spite of the opinion of obvious vested interests, is that wind power is not a sustainable solution  to replacement of fossil fuels.

Ps. I thought be warming angle a bit tenuous myself, but so much of everything is politicized camel dung. Take the recent rhetoric over bushfires... Mostly about firing up the idiots.


----------



## explod (12 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> The greater point Knobby, in spite of the opinion of obvious vested interests, is that wind power is not a sustainable solution  to replacement of fossil fuels.
> 
> Ps. I thought be warming angle a bit tenuous myself, but so much of everything is politicized camel dung. Take the recent rhetoric over bushfires... Mostly about firing up the idiots.




It's the combinations. No wind usually sunny.  Tidal generation is now becoming economic also. The currents keep flowing.

Noted a photo awhile back (should have saved) showing a neat long line of sheep huddled together along the shade of a wind turbines pole.

And coal needs to be saved for future generations who will be smarter and the future belongs more to them than us hascoudabeens.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2019)

explod said:


> It's the combinations. No wind usually sunny.  Tidal generation is now becoming economic also. The currents keep flowing.
> 
> And coal needs to be saved for future generations who will be smarter and the future belongs more to them than us hascoudabeens.



Even in combination it's still not viable for baseload power.

If we want to replace coal, and I do think it is a good idea for rreasons other than CO2,emissions, we're going to have to go nuclear or think of something different.


----------



## explod (12 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Even in combination it's still not viable for baseload power.
> 
> If we want to replace coal, and I do think it is a good idea for rreasons other than CO2,emissions, we're going to have to go nuclear or think of something different.




I do not agree, nuclear is expensive to get going and years of work to be started. Solar, wind and battery storage science is advancing at a wonderful rate to meet all our needs soon and if the fkn guvnuts gave subsidies to renewables as they do to coal we'd be there now.

Many countries almost have it and we have much more sunshine here. Its been calculated that windmills and solar panels across the Great Australian Bight could supply eight times our needs. And we also have the desert country.

https://www.clickenergy.com.au/news-blog/12-countries-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy/


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2019)

explod said:


> I do not agree, nuclear is expensive to get going and years of work to be started. Solar, wind and battery storage science is advancing at a wonderful rate to meet all our needs soon and if the fkn guvnuts gave subsidies to renewables as they do to coal we'd be there now.
> 
> Many countries almost have it and we have much more sunshine here. Its been calculated that windmills and solar panels across the Great Australian Bight could supply eight times our needs. And we also have the desert country.
> 
> https://www.clickenergy.com.au/news-blog/12-countries-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy/



Battery storage is the weak link. If we can solve that conundrum, then it could work.

Like I've said before I have a client with an interesting technology, but at this point, we don't have good enough *sustainable storage solutions.


----------



## explod (12 December 2019)

The


wayneL said:


> Battery storage is the weak link. If we can solve that conundrum, then it could work.
> 
> Like I've said before I have a client with an interesting technology, but at this point, we don't have good enough *sustainable storage solutions.




They have batteries now that can hold for 12 months and last 20 years. These matters as I indicated are being resolved at an exponential rate.


----------



## orr (12 December 2019)

Dear Wayne my benighted darling; Argue with the money,  See how you go. 

a simple cut and paste:

"0.4 euro

*Nuclear* energy averages 0.4 euro cents/*kWh*, much the same as hydro; coal is over 4.0 c/*kWh* (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 c/*kWh* and only wind shows up better than *nuclear*, at 0.1-0.2 c/*kWh* average. NB these are the external *costs* only."

When you've got that math to work shuffle off to Cannon-Brookes and save his bacon and his billion$$..

More difficult though may be an understanding of 4th generation fast reactor design's ((they involve science) real science)). and a knowledge of  where they are under construction and their progress(over the decades)...Ahh Oak Ridge Thorium and the good old'e days, So much promise  so little plutonium... 

I'd love few things more than my tax going into any one of a number of these loss/leading concepts. Seriously something good may come of it.

 But with  the 'backwater boy's of the LNP'???  your hav'n a laugh...


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Battery storage is the weak link. If we can solve that conundrum, then it could work.



Pumped hydro - there's a solution which works. All proven and very doable. 

Meanwhile I see that on a certain "News" website the latest is a call to scrap the NYE fireworks in Sydney because apparently they're "insensitive" to bushfire victims.

Surely that's a planted story to make a mockery of the whole issue. Present a draconian and over the top idea in an attempt to make anyone genuinely concerned about climate change seem like a raving lunatic. 

Set the crackers off and focus on real solutions not sensationalist silly ones.


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2019)

Link: https://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art10/


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2019)

orr said:


> Dear Wayne my benighted darling; Argue with the money,  See how you go.
> 
> a simple cut and paste:
> 
> ...




Dear (b)orr(e)

I don't believe those numbers, empirical evidence does not support them.

Also, I haven't voted LNP, LPA, NPA, CLP or any of their proxies in the Senate for very long time. Neither did I vote for them in the last federal election, and would only ever consider them in the reps in the future, in order to help keep the postmodern heathen of the - now laughably named - Labour Party from power.

So, please go and do an impossible autoerotic act.


----------



## cynic (13 December 2019)

My apologies for the late notice folks!

I only just found out about this one, this very same morning, and nominations will be closing today!

https://www.thegwpf.com/nominations-open-in-our-green-hypocrite-of-the-year-competition/

The outcome will undoubtedly be difficult to predict, especially given the abundant supply of worthy contenders.


----------



## IFocus (15 December 2019)

Dr Karl


https://australiascience.tv/vod/dr-...3V42WPtdOokvbszkshol3GaxVHakEU8xosDUHjGgSjMIw


----------



## basilio (15 December 2019)

IFocus said:


> Dr Karl
> 
> 
> https://australiascience.tv/vod/dr-...3V42WPtdOokvbszkshol3GaxVHakEU8xosDUHjGgSjMIw




One* could *watch Karl and get the evidence behind what is happening  with global warming as well as the reasons why so many people refuse to accept it and then the solutions.

But that would be far too simple wouldn't it ?

Crystal clear.


----------



## basilio (15 December 2019)

Back to reality. 1

* We need politicians to have the guts to admit it's going to hurt to fight climate change *
Greg Jericho
Any political party that really wants to take action needs to be honest with the public: it won’t be pleasant and it will be costly
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...mit-its-going-to-hurt-to-fight-climate-change


----------



## basilio (15 December 2019)

Back to reality 2
* Rupert Murdoch says 'no climate change deniers around' – but his writers prove him wrong *
Some columnists in News Corp’s papers didn’t get their boss’s message

Amy Remeikis
Sun 15 Dec 2019 06.00 AEDT   Last modified on Sun 15 Dec 2019 14.33 AEDT
 
* Comments*
 114 



Rupert Murdoch’s declaration last month that ‘there are no climate change deniers’ at News Corp must have been missed by many of the publisher’s columnists. Photograph: Matt Baron/REX/Shutterstock 
“There are no climate change deniers around I can assure you,” Rupert Murdoch said last month at News Corp’s annual general meeting.

His declaration that the publisher of the Daily Telegraph, the Australian and owner of Sky News was free of climate deniers was widely greeted with mirth.

The next day the geologist Ian Plimer proved Murdoch’s doubters correct when he published an opinion piece in the Australian claiming the major pollution in western nations was “the polluting of minds about the role of carbon dioxide”.

“There are no carbon emissions,” he wrote. “If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims.”

And it gets so much better... Kenny, Bolt, Blair and the remainder of the usual Murdoch suspects
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...eniers-around-but-his-writers-prove-him-wrong


----------



## rederob (16 December 2019)

The thread title really deserved to be
"*Global Warming Denial is Unstoppable.*"


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> An alarmist is what a denialist calls a realist.
> 
> A denialist is what an alarmist calls a skeptic.
> 
> Don't you love English.



I just find it sad, that there it has to be so black or white, a person is either an absolute believer and treats it as a religion, otherwise they are classed as a denier.
I guess perception management companies, find that works best?
The church has been using the same ploy for centuries, you are a believer, or you go to hell.


----------



## rederob (16 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I just find it sad, that there it has to be so black or white, a person is either an absolute believer and treats it as a religion, otherwise they are classed as a denier.
> I guess perception management companies, find that works best?
> The church has been using the same ploy for centuries, you are a believer, or you go to hell.



Why not revert to what the science shows and stop your malarkey because it's folk like you that help perpetuate the myth that what is happening is somehow "religious."
Nothing requires that you believe anything, but if you choose not to understand something and then claim that what you do not understand is something other than what it really is, then you are just adding another baseless opinion to the mix.


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2019)

rederob said:


> Why not revert to what the science shows and stop your malarkey because it's folk like you that help perpetuate the myth that what is happening is somehow "religious."
> Nothing requires that you believe anything, but if you choose not to understand something and then claim that what you do not understand is something other than what it really is, then you are just adding another baseless opinion to the mix.



Rob I know you are passionate about it and your self belief is unshakable, but it doesn't make you 100% correct in everything you quote.
Just re read your posts in the Folau thread, to show that an absolute belief in an outcome, doesn't mean it will be so.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2019)

rederob said:


> The thread title really deserved to be
> "*Global Warming Denial is Unstoppable.*"



Who is denying warming? What is at issue is the attribution.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2019)

Greta busted as a fraud again.


----------



## moXJO (16 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Rob I know you are passionate about it and your self belief is unshakable, but it doesn't make you 100% correct in everything you quote.
> Just re read your posts in the Folau thread, to show that an absolute belief in an outcome, doesn't mean it will be so.



Lets not forget all those other threads where I was right and rob was oh so wrong.

I think its important to point that out.... often.


On climate change I'd back rob. But they really fcuked up the message and here we are after almost 2 decades.

I'm with plod in that its too late to do anything in Australia (or the world for that matter) for any meaningful effect, except for preparation and sandbagging.


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2019)

moXJO said:


> I'm with plod in that its too late to do anything in Australia (or the world for that matter) for any meaningful effect, except for preparation and sandbagging.




Well eventually it will be shown one way or another, whether the World can do enough the the time time available, to ensure the continuation of the human race.
The reality is that once humans have gone, nature will re find its balance. 
IMO eventually either due to warming or overpopulation, humans will either go or their numbers greatly reduced by one way or another.


----------



## Humid (16 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I just find it sad, that there it has to be so black or white, a person is either an absolute believer and treats it as a religion, otherwise they are classed as a denier.
> I guess perception management companies, find that works best?
> The church has been using the same ploy for centuries, you are a believer, or you go to hell.




https://images.app.goo.gl/jR2Hwiq6WNdYAa1p8


----------



## rederob (16 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Rob I know you are passionate about it and your self belief is unshakable, but it doesn't make you 100% correct in everything you quote.
> Just re read your posts in the Folau thread, to show that an absolute belief in an outcome, doesn't mean it will be so.



Again, focus on *this *topic which you continue to attach "religion" to rather than science.
You understand how a power plant generates electricity and would have no difficulty telling someone who was clueless.  There will be a lot that goes on that you do not need to know because the simplicity of a power plant is that a source of energy is converted to a flow of electrons that can be externally distributed.
In climate there is a source of energy - namely the sun - that heats the planet and keeps it warm because an amount of that energy is retained through the *blanket effect* of the atmosphere.  If the *blanket effect* retains more energy then the planet warms over time. 
People can throw as many curve balls as they like but this is a matter of physics ruling the outcome, just as the energy equation for your power plant can be calculated.
When you work out that the maths or physics is wrong let us all know because you are confusing this with ideas about being passionate over something.


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2019)

rederob said:


> Again, focus on *this *topic which you continue to attach "religion" to rather than science.
> You understand how a power plant generates electricity and would have no difficulty telling someone who was clueless.  There will be a lot that goes on that you do not need to know because the simplicity of a power plant is that a source of energy is converted to a flow of electrons that can be externally distributed.
> In climate there is a source of energy - namely the sun - that heats the planet and keeps it warm because an amount of that energy is retained through the *blanket effect* of the atmosphere.  If the *blanket effect* retains more energy then the planet warms over time.
> People can throw as many curve balls as they like but this is a matter of physics ruling the outcome, just as the energy equation for your power plant can be calculated.
> When you work out that the maths or physics is wrong let us all know because you are confusing this with ideas about being passionate over something.




I actually don't give a rats ar$e one way or the other and don't go bashing people around the ears.
I only mentioned that it is a shame that the debate has to be so black versus white, well since then my point has been well and truly proven IMO.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2019)

The assumption that the assumptions are incontrovertible, is a matter of religious observance, @rederob.

Vis a vis, a religion.

Religions feign objectivity, it is no different in your religion.

This is not to say that your religion does not have some pertinent points as do all religions, but what we want in objective debate is... absolute objectivity.

As humans we all suffer from cognitive bias, but probably the most egregious cognitive bias is the so-called bias blind spot, this is where I see you and your friends as destroying your own credibility.

I will readily admit to the same, but you of the  new revelation cult will never do so.


----------



## Logique (16 December 2019)

https://babylonbee.com/news/poll-fi...ue-to-be-lectured-by-climate-change-activists
_"...Over 87% of respondents selected, "Bring on the tidal wave." A few people said they'd rather take the lectures, but after hearing a few minutes of the lectures, quickly changed their minds..."





_


----------



## Knobby22 (16 December 2019)

Don't worry Rederob.
When you see one side playing the man not the ball, it's obvious they know they only have paper tigers.


----------



## rederob (16 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I actually don't give a rats ar$e one way or the other and don't go bashing people around the ears.
> I only mentioned that it is a shame that the debate has to be so black versus white, well since then my point has been well and truly proven IMO.



If you don't care then don't post your ideas that science is equal to a religion unless you understand what you are talking about and can make a credible case.
Your idea that you point is proven has *no merit* whatsoever as you continue to confuse concepts.
To prove your case, use science.
If you don't want to do that, then expect your replies to be treated with the respect they deserve.


----------



## Humid (16 December 2019)

Isn’t there a thread on conceited boomers?


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Don't worry Rederob.
> When you see one side playing the man not the ball, it's obvious they know they only have paper tigers.



You're feckin joking Knobby, @rederob is the king of ad hom!


----------



## Knobby22 (16 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> You're feckin joking Knobby, @rederob is the king of ad hom!




He is overtly aggressive, but that's not what I said.

Instead of arguing science it's all religion, Greta, hypocrites' ….paper tigers.

In other works the "not happening" argument has been lost and most people know it, at least subconsciously. It's happening.

Even in Antarctica, which should be years away from warming effects, looks crap.
The models have been too conservative.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> He is overtly aggressive, but that's not what I said.
> 
> Instead of arguing science it's all religion, Greta, hypocrites' ….paper tigers.
> 
> ...



Again, nobody denies warming, it has been warming since the little Ice age.

The debate is over attribution and correct treatment of data


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2019)

Logique said:


> https://babylonbee.com/news/poll-fi...ue-to-be-lectured-by-climate-change-activists
> _"...Over 87% of respondents selected, "Bring on the tidal wave." A few people said they'd rather take the lectures, but after hearing a few minutes of the lectures, quickly changed their minds..."
> 
> View attachment 99072
> _



Nailed it.


----------



## rederob (16 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Nailed it.



Some people recognise fake news when they see it - you have responded to a post in the wrong thread!


----------



## basilio (16 December 2019)

rederob said:


> Some people recognise fake news when they see it - you have responded to a post in the wrong thread!




No Way !!!  Are you saying that was fake news !!
What absolute rubbish..

I could point to half a dozen  world Presidents and prime Ministers, a score of media owners, a thousand  billionaires and many of our most prolific and erudite posters on ASF  who would back the sentiments of that story to the hilt.

In fact they would twist the  knife and stick it in again for good measure.  *There is reality for you.  *


----------



## rederob (16 December 2019)

basilio said:


> No Way !!!  Are you saying that was fake news !!
> What absolute rubbish..
> 
> I could point to half a dozen  world Presidents and prime Ministers, a score of media owners, a thousand  billionaires and many of our most prolific and erudite posters on ASF  who would back the sentiments of that story to the hilt.
> ...



Nailed it.


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2019)

rederob said:


> Some people recognise fake news when they see it - you have responded to a post in the wrong thread!



The message is still pertinent, though obviously wasted.


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2019)

rederob said:


> Nailed it.



That also is self explanatory, you and Bas slapping each others back.


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2019)

Humid said:


> Isn’t there a thread on conceited boomers?



Yep, you just posted in it.


----------



## rederob (16 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The message is still pertinent, though obviously wasted.



Exactly where was the science?
Your idea that I might "go bashing people around the ears" is actually a call for you and anyone else to use what is between your ears... read my very many posts which point people in the direction of the science.
We who follow the science have to contend with comments like this:
_"Well eventually it will be shown one way or another, whether the World can do enough in the time available, to ensure the continuation of the human race."_​There is zero science suggesting this is a likelihood for eons to come, and is symptomatic of the rubbish ideas propagated by those who continue to shitcan climate change.
While these ideas are allowed circulate widely there will be people who think - actually don't think much at all - there is legitimacy to them.  And time and time again we call out those making the comments to show there is substance to their comments, to no avail.
Throw mud and hope it sticks.


----------



## basilio (16 December 2019)

I thought this historical pictorial on the global temperatures and conditions on earth is a good summary.
https://xkcd.com/1732/


----------



## Knobby22 (16 December 2019)

basilio said:


> I thought this historical pictorial on the global temperatures and conditions on earth is a good summary.
> https://xkcd.com/1732/



Cool but Stonehenge is too small!


----------



## moXJO (16 December 2019)

basilio said:


> No Way !!!  Are you saying that was fake news !!
> What absolute rubbish..
> 
> I could point to half a dozen  world Presidents and prime Ministers, a score of media owners, a thousand  billionaires and many of our most prolific and erudite posters on ASF  who would back the sentiments of that story to the hilt.
> ...



It was funny.

 Personally I think there was a hint of truth to it....
God knows bas when you start droning  on I look longingly at the ocean.


----------



## explod (16 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Again, nobody denies warming, it has been warming since the little Ice age.
> 
> The debate is over attribution and correct treatment of data




Staaarrrooooth, had the accelerated increase of the last 10 or 12 years been at the same rate since the ice age we would never have been born Champ.

The rubbish of the deniers is unbelievable.  The earth is cooking and most are turning away and living in pretence land.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2019)

explod said:


> Staaarrrooooth, had the accelerated increase of the last 10 or 12 years been at the same rate since the ice age we would never have been born Champ.
> 
> The rubbish of the deniers is unbelievable.  The earth is cooking and most are turning away and living in pretence land.



What is this rubbish of which you speak Komrade Plod? 

I posit that you have been walled off in your Di Natale/Bandt bubble of histrionics far too long. 

Break free my radical friend and examine data from the honest brokers in science!


----------



## orr (16 December 2019)

basilio said:


> I thought this historical pictorial on the global temperatures and conditions on earth is a good summary.
> https://xkcd.com/1732/




Great link Bas. 
A recent, _compromised_, post in this thread tempted me to link the Skepicalscience info on Co2 in the atmosphere; They give Basic, Intermediate and Advanced  options to suit your level of understanding. Unfortunately Any of those were way beyond the capacities of the poster..


----------



## explod (16 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> What is this rubbish of which you speak Komrade Plod?
> 
> I posit that you have been walled off in your Di Natale/Bandt bubble of histrionics far too long.
> 
> Break free my radical friend and examine data from the honest brokers in science!



Did you bother to think about my first paragraph.


----------



## basilio (16 December 2019)

moXJO said:


> It was funny.
> 
> Personally I think there was a hint of truth to it....
> God knows bas when you start droning  on I look longingly at the ocean.




I can so appreciate your predicament MoXjo.

I was thinking about the choice being offered of a tidal wave vs being droned to death by wild eyed ,  rabbiting(rabid) climate activists. Totally unfair of course and it got me thinking about a more humane solution.

So. I'm (more than) happy to invite over all those people being droned out of their minds because they really can't (won't) get their heads around the simple facts of CC and where we are heading. 

I'll start a particularly detailed presentation to get you in the mood and when you _just-can't-take-it-any-more_ you can head out to the large warm pool I have out the back. You can help yourself to some gorgeous  scotch and  a decent handful of gentle downers and then - a lovely swim in our waaarmmmm luxuriant pool. 

Before you know it - no more problems ! I think this would be far more humane than a messy, ugly tidal wave.

Bookings now open.  Ring early and beat the rush.


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2019)

explod said:


> Did you bother to think about my first paragraph.



No, because it was visceral bs.


----------



## moXJO (17 December 2019)

basilio said:


> I can so appreciate your predicament MoXjo.
> 
> I was thinking about the choice being offered of a tidal wave vs being droned to death by wild eyed ,  rabbiting(rabid) climate activists. Totally unfair of course and it got me thinking about a more humane solution.
> 
> ...



*Stares hopefully at ocean*


----------



## explod (17 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> No, because it was visceral bs.



Yep its too hard for the belief system so has to be buried.

We don't like the facts do we.  There is the science backed up by a bushman's observations over the last 70 years.

And if that's not good enough, how about getting onboard anyway as it's becoming clear that industries moving into clean alternatives is where the profits will be.


----------



## Humid (17 December 2019)

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/co2-emissions-are-stupid-the-horse-calculation-1736008830
Ulterior motive


----------



## rederob (17 December 2019)

Humid said:


> https://oppositelock.kinja.com/co2-emissions-are-stupid-the-horse-calculation-1736008830
> Ulterior motive



A lot of kids at school learn about the carbon cycle.
It's the one where animals breathe air and plants photosynthesise what has been breathed out.
In this cycle all the atmospheric components have been accounted for through natural processes.
When cars learn to breathe air as part of their natural cycle rather than rely on fossil fuels extracted from the ground and burnt in an engine, thereby becoming net additions to the atmosphere, we will be on a real winner.  
Neigh, we already have cars that don't need fossil fuels so problem solved!


----------



## basilio (17 December 2019)

A new climate reality. Give it 10 minutes.

https://www.homefront.site/


----------



## IFocus (19 December 2019)

Some more dodgy data from the BOM, warm enough for everyone yet?

How is it going to go when we get the extra couple of degrees plus the extremes of volatility that will come with it?


*Australia in spring 2019*
Temperatures Rainfall Extremes Important notes the top

*In Brief*

Fifth-warmest spring on record for Australia
Mean maximum temperature warmer than average for spring over nearly all of Australia; second-warmest spring mean maximum temperature on record nationally
Mean minimum temperature warmer than average for spring over most of Western Australia, and scattered areas of the north and east; cooler than average mean minimum temperature for parts of the north and parts of southeastern South Australia, western Victoria to the New South Wales Riverina
Rainfall below average for most of Australia; nationally the driest spring on record
Spring rainfall amongst the ten lowest on record for the Northern Territory and all States except Victoria and Tasmania
Spring mean maximum temperature amongst the ten highest on record for the Northern Territory and all States except Victoria and Tasmania
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/archive/201911.summary.shtml


----------



## moXJO (19 December 2019)

IFocus said:


> Some more dodgy data from the BOM, warm enough for everyone yet?
> 
> How is it going to go when we get the extra couple of degrees plus the extremes of volatility that will come with it?
> 
> ...



10 degrees under what they said it was going to hit,  here anyway....
Heard it was hell in western Sydney though.


----------



## IFocus (19 December 2019)

moXJO said:


> 10 degrees under what they said it was going to hit,  here anyway....
> Heard it was hell in western Sydney though.




I think in 50 years it will be Armageddon we have been lucky here in WA with fires  4 x 40 although family have been impacted by the fires north of Perth


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 December 2019)

moXJO said:


> 10 degrees under what they said it was going to hit,  here anyway....




A toasty 48 here yesterday according to my non-calibrated thermometer and 45 today. BOM official data shows 45 both days. So it's fairly warm and toasty here in SA yes. 

Keeping the cat cool with these ice blocks as she doesn't seem impressed with the heat. They're made from milk that's supposed to be suitable for cats to drink so all good there.


----------



## chiff (20 December 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> A toasty 48 here yesterday according to my non-calibrated thermometer and 45 today. BOM official data shows 45 both days. So it's fairly warm and toasty here in SA yes.
> 
> Keeping the cat cool with these ice blocks as she doesn't seem impressed with the heat. They're made from milk that's supposed to be suitable for cats to drink so all good there.
> 
> View attachment 99146



In Adelaide Hills ,when they were saying an overnight minimum of 35 in Adelaide it was an unusually warm 27 here.In Norway they call any overnight temperature over 20 a tropical night.


----------



## basilio (20 December 2019)

A summary of the major  world climate change catastrophes in 2019. 

* 2019 has been a year of climate disaster. Yet still our leaders procrastinate *
Geoff Goldrick
We should pause to remember just how extraordinary this year has been, and reflect on what it might mean for our future

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-disaster-yet-still-our-leaders-procrastinate


----------



## wayneL (20 December 2019)

What disasters in 2019 outside of the normal standard deviation of weather events, makes this year any worse than any other, @basilio ?


----------



## basilio (20 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> hat disasters in 2019 outside of the normal standard deviation of weather events, makes this year any worse than any other, @basilio ?



The year started with a record-breaking heatwave in southern Australia with temperatures in the mid-40s, in some areas for 40 days in a row. Then followed the immolation of vast areas of moist Tasmanian forests, forests that date back to the last ice age. Approximately 3% of the state burned as a long-term trend of less rainfall and more evaporation was capped off by the driest January on record. On the mainland, who could forget those horrifying images of the Menindee fish kills?


----------



## basilio (20 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> What disasters in 2019 outside of the normal standard deviation of weather events, makes this year any worse than any other, @basilio ?



To our north, Pabuk, the earliest forming tropical storm in the north-west Pacific Ocean on record, smashed into the coastal resorts of Thailand, killing 10 people and causing almost US$160m in damage.

While Australia was sweltering, North America was freezing thanks to a disruption of the polar vortex that might, perversely, be linked to the warming of Arctic waters.

February brought little climatic relief with Townsville hit by devastating floods and Sydney lashed by storms.


----------



## basilio (20 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> What disasters in 2019 outside of the normal standard deviation of weather events, makes this year any worse than any other, @basilio ?




March saw fires continue to rage in Victoria, with over 30 homes lost. Meanwhile, Cyclone Idai, one of a record number of Indian Ocean cyclones, swept through south-eastern Africa, killing thousands in what some called the worst weather-related disaster ever to strike the southern hemisphere. Australia was not immune from cyclones, with Trevor and Veronica wreaking billions of dollars’ worth of damage.

Flooding in Iran claimed at least 70 lives in early April, while cyclones returned to south-eastern Africa, causing another 50 deaths.

In late April-early May Cyclone Fani lashed Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh and Bhutan, causing 89 deaths, capping off a season of very atypical cyclones likely triggered by uncommonly warm seas.


----------



## basilio (20 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> What disasters in 2019 outside of the normal standard deviation of weather events, makes this year any worse than any other, @basilio ?



June saw weeks of rain drown the midwest United States, on top of a near-record tornado season and the wettest 12 months on record.

Then hell came to Europe with a widespread heatwave that saw France record its highest ever temperature of 45.9C while climate scientists confirmed the link to climate change. In the US, a month of above-average temperatures baked Alaska and fuelled hundreds of fires.

As the tropical storm season started in the Gulf of Mexico in July, Louisiana and Mississippi braced for more floods. Across the Atlantic, Britain boiled while temperature records were also broken in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands during the planet’s hottest month on record.


----------



## basilio (20 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> What disasters in 2019 outside of the normal standard deviation of weather events, makes this year any worse than any other, @basilio ?



August saw record-low sea ice levels in the Arctic and, as August turned to September, Hurricane Dorian missed Mar-a-Lago but terrorised the Bahamas. There was scarcely time to take a breath before torrential rain submerged entire towns in south-east Spain and Imelda drowned Texas.

In response, millions of students once again took to the streets, as Scott Morrison chastised them for needless anxiety and Greta Thunberg “dared” world leaders to ignore them.

Rain towards the end of September brought some relief for the devastating fires in the Amazon, and Noaa confirmed the month as the hottest September on record.

October saw the fires move north to California, as Europe continued to swelter, parts of Australia choked on dust, and Japan was pounded by the costliest Pacific typhoon in recorded history.


----------



## basilio (20 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> What disasters in 2019 outside of the normal standard deviation of weather events, makes this year any worse than any other, @basilio ?



In November, a Venetian council rejected action on climate change only to have its council chambers flooded by record high tides, Cyclone Bulbul displaced millions in Bangladesh and India, and heavy rain triggered deadly flooding across central and eastern Africa.

In a terrifyingly symbolic bookend to another year of record temperatures, Australia is once again on fire and the country and sweltering through a record-breaking heatwave. Fires have been burning in the south-east for months, and all four southern mainland states have already experienced catastrophic fire weather. Smoke has choked our largest city for weeks. Like the Tasmanian fires that started the year, the lack of soil moisture means these fires are tearing through ecosystems that normally don’t burn. Small fires are conflating into megafires, resources are stretched, firefighters are exhausted, more than 750 homes have been lost and six people have already died. And still our “leaders” refuse to discuss climate change. According to the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia’s record for its hottest day has tumbled for the second day running, with maximum temperatures reaching an average of 41.9C on Wednesday.


----------



## basilio (20 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> What disasters in 2019 outside of the normal standard deviation of weather events, makes this year any worse than any other, @basilio ?



The catalogue of climatic disasters that have unfolded this year is truly numbing. And a recently published letter by 11,000 scientists warns the climate emergency will only intensify. And yet despite all the scientific evidence, all the destruction, all the suffering, all the apocalyptic predictions, and all the strikes and marches, nothing happens. Global CO2 emissions continue to rise and the world leaders procrastinate.

________________________________________________________________


----------



## SirRumpole (20 December 2019)

basilio said:


> The catalogue of climatic disasters that have unfolded this year is truly numbing. And a recently published letter by 11,000 scientists warns the climate emergency will only intensify. And yet despite all the scientific evidence, all the destruction, all the suffering, all the apocalyptic predictions, and all the strikes and marches, nothing happens. Global CO2 emissions continue to rise and the world leaders procrastinate.
> 
> ________________________________________________________________




It's hard to argue with all that, but I'm sure wayne will give it a go .


----------



## basilio (21 December 2019)

How a 13year girl has responded to  the Climate emergency.
Her story.


* I'm the 13-year-old police threatened to arrest at the Kirribilli House protest. This is why I did it *
My name is Izzy Raj-Seppings, and I dragged my dad on a one-hour bus trip on the hottest day of the summer to demand Scott Morrison act on climate change because I’m tired of watching my future burn before my eyes

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...kirribilli-house-protest-this-is-why-i-did-it


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It's hard to argue with all that, but I'm sure wayne will give it a go .



Time will be the ultimate arbiter.

....and fair dinkum data.


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2019)

FYI

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html


----------



## Knobby22 (22 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html



Surely as a starting point,  there should be a graph measuring change in earth magnetic strength to associate it with cloud cover and warming? 

Got any more information?


----------



## Humid (22 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

One reliable site to another


----------



## explod (22 December 2019)

Humid said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News
> 
> One reliable site to another



Yes, figured that and decided its useless to respond anymore as by any means b....shite is the defence/support of the denier camp.


----------



## cynic (22 December 2019)

Humid said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News
> 
> One reliable site to another



Methinks Wikipedia doth protest too much!


----------



## moXJO (23 December 2019)

There was a heatwave in 1896 that people were dropping dead from. Apparently went across different locations of the world and lasted days. 

Are they worse now  according to the data?
I know they used different measurements back then.


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2019)

Humid said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News
> 
> One reliable site to another



But what about the science cited?


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2019)

And here is some other stuff to consider

https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/


----------



## Knobby22 (23 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> But what about the science cited?



But it doesn't relate to today. It relates to a past event. There is no magnetic switching of the poles occurring.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> And here is some other stuff to consider
> 
> https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/



I note many of the papers say assuming no  water feedback.

But water vapour is as the papers say is very important to retaining heat. The maths is beyond me but what I have read is that the small incremental increases in CO2, methane and NO2 reduce the emission of heat into space and thereby through water vapour feedback increase the temperature gain.

The effect of CO2 on its own is not large but combined with the other greenhouse gases (which though shorter lived are more effective as greenhouse gases) and the feedback loops cause the temperature rise.

The truth is that we can see this is occurring and there is no alternate theory that explains it once the normal cycles caused by the earth wobbles is included in the calculations.


----------



## Humid (23 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> But what about the science cited?




On which site?


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 December 2019)

Trouble with this issue is that most are seeing it as something to facilitate their own agenda rather than focusing on fixing the problem itself.

Latest one I’ve seen is the nuclear power lobby promoting it as a solution to bushfires.

Now not even this “electric” Smurf is going to try and convince anyone that building a power station, of any sort, is going to prevent fires. Only possible exception is hydro - the bush can’t possibly burn if it’s now under a lake.

Sadly that’s just one of a very long list where the climate issue is merely a convenient means to promote anything from building development to consumer gadgets through to political ideologies all with little if any intention of actually fixing the problem.

That the issue keeps being hijacked is a big part of why society has thus far failed to address it and the ultimate cause of many giving up on it.


----------



## explod (23 December 2019)

Cuuummoorn Wayne, explain this away?

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019...EmfA77QK_PCsqjhGJ-gcXeonTU7ewThhVt1M9ERM2Uzcg

"
The rainforests along the spine of the Great Dividing Range, between the Hunter River and southern Queensland, are remnants of Gondwana, the ancient supercontinent that broke up about 180 million years ago.

"Listening to the dawn chorus in these forests is literally an acoustic window back in time," ecologist Mark Graham tells RN's Saturday Extra.

"It's like listening to what the world sounded like in the time of the dinosaurs."

The forests are mountaintop islands that have been "permanently wet" for tens of millions of years.

But now, some of these forests are being burnt for the first time."

And it is the tree who makes the air we breathe and the fresh water we drink. We have cut too many down and now the acceleration is really going as they burn.


----------



## cynic (23 December 2019)

Hmmmm. 
It may be spinning! 
In any case, it appears that there has been an acceleration in the directional change to magnetic North.


----------



## orr (23 December 2019)

cynic said:


> Hmmmm.
> It may be spinning!
> In any case, it appears that there has been an acceleration in the directional change to magnetic North.





Apart from_ 'possisbly'_ helping you sharpen your razor blades under the pyramid(do you sleep under it as well?), of what relevance is your post?


----------



## cynic (23 December 2019)

orr said:


> Apart from_ 'possisbly'_ helping you sharpen your razor blades under the pyramid(do you sleep under it as well?), of what relevance is your post?



What pyramid?
In answer to your question:
Posts #3012- 3020


----------



## explod (26 December 2019)

A very good article on scepticism here:-

www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-27/climate-change-denial-zombies-killed/11291724?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=%5bspecialist_sfmc_26_12_19_science%5d%3a125&user_id=d43aa28863a1ad199b62719234a06c6d4be08c298adf37abdc71b7fe737424c1&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%5bspecialist_sfmc_26_12_19_science%5d%7c125story_4_headline

"Have you got climate zombies?

They might pop up in your social media feed, or manifest in comments under climate change news online. They might even appear at your Christmas lunch. And they're rife in some media outlets — they often come out after dark.

They're the cases against climate science that were buried years ago, yet somehow, refuse to die.


----------



## wayneL (27 December 2019)

Another paper on low Co2 sensitivity


----------



## Knobby22 (27 December 2019)

What a tosspot of a paper. 

Composition of atmosphere doesn't matter, just thickness, and he's managed to make his maths fit the results for Venus, Earth and Titan.
Truly a joke. Surely it won't be published.

Looked him up, denier from way back.
Doctor of Philosophy, the University is based in Gippsland.


----------



## rederob (27 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> What a tosspot of a paper.
> 
> Composition of atmosphere doesn't matter, just thickness, and he's managed to make his maths fit the results for Venus, Earth and Titan.
> Truly a joke. Surely it won't be published.
> ...



It's just an indication of where those ignorant of science at this website go for their information, and then post it as if it were some sort of revelation.
Irrespective of any other factor contained in the paper, it fails to show any explanatory prowess.
In particular it fails to address how declining irradiance causes temperatures to rise and this is the very opposite of the intent of the paper.
In a world of fake news we are being constantly bombarded by fools peddling rubbish.


----------



## Humid (27 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Another paper on low Co2 sensitivity





Straight from the horses mouth.....


----------



## explod (28 December 2019)

https://www.sciencealert.com/stanfo...il&utm_term=0_fe5632fb09-5eadf201ef-365530661
Maybe we can do it.


----------



## basilio (28 December 2019)

explod said:


> https://www.sciencealert.com/stanfo...il&utm_term=0_fe5632fb09-5eadf201ef-365530661
> Maybe we can do it.




It's a compelling story.  And what do we have to lose to having a go at a massive electrification program ? Just end up with a clean renewable energy society, a ton less pollution and cheaper bills. 

Must be a catch somewhere ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 December 2019)

I do understand the difference between climate and weather yes.

It's a reality though that "extreme" weather events, if they start happening rather often, do point to a change in the climate since "extreme" is by definition with reference to the established climate. In that sense I'll draw your attention to the weather forecast for Monday 30 December 2019:

"Very Hot. Late Storms. Maximum 40"

Now that's for Adelaide? Nope.

Perth? No try again.

Melbourne? Nope.

Sydney perhaps?

Nah - the answer is Hobart.

Now as someone who was born in Hobart and has lived most of my life in Tas (now in SA) I'm rather familiar with the fact that Hobart's all time record temperature was set at 40.8 back in the mid-1970's and we had to wait until 2013 to exceed 40 again. Since then another part of the state reached 42.2, an all time record (Hobart's 40.8 was the previous state record), and if it gets to 40 on Monday then that'll be the third time this decade.

One data point proves nothing, I agree with that, but when it happens 3 times in a decade versus only two previous known occasions since European settlement well then that does raise some questions. Especially given that the same trend is cropping up right around the world.

That doesn't prove CO2 as the direct cause but the evidence that warming is taking place seems pretty clear to me. There's simply too many data points coming up which point in that direction to ignore - Adelaide's all time record was set this year among many other places.

Needless to say, there's rather a lot of things in Tas that just aren't set up to cope with the heat. Plenty of homes and workplaces which can be relied upon to be a few degrees warmer inside than out with no air-conditioning and a population that isn't used to extreme heat = pretty unbearable in practice.


----------



## basilio (28 December 2019)

Wonder why the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica  is melting so fast ?Lets get under it and see what is happening at the bottom of a 600 metre glacier.

And what are the implications if  it continues to let at its current exponential rate ?

 
* Submarine to explore why Antarctic glacier is melting so quickly *
Scientists reach remote Thwaites glacier, vanishing at increasing rate, for mission

...“Nobody has ever been able to drill through the ice close to where it starts to float and that is the critical point,” Vaughan told the Guardian. “If everything goes to plan, they will drill the hole and then ream it out until it’s about 50cm across, and then lower in the autonomous underwater vehicle. That will actually go into the cavity and send back images in real time so they can navigate it right up to the point where the ice starts to float.”

The 3.5 metre-long icefin carries high definition cameras, sonar, and instruments for monitoring water flow, salinity, oxygen and temperature. These can determine how much fresh water is flowing out from under the ice shelf. The robotic sub will also sample the gritty sediment shed into the water as the glacier grinds over the slab of rock it sits on. The data will feed into computer models to refine predictions about the fate of the glacier and the magnitude of sea level rise its melting will produce.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-why-antarctic-glacier-is-melting-so-quickly


----------



## dutchie (2 January 2020)




----------



## basilio (2 January 2020)

The Liberal Party offering a rationale and practical policies to tackle Climate Change ?
This young leader sets out an excellent analysis of the situation and ways to tackle the problem.

* As a Young Liberal I know it's time to stop turning climate change into a culture war *
Chaneg Torres
The climate change debate in Australia has become a poisoned well, but it is our generation that will face the reality of it

Thu 2 Jan 2020 15.03 AEDT   Last modified on Thu 2 Jan 2020 15.15 AEDT

Shares
88




‘It should not be a matter of conservative vs progressive. It should be a matter of science and economics.’ Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
In early December, delegates representing Young Liberal branches across the state voted overwhelmingly in approval of a motion recognising the reality of climate change and the need for action.

The NSW Liberal party’s youth wing recognises this a particularly important issue facing our generation, as our generation will have to face the risks brought about by climate change.

*It is the duty of government to be awake to the challenges of the future. As the great conservative thinker Edmund Burke recognised, current generations hold the present in trust for the future. And climate change is a significant risk that will affect the future of my generation.*

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...top-turning-climate-change-into-a-culture-war


----------



## Knobby22 (3 January 2020)

I don't think it's surprising the young Libs want more done on climate change.
Its only the old Codgers holding fast.

A true Conservative doesn't want massive climate change. The British Conservative party all the way to Thatcher have been proactive on this issue.

It has suited certain powers with large oil interests, Russia, Saudi, certain interests in the USA to turn this into a culture war as it is an easy way to stop action but it can't hold forever in the face of reality.


----------



## chiff (3 January 2020)

A village in Norway,Sunndalsora,just recorded a temperature of 19C ,which is 25C above their January average.The warmest January temperature ever recorded in Norway.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2020)

The overwhelming abundance of, well suited, material, leaves little doubt that this competition will also be hotly contested:

https://www.thegwpf.com/lies-damn-lies-and-tall-climate-tales/


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 January 2020)

basilio said:


> The Liberal Party offering a rationale and practical policies to tackle Climate Change ?
> This young leader sets out an excellent analysis of the situation and ways to tackle the problem.



My thinking at this point is that, noting the fires, now's the time for action and to remove politics from the issue.

A deal needs to be done between Liberal and Labor to de-politicise the issue. Bonus if the Greens agreed to it too.

It might cost someone a future election win but it needs to happen. Agree to come up with and implement an agreed plan of action and that the issue won't be a point of difference at a future election campaign since the other side has exactly the same policy.

There are precedents with other things, big developments and road safety policies come to mind, so it could be done. 

Let's face it neither side is actually winning out of all this. Short term they might but not if you look back over the past decade or three, the issue hasn't really gained any party much politically overall. Labor and Liberal have been in and out and shuffling leaders, the Greens aren't in government, etc. No winners so it's time to drop the politics and hand the issue to science and experts.


----------



## dutchie (4 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> My thinking at this point is that, noting the fires, now's the time for action and to remove politics from the issue.
> 
> A deal needs to be done between Liberal and Labor to de-politicise the issue. Bonus if the Greens agreed to it too.
> 
> ...



I agree mostly but what if the so called science experts are also corrupt.


----------



## rederob (4 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> I agree mostly but what if the so called science experts are also corrupt.



Oh, did Elvis ask you to post that from his dugout in Area 51 where they faked the moon landing?


----------



## Knobby22 (4 January 2020)

Time for some more facts, please read, its from Sky news. 4 degrees country wide is a lot.

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6119233961001


----------



## rederob (4 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Time for some more facts.



A slightly improved version for readers is here.


----------



## dutchie (4 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Oh, did Elvis ask you to post that from his dugout in Area 51 where they faked the moon landing?



Lol. Your a very funny man rederob.


----------



## dutchie (4 January 2020)




----------



## kahuna1 (4 January 2020)

In response to an illogical opinion with .... well no research and poor understanding of even basic geography ...




Smurf1976 said:


> There are places in Australia which have been flooded to the point of causing significant damage




Did you know the floods 2019  in Northern Queensland were and ARE 2,581 km from say Orbost Vic fires ?

Are you aware say Wellington NZ is a mere 2,300 km away ? Or Lord Howe Island is 1,230 Km away from the Victorian fires and that's HALF the distance to the even your alluding to ?



Smurf1976 said:


> All this is extremely different if you look at the data for each individual week or day




Your kidding ? I provided NOT average rainfall maps but ANOMALIES maps ... a difference ..., an area that received 50% of the rainfall over 3 years .... and your still suggesting I look at weeklies.

I am so glad your not a fire warden and clearly have no farming experience and not well traveled



Smurf1976 said:


> I picked a couple of cities because comprehensive data and media coverage exists more than it does in the bush so my claims can be verified by anyone who wishes to




Really ... people outside the city are stupid ? the Bureau or Meteorology ... BOM ... only operates or works in your city ? If I was to suggest people from say Tasmania are ALL stupid ... which of course has the same percent of imbeciles as any other region, its just as valid.
.



Smurf1976 said:


> Now there might be some places where literally no wet period occurred but that isn't the majority.




Must be some other MAP ... or planet you exist upon.* Look closely at the map at the end .... correlation between current fires and burnt regions and the RED areas of lowest rain for 3 years ON RECORD. *

Source data BOM maps .... if it rains for a day or even a week ... but its 50% of the 3 year total is a very deep and dire drought. Look at the brown area on the map and get back ... or I will find you a better one for climate skeptics to understand in a sec.



Smurf1976 said:


> Just because you're in a drought doesn't mean you can't have flash flooding or that smaller dams can't fill and spill.




Really ... do you belong to some cult ? Are you really lacking comprehension that a 3 year ANOMALY rainfall map of Australia as provided ...  showing vast areas of Brown and that's 50% of regular rain and your talking gibberish about flash flooding and some MAGICAL ability to conduct even if that were true ... conduct a controlled burn during a flash flood.

What religion ? Seriously ..... your kidding ?



Smurf1976 said:


> Or to highlight the problem with 3 yearly data I could point out




You did .... and well ... NSW fire chief and Victorian one have had extensive talks. They have been attacked by the usual suspects.

Both pointed out the above .... rainfall maps ... lack of burn-off opportunities.
Both are the experts as is BOM .... on weather and rainfall and humidity.

In 2018 burn-off season ... both quoted serious fires OUT of control during the traditional safe hazard reduction period. One ... Yankees Gap for example it took 44 days to even GET IT UNDER CONTROL ... and here we have someone actually suggesting some safe window was missed ?

https://aboutregional.com.au/yankees-gap-fire-contained-and-under-control-on-day-44/

It actually took over 90 days for all of it to be put out .... and it started In July .... 2018 .

2019 had record high temps and low rainfall and low humidity ... so to suggest there was some missed window ? Stuff me !!

Now to have stupidity quashed is not possible.

Here is a clear picture. BOM .... map of LOWEST 3 year total rainfall EVER areas of Australia.






RAINFALL DEFICIENCIES.

lowest on record ....

Whilst this thread is about the Victorian Bush-fires which are much smaller than the NSW ones ... to have it suggested, even jokingly that one missed a period to do burn-offs in the most effected areas is at best some delusional departure from reality.

LOWEST on record EVER ... whilst a mere 130 to 150 year period depending on the actual region when its rains at 50% or less over an extended period its not good.

*Look closely at the map at the end .... correlation between current fires and burnt regions and the RED areas of lowest rain for 3 years ON RECORD. *

I am not going to even bother suggesting ultra dry ... ultra hot and low humidity are issues because they were already ignored for some religious flooding that never occurred.

Never occurred because .... how can one have flooding when 3 year rain totals are lowest ever on record and some of them go back to 1830 .... close to 200 years all go back to 1900 .... a lot to 1870 ...

Hail ... my favorite deity and its a flood without rain !!


----------



## Knobby22 (4 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> View attachment 99447



Hey Dutchie.

Fire reduction burning was done, particularly in Victoria. Everyone knew it was going to be bad. Victoria has been through this before and fire reduction is taken very seriously.
(Less so in NSW due to cutbacks in funding by state government).

No one however thought the heat would so high above the norm breaking many records and that rainfall would be substantially  below any year in measured history even the drought years! And it's not even an El Nino year!

If you look at the second link posted by Rederob it is quite shocking.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Did you know the floods 2019  in Northern Queensland were and ARE 2,581 km from say Orbost Vic fires ?




Indeed the floods in Northern Qld are quite some distance from the fires in Victoria.

The floods in north-eastern Victoria were however rather close to the area now on fire which also received substantial rain.



> Your kidding ? I provided NOT average rainfall maps but ANOMALIES maps ... a difference ..., an area that received 50% of the rainfall over 3 years .... and your still suggesting I look at weeklies.




Indeed I am for the simple reason that you’ve failed to notice the flooding or at least periods of rain and high humidity which occurred amidst the drought.

Same as the market generally doesn’t go straight up or down.



> I am so glad your not a fire warden and clearly have no farming experience and not well traveled




I’m no farmer but I could tell you tather a lot about rainfall, runoff, wetting up catchments (the relevant point here) and so on.

Wetting up a catchment needs rain certainly but reaching saturation doesn’t require the complete erasure of past deficits. It’s entirely possible to have the ground saturated for a period during an overall drought cycle and for that matter it’s not unknown that small and even medium sized water storages fill and spill during a drought. It’s only the large ones that you can confidently say won’t fill until the drought ends.

In the context of burning off, suffice to say that if a catchment’s saturated then no chance the vegetation won’t be reasonably damp given the rain its it first.

As for travel, well I haven’t been to every place in the whole country but I’m familiar with quite a bit of the areas that are on fire in NSW and Vic yes. Been bushwalking in some of it and have at least driven through and been to towns etc in much of the rest.



> Really ... people outside the city are stupid ? the Bureau or Meteorology ... BOM ... only operates or works in your city ?




Nobody’s suggested that.

Fact is however that media reporting of events in cities is substantially greater than elsewhere such that it’s easier to find archived reports of things which occur there.

In that context parts of Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart have all been flooded during the drought. Same with many other places but you’ll find more media coverage of the cities so it’s easier for someone to verify.



> Source data BOM maps .... if it rains for a day or even a week ... but its 50% of the 3 year total is a very deep and dire drought.




If you’ve had a week of rain then the problem will be getting the fire lit not trying to contain it. Some point not long after that, when it’s no longer saturated but still reasonably moist, is the opportunity to burn.

Hence why real experts did indeed go ahead and do burns during the drought. They’d have done considerably more if given adequate resources and removal of red tape which is my point.

In Victoria there was one planned burn that was downsized by more than 97% due to protesters making a fuss. That was 2019 and the authorities carried out the remaining trivial amount satisfactorily but yep, you guessed it, the rest has now gone up in smoke in a far more dramatic manner given this is in East Gippsland.

Stop that sort of nonsense wasting of opportunity when it does arise and it would have helped the current situation that’s a certainty.

That there’s so much politics surrounding this is ultimately all about the various sides trying to cover their rear end.

Liberals will be happy to talk about anything as long as it’s not the reduced funding for fire fighting, the PM’s lack of interest in the subject or climate change.

Greens will be happy to talk about anything so long as it’s not protesters like the incident I referred to or red tape stopping the removal of hazards by wasting time and money until there’s none left.

Labor will be happy to talk about anything so long as, in the case of Victoria where they’re in government, it doesn’t involve mentioning that a state government department caved into a few protesters rather than doing what they knew needed to be done or that the recommendations following the Black Saturday fires still haven’t been properly implemented.

All sides of politics are guilty to varying degrees and all will simply divert discussion to something they’re on safer ground with.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 January 2020)

wow ...

I am astounded that say floods ... near Albury are something to do with Orbost ... 418 km away let alone Malacoota ...



Smurf1976 said:


> If you’ve had a week of rain then the problem will be getting the fire lit not trying to contain it. Some point not long after that, when it’s no longer saturated but still reasonably moist, is the opportunity to burn.




Quite clearly ... NO single area enjoyed a week of rain. Yep there was flash flooding one region ... that well ... your kidding with your logic or lack of it.







Detailed rainfall map of Victoria and deficiency ...

Yet again dribble Smurf ... *delusional idiotic dribble* ... the floods via a flash rain event are the WHITE circle ... in the North East of the state around Albury ... which according to VIc fire is NOT on fire ....

the Bright RED on the right of the map is the area ON FIRE ... right now.

Maybe a map would help ? Or possibly its beyond that ? For you ? 


the rest, well I will leave it to the new experts.

Take care


----------



## moXJO (4 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> wow ...
> 
> I am astounded that say floods ... near Albury are something to do with Orbost ... 418 km away let alone Malacoota ...
> 
> ...



Time for a nap under your "I love Khamenei" blanket.

Guys with  your thinking are the reason things get so bad....

Smurf is right suck it up.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 January 2020)

Tee hee ...

Non farmer  lecturing a farmer about rain ...  and his hop-along imbecile mate. 

Yipee 

15% of the population has an IQ under 85. Another 5% elderly suffer serious declines. Another 5% have serious mental issues. 

Hello Mxjo ... and the expert in everything just like Trump ... expert in  well everything ... building walls, nuclear power, solar ,., wind-farms ... 

I quoted source data .. gave links ..even pictures .. and got back ... *drivel and opinions based upon mythical floods in the Orbost and Malacoota regions .. *


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> I am astounded that say floods ... near Albury are something to do with Orbost ... 418 km away let alone Malacoota ...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly ... NO single area enjoyed a week of rain. Yep there was flash flooding one region .



If you thinkg Albury, Gippsland and Melbourne are all the same region well that’s an interesting definition of a region.

As for the issue of burning off, if you think there were no suitable conditions then you’d better tell those who found suitable conditions and actually burned off (or tried to in the case of the one stopped by protesters).

Are you suggesting that professionals in the relevant national parks, fire etc authorities in Victoria were mistaken and that what they thought was cool and damp was actually hot and dry?

Better let them know that they don’t know what they’re doing then.


----------



## IFocus (4 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Hey Dutchie.
> 
> Fire reduction burning was done, particularly in Victoria. Everyone knew it was going to be bad. Victoria has been through this before and fire reduction is taken very seriously.
> (Less so in NSW due to cutbacks in funding by state government).
> ...




Canberra today 43.4 degrees  8% humidity WTF


----------



## moXJO (4 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Tee hee ...
> 
> Non farmer  lecturing a farmer about rain ...  and his hop-along imbecile mate.
> 
> ...




You quoted crap that wasn't relevant.
Nice to know that TDS translates to absolute delusion in all areas of life. 

Perhaps this is a safer moisture map to use when trying to conflate an argument in the future....


----------



## kahuna1 (4 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> You quoted crap that wasn't relevant.
> Nice to know that TDS translates to absolute delusion in all areas of life.




I posted rainfall anomaly and total maps ..
I shared humidity and temperature maps ...

And its not relevant ?
Or its not relevant to your dialogue ? Ideology ?

Or is it you just dont understand ?  .... science or ,,, well I cant ask due to the displayed Dunning Kruger effect clearly you demonstrate. 

Not relevant ... rain ... or temperature ... or humidity. LMFAO 

You win the Trump/SCOMO  prize for 2020  ... NDIS assistance for your issues.


----------



## IFocus (4 January 2020)

Penrith 48.9°,  nothing to see here move along please.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Are you suggesting that professionals in the relevant national parks, fire etc authorities in Victoria were mistaken and that what they thought was cool and damp was actually hot and dry?




Have you taken your pills ? I merely ... showed rainfall and humidity and temperature charts ... destroying your pet ... non science based theory and you wet your pants. Because you think they didn't burn off when they had the chance !!

Are you and Mxjo related ? or in the same institution ?

This thread is about climate change being unstoppable ... not for the elderly and 3% who like to believe its all fake. 

Sadly with dementia people often get lost. Suggest you go on the climate deniers thread and swap .... fluids and ideas.


----------



## moXJO (4 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> I posted rainfall anomaly and total maps ..
> I shared humidity and temperature maps ...
> 
> And its not relevant ?
> ...



Hmmmm ok....
Still conflating points I see. 
It's pretty simple: ground cover moisture after rain. Night time slow burn. Even daytime in the right conditions. But please, tell me how we haven't had any burnoffs.....

I'll be sure to point rfs in your direction obviously been doing it wrong.

If what you are doing is science, no wonder Australia is stuffed.


----------



## moXJO (4 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> This thread is about climate change being unstoppable ... not for the elderly and 3% who like to believe its all fake.
> 
> Sadly with dementia people often get lost. Suggest you go on the climate deniers thread and swap .... fluids and ideas.



No one "denied it" either. 
Or do I need to "map" that as well.
Any other false statements you want to make?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 January 2020)

I'm no expert but I can expect that  long term average graphs hide periods of anomaly with the long term and that it does indeed rain sometimes even in areas with record low rainfall, and does have some low temperatures in times of record high temperatures.

Obviously these anomalies in the long term trend can be used to advantage for hazard reduction.

The overall trend in the All Ords last year was up, but that doesn't mean that it was ALWAYS up, there were dips as well. (these are called buying opportunities).


----------



## kahuna1 (4 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> Any other false statements you want to make?




I think your brilliant ...
I think your factual  contributions are great.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Have you taken your pills ? I merely ... showed rainfall and humidity and temperature charts ... destroying your pet ... non science based theory and you wet your pants. Because you think they didn't burn off when they had the chance !!




Because I am factually correct.

Even the mainstream media has reported that one significant burnoff was drastically downsized due to protests and that's right in an affected area (Nowa Nowa).

The authorities themselves will be the first to tell you that they only burned off x amount because of resources to go and do it. Had they more resources then on those days they could have gone to other places and burned those as well.

As for the weather, well if you take a 3 yearly data point of basically anything then it gives a nice smooth line yes. Take 3 yearly stock market data and you can just put your money in an index fund and rarely will it do anything other than go up, there being not too many bear markets if you're looking at 3 years of data for each point.

Same with rainfall or anything else. Take a 3 year average temperature and even Adelaide is under 20 degrees and that's despite having exceeded 40 on many occasions during that time and also come very close to zero.

Nobody managing burnoffs or water supply etc in real time is going to be relying on 3 yearly data in making decisions. They'll include it yes but if the ground's damp right now then the fact that it doesn't rain for the next 12 months is irrelevant at that point if conditions are suitable at the time.

The difference in our approach is that I'm looking at how to solve the problem not how to make a political point from it.

With any emergency it is always the case that there is no single solution which can be easily implemented and fixes it. If there was then you'd just do that and then go back to business as usual, problem fixed. In a real emergency that is never the case however.

In a real emergency of any sort it's a case of getting a partial solution here, a 5% one over there, 1% out of something else and so on and aiming to combine all that into something which fixes it.

If a bridge falls down then the silver bullet is a new bridge. In practice though if there's no second bridge well then you're stuck with having to do whatever you can to improve traffic flow "the long way around" wherever that happens to be. So you remove any obstructions, do any roadworks that can be done quickly, arrange a bus service and so on. Meanwhile you get ferries running across the river - ferries as in "anything that floats" not necessarily an actual proper ferry. Also you do things to reduce the need for people to be crossing regularly in the first place. Etc.

Same with utilities. If there's a lack of power well then it's down to pumping out lakes, using makeshift canals and so on, pushing transmission voltages up to cut losses despite the risk, putting peaking plant into base load service, deferring maintenance, hooking diesel generators up to the grid and so on. It's all 1% here, 2% there etc but do enough of it and you've fixed the problem.

Same with fires. There's no single magic solution - if there were then we'd just do it. Reality though is we can't make it rain on demand to stop fires so we're left with an assortment of partial solutions which if combined form a comprehensive one. Burning off is one of those, clearing around buildings is another, building construction is another, water supply is another, addressing climate change is another, firefighting resources is another and so on. All well short of a full solution in themselves but put them together, do the whole lot, and then you've got something which drastically reduces the extent of the problem. 

Everyone who's dealing with this right now, the RFS, CFA, police, military and second tier organisations like communications, water, energy etc will all be adopting the approach that there's no silver bullet, there's no single solution, but it's about taking advantage of everything which can reasonably be done be that on the ground, in the air, by moving people, evacuating them, sourcing water, power, food or whatever from anywhere that can supply it and so on. They're not going to knock back something which does even 5% of the job unless there's a damn good reason to not use it.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> If what you are doing is science, no wonder Australia is stuffed




Average rainfall ... Ignored.
Rainfall deficiency and at 50% ... ignored.
Humidity at 25% below normal ... ignored ...
Lowest 3 year rain total for vast parts of NSW and Victoria ... ignored ...
Temperature averages all time highs ... ignored ...
The 150 year lows rainfall total ... ignored
Maximum high temperature broken ... ignored
Maximum high temp with ultra low humidity and record low 12 month and 36 month rainfall .. Ignored.

So what was quoted .. and supported ... Nothing from MoXjo and another ...

Talked about flooding 2,581 km away from Victorian fires in Orbost .... accepted as relevant to something ...

When questioned  ... a flash flood 450 km away from current burning regions on the 0ther side of the great dividing range was used to claim there was some window for managed burn-offs.

Fire in July which took 90 days to put out ... and 44 days just to be be under control ... Ignored.

Yes ,,,, in my reality ... humidity .... rainfall when its non existent ... ultra high temperatures and fires burning out of control 150 km away from current ones in Victoria are actually relevant. 

In some peoples world ... its their own reality.

I do prefer using source data ... and I did so, with links provided.
I got none back. Opinions ... dogma and well ... a planet which is not this one where religious beliefs suddenly have floods in regions where rain was 50% of normal on 1 year 2 year and three year measures. In fact actually 150 year low totals for 3 year periods.

I must read up on what fire fighters use to fight fires. I thought it was water.

Obviously not.


----------



## kahuna1 (4 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Because I am factually correct.






moXJO said:


> If what you are doing is science, no wonder Australia is stuffed




Average rainfall ... Ignored.
Rainfall deficiency and at 50% ... ignored.
Humidity at 25% below normal ... ignored ...
Lowest 3 year rain total for vast parts of NSW and Victoria ... ignored ...
Temperature averages all time highs ... ignored ...
The 150 year lows rainfall total ... ignored
Maximum high temperature broken ... ignored
Maximum high temp with ultra low humidity and record low 12 month and 36 month rainfall .. Ignored.


Smurf in your case you ignored ALL and ANY data as provided ... whether it was average ... or 150 year lows ... all are quite different in any normal persons universe. I have underlined them ... each are quite different but tell similar stories ...

So what was quoted .. and supported ... Nothing from MoXjo and another ...

Talked about flooding 2,581 km away in far north Qld  ...  from Victorian fires in Orbost .... accepted as relevant to something ...

When questioned  ... a flash flood 450 km away from current burning regions on the 0ther side of the great dividing range was used to claim there was some window for managed burn-offs. A mere 100 mm of rain in a day, yep produces a local flash flood but ... well ... it was 450 km away.

Fire in July which took 90 days to put out ... and 44 days just to be be under control ... Ignored.

Yes ,,,, in my reality ... humidity .... rainfall when its non existent ... ultra high temperatures and fires burning out of control 150 km away from current ones in Victoria are actually relevant.

In some peoples world ... its their own reality.

I do prefer using source data ... and I did so, with links provided.
I got none back. Opinions ... dogma and well ... a planet which is not this one where religious beliefs suddenly have floods in regions where rain was 50% of normal on 1 year 2 year and three year measures. In fact actually 150 year low totals for 3 year periods.

I must read up on what fire fighters use to fight fires. *I thought it was water.*

Obviously not.


----------



## kahuna1 (5 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> That's how "greenies" stop things in practice




As 150,000 more hectares ignited its ... the Greenies yet again.
All other data is ignored. Record heat ... record low rainfall ...

As one region that will burn for months just caught alight, much to my horror in NSW the steep diabolical regions which require very wet conditions to ever even contemplate a controlled burn, that too is ignored for the dialogue.

Eden and its surrounds ... right up to the edge of town ... from the Victorian border incinerated.
Fires due to terrain ... steep inaccessible regions say around Yambulla will burn until a torrential downpour occurs ... or they as sadly is clear will be a tinder box for embers to eventually ignite similar regions just as dry surrounding Merimbula/ Tura and well all the way up the great dividing range.

Predicting the extent even for the experts and RFS ... and Vic ones .... is not possible.
Denying climate change or even debating hotter dryer conditions seems the idiot dogma of most.
Even disputing of denying actual rain ... heat .. humidity ... are to be ignored

Blaming Greenies or some pet theory of setting a steep escarpment alight to hazard reduce is so absurd and insulting and idiotic it defies rational comment other than clearly displayed dementia and senile decline on display. Are you serious about setting say a steep region lush with vegetation  ... but dead dry .. insanely dry ..due to climate issues ? I asked ... presented data ... and all was ignored.

Your kidding. Seriously.

Each has their views and I note ... with amusement some of the jibes and views. One who resides supposedly on the South Coast when the IP address was checked I thought Golbourn and the Jail was on the Slopes not the south coast let alone the Far south coast.

That a region ... from the Victorian border to Eden just ignited and unexpectedly ignited the extent is Triple the predicted region by RFS ... TRIPLE ... TRIPLE their worst case .... the area is  30 km wide and 50 km deep. At TRIPLE least even the worst estimate on ember spread. This is not about blame ... not at all ... just scope ... SCOPE ...


I am sure some will choose to call this hysterical or whatever as they require changing of their adult nappies.

It seems sadly unlikely to hold much hope despite brave and valiant efforts by the amazing firies and emergency workers to not realistically expect what is left, will not also be under threat in coming days weeks and months.

To ignore 150 year low rainfall-totals ... seems petty if not idiotic at this stage.
To lay blame on some pet theory about what the aboriginals did seems equally absurd given the lack of any and all historical records. So too mythical greenies and its their fault ...

We .. as a nation ...  likely have a burnt total that is going to be 5 times ANY previously seen.
Ignoring climate issues, rain ... humidity ... stomping your foot .. calling me a greenie or inventing floods ...


Pathetic.
That we have seen minimal loss of human life is fantastic and to be applauded.
Wildlife and property losses another matter.

I am sure someone will soon catch onto the scope of the overnight fires size and reflect. To be told as I was by someone as I relayed my horror and fears for loved ones and loved region ... that some mythical ... burn-back occurred or being told I was full of shi% ... a record in print of stupid people on display.

Seriously ... thanks for the distraction as I watched from a distance ... made a few calls ... but the scope whilst mainly uninhabited the 150.000 hectares and sparsely dotted with not much in the way of buildings other than Wombyn and sparsely settled mainly around the Princess highway, its size and scope is ... what it is.

Keep denying and minimizing climate issues and all of them.
Please keep up your idiotic pet theories about control burning a mountain with steep sides, or wild coastal ravines full of vegetation also being candidates for control burns in record low 150 low rainfall periods.

Dispute ... deny ... and please go change your adult nappies . Pragmatic reality which does not fit your pet theory ... data which upsets your view ... wow your nappy must be very full.


----------



## kahuna1 (5 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> Honestly you are an idiot.




Thanks ... How is Golburn jail ? 

*Poole Rd*
Updated: 5 Jan 2020 10:01
30462 ha
*Border Fire*
214221 ha

So 245.000 hectares just these TWO  overnight add the spread of others and 100% of last year TOTAL well above 300,00 hectares .

Yes I am an idiot as you told me as I worried about this.
Enjoy your chocolate for favors. 


Seems I underestimated by a  factor of 100% ... being conservative to cries of being called hysterical. 
Just correction my understating the overnight totals as the official numbers are presented whilst I am yet again being called an idiot.


----------



## rederob (5 January 2020)

In recorded history the weather conditions over the past month giving rise to catastrophic bushfires are not just *unprecedented*, they beat the previous data by significant margins and have created the perfect (fire) storm.
I had drafted a long reply to the post @Smurf1976 wrote and @kahuna1 has objected to, but mine was very long and technical so I scrapped it.
Here's the plain English version:

IPCC best case for 2100 is 2 degrees of warming
Australia in 2020 is already within a whisker of that - our rate of warming is greater than norther hemisphere continents
Recent climate records have been achieved while Australia has been experiencing the relatively benign *la nina* effects
It is impossible for global climate to be mitigated over the next decade or so to an extent Australia's climate will reverse the present trend
The next 80 years are not going to be kind.


----------



## basilio (5 January 2020)

Not sure if this  statement is a shift in position for the small business lobby group but it certainly makes sense.

*'Enough' to climate change denials, says Council of Small Business Organisations Australia*
The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has released a statement on the “horror and shock” it and its members are feeling, while calling for a coordinated recovery response.

It has also said “enough” to the climate denialist garbage, because it has “endangered us all”.

From chief executive *Peter Strong*:

_Failure to accept and manage change and risk has been a key issue leading up to this disaster. We are concerned that the attitude from climate deniers that ‘this is normal’ and ‘nothing to see here’ means that we will continue to have that small number of government MPs with ideological beliefs and dented egos having too much say and too much influence. This will only hold us back from repair and regrowth ...

We have for some time been trying to take the emotion out of the climate debate by talking about ‘change management and risk management’ but the small cadre of deniers in government ranks and elsewhere have refused to budge because they believe they are right and the rest of us are wrong. 

They have denied anything has changed and when confronted with the common sense of preparing for the risk of fires and disaster they have turned deaf and refused to prepare for what always happens in Australia: bushfires, droughts and floods. Their denial is because they do not believe disasters occur any more often than in the past. 

*This intellectual indifference of the few has endangered us all.* No successful business will ignore a risk as unlikely and will always prepare for any situation._

You can read the whole statement here


----------



## Joules MM1 (5 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> A more succinct .... look at the denial side of the equation.
> 
> Less than one in a million is the chance humans do not and are not changing the climate.
> 
> Its all about money .... and GASLIGHTING .... a distraction is sadly a reality.




time ticks along


----------



## Joules MM1 (5 January 2020)

+ this

*See how global warming has changed the world since your childhood*

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12...e-has-impacted-your-life/11766018?pfmredir=sm


----------



## Joules MM1 (5 January 2020)

+ this(note the date)



#Victoria

stunning footage from

Bureau of Meteorology, VictoriaVerified account @*BOM_Vic*  · 4h4 hours ago A fire near Mallacoota began generating its own weather last night, the dots indicate lightning from a pyrocumulonimbus cloud with plume to 14km. More dangerous fire behaviour is expected across #*Victoria* today. Stay up to date with forecasts and warnings:


----------



## Joules MM1 (5 January 2020)

#glacier
speed of retreat



a better link :
https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.am...is-a-smack-in-the-face-about-climate-inaction


----------



## rederob (5 January 2020)

Joules MM1 said:


> #glacier
> speed of retreat.



Sadly @Joules MM1, our voices are getting Husky from barking at the moon.


----------



## kahuna1 (5 January 2020)

HI red . Joules ...

I did point out those issues as best I could about climate abnormal margins being smashed .. and got the usual Gaslighting stuff back ... I accept at these times irrelevant.

PM Morrison news conference  was, well pathetic and rightly so, and at least called out for it. To be denying and calling climate issues raised as hysteria and lunatics a mere 3 weeks ago, off in Hawaii days ago and now revealed his defense minister in Bali supporting a severe case of sunburn, amusing !! Her throat looked like a red roosters !!

Since we have been howling, as you say, at the moon, for a while, years ... its beside the point today.

It is all to be denied ... debated as PM claims today he believes yet at the recent Madrid climate conference the role of Australia in destroying any progress was a standout and he even defended Trump and his climate policies. A man .. Trump .. . who ... well ... has a coal barons uneducated wife as lead ambassador for USA in climate issues at the UN and the USA EPA being run by a coal lobbyist ? Our PM ... is as pathetic as say the hardest hit area and its local State Member ... who last month was busy denying and downplaying climate issues and today pretending he cares.

Trump at least with the Orange glow of late will blend into total invisibility !!

All irrelevant totally today ... other than shall we say disbelief our PM defended a person who mocks openly climate change and renewable energy ... Ohh those windmills ... said Trump ... echoed by PM Morrison and his cabinet and vomit on ex PL Howard who Morrison speaks to every day and just spoke to him .... far out ..

I just added Vic and NSW totals up ... not just the ones in my stomping ground far South coast which expanded 245,000 hectares for the big ones another 140,000 for the smaller ones and the snowy totals expanded an astounding 180,000 more hectares its the Victorian total just announced at 900,000 hectares in total ... another 280,000 in a day . More...


That is not any relevance ... NONE of it.
*Other than things must and should change*. Unlikely of course. For most, like Redrob and others we are resigned to not a 1.5 degree by 2100 but minimum 3 , and being honest 4 plus is my total.

I do accept our role in stopping this globally alone is NOT possible. Being however the largest supporter of the denial side is what we are. Under PM Howard who amusingly still seems to be pulling someone strings as they speak daily despite loosing his own seat as did Tiny Abbot ... or is it Toady Abbott ?

The total is minimum ... in a single day ....  close to 800,000 hectares burnt.

That's 8,000 sq KM or a strip of land 8 km wide from Sydney to Melbourne ...
or similar width burnt strip Sydney to Brisbane.

*The total is minimum ... in a single day ....  close to 800,000 hectares burnt*.

This total is rising and the situation around the Eden and Vic fires is not a good one.
Maye it hits a million hectares in a day.


Maybe the guy who doesn't like my punctuation who denied all and every climate changing chemical reaction can come back from his job at the call center in India ? When asked what specifically he disagreed with on climate issues on 20 topics, he disputed and refuted all 20. Chemical reactions included with Satellite data and a quaint view of 97% of climate scientists work and data. They are all wrong !!

He can join the raucous objections from the others today  and the old person who seems to be taking an inordinately long time to have his nappy changed ...to the guy with the IP address inside Golbourn Jail the special protected unit ...

Ahhh

Time for a holiday .... Bali ... or Hawaii ? Sadly dont like either. Can I look like our defense minister with a bright red throat !!


----------



## kahuna1 (5 January 2020)

Scott Morrison ..... elaborated on his support for Trump climate policy  ...

and his identical climate policy and views.

Its word for word !!


----------



## kahuna1 (5 January 2020)

Someone asked smugly how it jumped 20 km ...

Others asked why I took exception to pushing burnoffs ... and why .. well dry conditions and so on made it idiotic along with geography and steep mountains that only the insane would Hazard reduce burn..

One picture ....
One picture only ....

Where are the flames ?






South of Eden 3.12 am 2020 ...


----------



## Joules MM1 (5 January 2020)

you had me at meatloaf


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Here's the plain English version:
> 
> IPCC best case for 2100 is 2 degrees of warming
> Australia in 2020 is already within a whisker of that - our rate of warming is greater than norther hemisphere continents
> ...



As I see it, reality is that we're faced with adapting to changed and changing climate and that at this point in time there's no option to avoid that change occurring given it already has and that further change seems inevitable.

To the extent that I disagree with what anyone else is saying, it's with the notion that climate change mitigation would at this point be an effective means of fire mitigation. Reality is it might have been at some point in the past but it's too late for that now.

Politically, Hawke, Keating or Howard might have been able to convince the world to address the emissions issue but it's nonsense to pretend that anything Morrison could have done about emissions would have avoided the fire situation. He could have done other things which might have helped certainly but the emissions issue is a far longer term one than that.

I'll draw an analogy to human health and say that absolutely it is good advice to get regular exercise, eat a healthy diet, don't smoke and so on and that's commonly known. In practice however our situation is comparable to someone who's already got a seriously bad diagnosis. Telling them how they could have avoided it is at this point of no real help. What they need to do now is focus on recovery and avoiding a repeat incident but it's too late to avoid it happening at all and there's no point pretending that eating vegetables and breathing fresh air will cure cancer. Might've avoided it in the first place yes but won't cure it now. The only option is surgery, radiation treatment and whatever else might help. 

Much the same with fires. We need to do things, whatever, with a view to the reality of the climate we have and are going to have. That means big changes.....


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Much the same with fires. We need to do things, whatever, with a view to the reality of the climate we have and are going to have. That means big changes.....




Agreed there, the point is do we have a government capable of making those big changes or will they do as little as possible and rely on advertising campaigns to try and convince the public that they have done enough ?

After the last week's disaster I have serious doubts about the former option and lean heavily towards the latter.


----------



## rederob (5 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> We need to do things, whatever, with a view to the reality of the climate we have and are going to have. That means big changes.....



Yes it does.
So despite what must be absolutely overwhelming evidence of how bad things are destined to become, and despite the equally overwhelming evidence that it was going to get this bad, our PM is still sitting on his hands while Australia burns.
If that is not the epitome of incompetence in leadership I do not what else is.


----------



## basilio (5 January 2020)

The chickens are coming home to roost aren't they ?
Yes climate change is here and adaptation to the new climate reality is essential. 
But that is  just not sufficient for anything more than a 5-10 year window (if that..)

If we somehow can't drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pull gigatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere our climate will just get hotter and hotter. And that is effectively the end of it. 

We currently have 1.2-1.5C extra arming in Australia. We are seeing the consequence and the summer of 2020 has just begin.

Climate scientists tell us we have 2C  all but locked in with the current GG levels. Holding global temperatures to that level will require heroic levels of climate mitigation efforts - on top of adaptation plans to survive  the current new reality.

Ignoring the need to go all out on CC mitigation because we "have to adapt " just won't work.  As Explod says we may as well party.

This is what a climate emergency looks like.
https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/


----------



## kahuna1 (5 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Perhaps consider how a crowning fire forms and spreads.




This from the person who suggested controlled burns during non existent floods ?
Or hazard reduction burns during the same flash flooding ?

Two types of fires.
All have basically similar basic properties but ... totally dissimilar.
Climate conditions .... Fuel load .... topography

Normal fire ... all three relevant.

Not so normal,
Extreme or catastrophic  conditions. Ones I did raise, but well ... ignored here.

Fuel load at ground level and fire breaks ... pretty irrelevant. Look at the picture and CSRIO study along with RFS and others.
Leaps from tree top to tree top. Both Vic fire chief and NSW one have time and time again discussed this.

Extreme and catastrophic conditions are ..  extreme heat ... low humidity and wind even worse.

So being pop pooed for pointing out 36 month total rainfall lows ... 150 year lows.
then all time 150 year temperature highs ..
then 150 year low humidity ...

all discarded .. for some gibberish about averages and if only there had been controlled burns or Greenies.

Silly thing is ... in a fire storm ... in extreme or catastrophic conditions ultra low humidity, ultra dry .. and high heat with WIND ... it really is totally irrelevant fuel loads on the ground.

Fires leap 5 km 10km ... tree top to tree top .... which is yep dry ... hence the Tathra incident of 2018 where I lived. How Eden fire actually did 40 km in a very short time and now 60 km.

 Not a debate ... past that. Fire breaks in those conditions ... sadly an aside.

This is the brave new world where denial of anything unusual going on as climactic observations hit 150 lows, ones predicted and predicted to get worse are still denied.

I cannot change what is actual conditions. Not about to debate someone such as some even denying this irrefutable evidence of 150 year high temps and low humidity and low rainfall.

In their universe floods appear to be relevant even when 2,581 km away of a flash flood 450 kms away from current fires was a missed opportunity to do a hazard reduction burn.

Fires do actually burn better in hot dry conditions and to have it suggested that a controlled burn was an option after a flash flood is someone who has never ... tried to light a campfire in the rain.

There is to be blunt ... NO solution to extreme of catastrophic climate changes. NONE. None in relation to fighting fires.

If you wish as many do that climate issues are not real, of this was a one off event, so be it. Funny the same event where Tundra covering permafrost and frozen bones for 35,000 years on the top layers and 1 million year old vegetation have caught alight and raged the last 2 years across the Arctic and Canadian and Siberian regions of it.

IPCC models actually do not contain any change for the Permafrost melting because the USA and Canada with Saudi Arabia had it removed along with the help of our Government. A release of frozen and captured CO2 that contains more CO2 than we humans have emitted ... in 200 years .. was not expected after fudging by USA lobby in the IPCC to happen till post 2100.

Its sadly occurring 80 years early.

We already hit the 1.5 degree target rise ... for 2100 globally in 2018 ... let alone 2019. Response was with the USA coal Barrons wife at the UN is that this pre industrial starting point moved from 1750 to 1810 so we were and are only 1.1 C higher. The amount sadly of CO2 and CH4 methane to be released which is 40 times if not 80 times worse as the atmosphere cannot deal with the breaking down of it and the time just to break CH4 into CO2 and H2O has doubled in 15 years.

An at best estimate on the actual 2100 realistic target is even of Kyoto were to be met a rise of 2.5 degrees ignoring Artic CO2 melt and CH4 issues that USA presidents, and out own, and not just Trump ... Obama was shocking Bush Junior was funded by Enron. The best estimate from the very best IPCC guys from Cambridge and Oxford in the UK along with several others is a rise of not 1 C or 2C which the latter is diabolical which defies description, the recent Madrid conference had the panel with the most respected brains ranging from 4-6 C gains by 2100.

I know alarmist or whatever.

Howling at the moon but one does try ... even for what little worth and abuse it receives.
Australia I would agree if it went to zero emissions would not matter a lot. The cost would strangely be ZERO or close to it, it would of course mean losses for coal and others but ... who cares.

Burn baby burn as they say.
Trying to stop a petrol fire with the garden hose does not work.
Trying to stop this type of fire ... with Climactic and water content and heat and wind at extremes ..

Good luck.

It is possible with a metal piped sprinkler system when the front approaches to cover your house and anything flammable in a fine water mist and emerge when the front passes to put out any spot stuff.

Standing on the roof with your hose in the face of a firestorm ?

Good luck ... again.

Climate denial and non acceptance of even current relevant temperature and humidity levels is absurd.
Suggesting even that its possible to control burn in extreme or severe conditions as seem even in winter is doubly absurd.

Then again in these types of fires, or firestorms, the fuel load at ground level ... GROUND level is not relevant.

I thank you for your input ... but in the study ... it conceded* Fuel load is totally irrelevant in extreme and catastrophic conditions. FFDI; when you exceed an FFDI of about 50, you switch from fuel-dominated to a weather-dominated fire."At this point, while fuel has a small effect, it is overwhelmed by the weather.*

*What was the fire rating ? Up in the 90 region ....  *


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 January 2020)

basilio said:


> The chickens are coming home to roost aren't they ?




Chickens can do strange things.

Somewhat bizarrely one turned up at a family member's house the last time I or any family member were ever there (has now been sold). Owned since 1981 and as the final items were being loaded in to the car with just hours to go a chicken did indeed turn up in the backyard. First and only time. Amazing.

But yes I know what you mean...... 



> If we somehow can't drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pull gigatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere our climate will just get hotter and hotter. And that is effectively the end of it.




I'll be straight to the point and ask you a blunt question. Not trying to be rude or anything, just whacking the nail on the head etc.

Do you seriously, honestly believe this is actually going to happen?

My personal conclusion FWIW is no, nothing that's anywhere close to being sufficient is actually going to be done. 

If you'd asked me anytime between 1988 and ~2005 then I'd have said it was the top priority environmental issue and would have pushed the case pretty strongly that anything else about plastics or dams or aesthetics or urban smog or whatever should only be a focus if it in no way added to the climate problem (noting that not always but very often fixing these other things adds CO2).  

Realistically though well I've seen plenty of energy statistics and right now we're in a situation that's akin to the person who's still stuck in traffic on their way to the airport 10 minutes before the plane takes off. Technically we haven't yet missed the flight but there's no way we're going to get there in time so that's just a technicality. At this point, even just getting emissions back down to year 2000 levels seems an impossible goal.


----------



## dutchie (6 January 2020)

We can go round in circles till the planet burns (apparently) but the only solution that is even going to come close to satisfying our energy needs is nuclear. 
Everything else is blowing in the wind, so to speak.


----------



## rederob (6 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> We can go round in circles till the planet burns (apparently) but the only solution that is even going to come close to satisfying our energy needs is nuclear.
> Everything else is blowing in the wind, so to speak.



Complete nonsense.
Australia's entire electricity needs can be met with solar+batteries faster than a single nuclear plant could be built, and it could be done at a fraction of the cost.
Refer yourself to LCOE data to get clued in.


----------



## basilio (6 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll be straight to the point and ask you a blunt question. Not trying to be rude or anything, just whacking the nail on the head etc.
> 
> Do you seriously, honestly believe this is actually going to happen?
> 
> My personal conclusion FWIW is no, nothing that's anywhere close to being sufficient is actually going to be done.




I have no idea if drastic GG reduction is going to happen. 

However I'm certain that if we don't have a red hot go at it,  there is no chance at all of it happening.
I'm also   (99.99%) certain that if we continue on our present path the climate will become hotter and hotter to the point that our current  ecosystems and civilisations will totally break down.
That time line can be measured in decades. If the current fires are any indication even that time frame would be reduced.

These observations  reflect the body of climate scientists who have been on this case for the last 40 years.
This summary by a climate scientist goes to the heart of the issue. The second article is his contribution to the discussion about the current bushfires.

*The terrible truth of climate change *

 By Joëlle Gergis





The latest science is alarming, even for climate scientists
In June, I delivered a keynote presentation on Australia’s vulnerability to climate change and our policy challenges at the annual meeting of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the main conference for those working in the climate science community. I saw it as an opportunity to summarise the post-election political and scientific reality we now face.

As one of the dozen or so Australian lead authors on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) sixth assessment report, currently underway, I have a deep appreciation of the speed and severity of climate change unfolding across the planet. Last year I was also appointed as one of the scientific advisers to the Climate Council, Australia’s leading independent body providing expert advice to the public on climate science and policy. In short, I am in the confronting position of being one of the few Australians who sees the terrifying reality of the climate crisis.

Preparing for this talk I experienced something gut-wrenching. It was the realisation that there is now nowhere to hide from the terrible truth.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue...0/jo-lle-gergis/terrible-truth-climate-change

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...c-predictions-come-to-pass-in-these-bushfires


----------



## Joules MM1 (6 January 2020)

and in this days installment of nah mate drowning not waving
 
*Zack Labe*‏Verified account @*ZLabe*
Just to reiterate, 2019 was the hottest (and driest) year on record for Australia... [Data from @*BOM_au*: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ ]






exceptional rainfall





worst fire season


----------



## IFocus (6 January 2020)

thanks Joules that link is confronting


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 January 2020)

basilio said:


> I have no idea if drastic GG reduction is going to happen.
> 
> However I'm certain that if we don't have a red hot go at it,  there is no chance at all of it happening.




I should have added to my post that my reasoning is politics not technical constraints.

In theory sure, from a technical perspective I'm sure that you, I and many others could come up with a workable plan.

Politically though, well if I look at over 30 years of "progress" on the issue then what I see is that it always comes off second at best. There's always something else, from clearing urban smog to economic ideology to aesthetics, which beats climate change when it comes to the crunch.

That has been the pattern since before the issue became mainstream in the 1980's and remains the pattern today. With the odd exception there's just about always something else deemed more important.

Hence my pessimism about actually fixing it.


----------



## Humid (6 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I should have added to my post that my reasoning is politics not technical constraints.
> 
> In theory sure, from a technical perspective I'm sure that you, I and many others could come up with a workable plan.
> 
> ...




Like a surplus


----------



## kahuna1 (6 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Hence my pessimism about actually fixing it.




Myself and others on this thread, if you read back  .... that 33% of people still believe warming  it is not caused by humans, speaks for itself.

Without speaking for anyone else, I would agree we ... humans ... have known about this issue and its scope for 30 years, even 100 years, still we sadly will debate for another 30.

As someone well versed in IPCC and what is actually missing from it, the models,  an at best 2100 target as shared in Madrid as the Australian govt took a lead role in sabotaging any and all efforts, the USA didn't bother sending anyone other than a janitor, we ...are stuffed.

We .... as a species, have a window that is actually closed. One side world population rising to 10 billion or 40% . flip-side ... some canary in the coalmine events are occurring and NOT the fires.

I speak sadly more on Arctic permafrost melt and release of 1.6 trillion tons of captured CO2 essentially all that we have emitted to 2020 since 1750, added to this is methane and its actually likely 40 times as bad minimum possibly 80 times and I say this not vaguely but because the time it takes to break down and impact has risen 50% in 30 years.

It is all missing from IPCC models ... totally.

Minimum expected  rise via very respected IPCC guys was 4 degrees and highest was 6 degrees by 2100. That was even if Kyoto and Paris agreement met.

Kiss your kids or grand kids and say sorry. A child aged 10 when they reach age 70, and it actually is an if when likely 500 million climate refugees in the IPCC report of 2018 ... massive crop fails predicted post 2050 .... but since the permafrost is melting ... Arctic Ice volume 95% gone, the cover is merely down 35% ... but its thin and full of salt.

All of it removed from climate models ...  on the fable it would not occur till 2100. A lie well known and even NASA satellites recording 95% of the total ice volume gone, still the removed this ... atom bomb from the IPCC climate models.

I watched Fox/Sky news today as the presenter at 7 pm mocked CO2 issues, any and all of them, even Julia Bishop ex Foreign minister who merely said Australia should be taking a leadership role on climate ...  not following.

The scope of what we have released, burning previous extinction events capture of CO2 when we burn coal and petrol, we now understand how diabolical they are. Not even the day after 800,000 hectares burnt in a day ... close to 200,000 in Victoria and 300,000 in the alp snowy region and another 200,000 far south coast, NOT EVEN 48 hours latter Murdoch and Sky could not even wait that long.

Sadly as a species, we have little hope.
Meanwhile the worlds leader ... or so he tells himself ... executed a military leader actually visiting the Prime Minister of Iraq. Whilst not a good man  the Iranian General  ... strangely Iran was instrumental in 2001 helping the USA to invade Afghanistan and so too in defeating ISIS ... Iran played a far bigger role as did the Kurds in its defeat. ISIS of course was created after the invasion 2003 of Iraq and its head, the old heads of the Iraq military.

War it is ...

Ignore the climate and sadly we follow USA everywhere. Morrison spent 2 minutes speaking about how good the  USA was on climate efforts. They left the Paris and Kyoto agreements totally.

We lack even a person with a spine .. not of course that even if we changed anyone would care.

So I agree ... lets not care and keep the kids, grand-kids in the dark.

They are after all just some other species we make extinct or a vastly altered planet which its unlikely even being the ultra optimist will not proceed without massive conflict, deaths via starvation and indifference which whilst hardest hit Africa is followed by India a nuclear power, and Pakistan also who if climate does and surely will change at some stage will have multi year crop fails. Or say a drought followed by a flood then a drought and 2 years rain in a week, and repeat it over and over.

How will a billion starving people react ?

Alarmist ? I would suggest the IPCC report for 2018 whilst a very watered down and tamed by USA in its chilling predictions, double them and one may come close. Since we are already in 2019 at 1.5 C temp increase and its not 2100 ... dispute, deny ... whatever.

Strangely the fires have a benefit and a very large downside to the future. Whilst a net CO2 zero impact, tree burns releases CO2 and then grows again, the benefit is with so much soot and stuff in the air its likely for 12-24 months things cool or appear to cool maybe as much as 1C. Fantastic .... and awful.

Awful because the apparent cooling is a soot filled air and NO ACTION likely for years. People such as FOX news and Trump will go look. Awful because even a slight change in the color of snow makes it melt quicker. Arctic now not totally ice covered and melting during more and more weeks each summer, the pristine white ... reflects heat, melted snow and brown stuff absorbs it. 

Its unlikely a fire here will drop soot on the Arctic, or any Antarctic region. I do note that NZ glaciers have taken on a soot covered look not that we care.

Kiss those Grand kids or even your kids if they are under 20 because in 50 years I suspect ... so too does the best scientists on the planet know and like me, depressed and in despair. Many have just given up as models are altered by Saudi Arabia at the IPCC ... or the USA or Canada.

Here is the head of it ... the IPCC ... nice guy, he handles it and whilst trying his best, his very best ... his speech recently was filled actually with dismay and resignation for our species. Our 6th Extinction event. Same reasons and same causes and same outcome for the previous 5. Whilst I am sure some will survive the mayhem that awaits the planet, what is assured as much as the sun rising makes the number likely less than 10% of what we peak out at so 1 billion at best, possibly lower if the ocean gives back all the CO2 it absorbs before we halt CO2 emissions totally.

Seems sadly unlikely.



Michael Mann lead author in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

HE like many in the field ... waved the white flag at the IPCC.
HE was attacked via Various Koch Brothers interests in the media and savaged.

Such is life ... back to Fox news and Tucker Carlson and President Trumps tweets on how many ways he break the Geneva convention and cause a new war.


----------



## basilio (6 January 2020)

Real scientists, real data, real consequences.
The relentless climb in temperatures, CO2 levels, loss of ice is quite clear.

https://twitter.com/ZLabe


----------



## basilio (7 January 2020)

How Craig Kelly explains his position on  climate change.


----------



## IFocus (7 January 2020)

Pommy weather girl replies............you idiot Kelly

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/01/07/craig-kelly-laura-tobin-spat/


----------



## kahuna1 (7 January 2020)

ahhh ....

Mp Liberal .... No trend of weather. Really  ... BOM says the opposite as to the IPCC ... its an outright lie. They warn of DIRE and EXTREME concerns.

3 year rainfall ... BRIGHT red is LOWEST ever on record TOTAL  ... 






Rainfall percentages 
last 3 years ...





Whilst only 3 years ... I will check back the 1900 period is COVERED in the first map of LOWEST EVER totals ...

Making the last 3 years shocking but lets see if there was some period pre 2016 of exceptional rainfall nationally over and above


----------



## kahuna1 (7 January 2020)

BOM long term stuff ... he .... *LIED* ...

Surprise surprise ...

Why am I shocked. This data set COVERS 1900 till 2019 ...
the 10 and 20 year totals actually contradict his assertions totally and they are only updated by BOM to 2015 .... that's from  their site. 

Source ... scientific ... incontrovertible data ...* if you not delusional or a liar.*

Liar liar ... pants on fire. Well his electorate was !! Partially singed.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll be straight to the point and ask you a blunt question. Not trying to be rude or anything, just whacking the nail on the head etc.
> 
> Do you seriously, honestly believe this is actually going to happen?
> 
> My personal conclusion FWIW is no, nothing that's anywhere close to being sufficient is actually going to be done.




Things will be done around the world if it's financially rewarding for countries to do so, which means renewables will need to be cheaper than fossil fuel energy. This will occur more and more as fossil fuels run out and become more costly to extract and renewable technology improves.

Whether this will occur in time to prevent runaway warming is another matter.


----------



## basilio (8 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> BOM long term stuff ... he .... *LIED* ...
> 
> Surprise surprise ...
> 
> ...




Nice work kahuna.  In theory  (ha ha ha HA) Craig Kelly would be embarrassed  Perhaps even acknowledge and apologize.. 

It would be interesting to see which lying climate denial site he used as a reference.  I  suggest there are probably two possibilities. He was fed this line and swallowed it or carefully did the research, made the calculations and presented it as his own work.

No way Jose..


----------



## basilio (8 January 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Things will be done around the world if it's financially rewarding for countries to do so, which means renewables will need to be cheaper than fossil fuel energy. This will occur more and more as fossil fuels run out and become more costly to extract and renewable technology improves.
> 
> Whether this will occur in time to prevent runaway warming is another matter.




The "financially rewarding " element  comes down to the treatment of externalities .  In the business world the only figures that matter are the profits or losses accruing to the organization.  From a wider perspective if the outcomes of a business activity have more serious outcomes beyond the profit and loss statement than government/society can choose to regulate - if they have the community support and political will.

Obvious examples ? Using dangerous chemicals that affect people- lead in paints, lead in petrol, promoting opioids like lollies, cigarettes. 

The creation of billions of tons of greenhouse gases that is changing our climate falls into this category.


----------



## Humid (8 January 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Things will be done around the world if it's financially rewarding for countries to do so, which means renewables will need to be cheaper than fossil fuel energy. This will occur more and more as fossil fuels run out





basilio said:


> Nice work kahuna.  In theory  (ha ha ha HA) Craig Kelly would be embarrassed  Perhaps even acknowledge and apologize..
> 
> It would be interesting to see which lying climate denial site he used as a reference.  I  suggest there are probably two possibilities. He was fed this line and swallowed it or carefully did the research, made the calculations and presented it as his own work.
> 
> No way Jose..




From Angus Taylor’s office.....


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 January 2020)

The problem with all this can be summed up not by the content of newspaper articles but simply by taking a close look at the URL of the online version.

It’s not universal but take a look at any article about climate change, water, energy, fires and so on and it’s filed under “/politics/“ which says it all. Even the more left leaning media have come to see this as a political issue rather than a “/environment/“ or “/science/“ one and yes they do place other articles in those categories.

The great problem there is that science and politics are substantially opposite processes.

Science: Collect data by observation and experiment using a rigorous process to ensure accuracy. Measurements are verified, experiments are repeated with consistent results and so on. Form conclusions based on the data.

Politics: Usually starts with the conclusion and then seeks data which supports it. Anything will do no matter how flimsy and any data not supporting the preferred conclusion is buried, ridiculed or simply ignored even if it’s 100% provable as being accurate. 

So long as it remains a political issue rather than a scientific one, the only chance of success rests upon the emergence of someone who grasps the science but is fundamentally a good manager of politicians. Someone who can steer their preferred conclusion to match the actual conclusion of science.

There’s the odd such person around but not many. I’m not such a person and I’ve only ever met one who I’d place on any sort of pedestal in that regard - it’s a damn tough gig to be governing a government and getting the right things done.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> it’s a damn tough gig to be governing a government and getting the right things done.




The last one who tried got knifed by his own party for petty personal ambitions of a few numbskull plotters..


----------



## kahuna1 (8 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> So long as it remains a political issue rather than a scientific one




Smerf I took the time to read some of your posts.

Without fail ... you call for non political stuff.
Your indecision on climate issues in early 2011 is unchanged 9 year latter. 

The anti climate change denial is closely and directly linked with the liberal party.
Howard would not and refused to sign Kyoto .... he lost his own seat.

Current PM speaks to Howard every day. In fact quoted him yesterday ...

Abbot is if anything even worse on this, "climate science being called Junk".

A treasurer took a lump of coal into parliament to annoy greens and others who were calling for change.
This Treasurer ... *was called Morrison*.

He I think for now is the PM

His views ... his stance is unchanged and clearly so in 2019/20.

I suspect he has a lump of coal in his pocket as he visits fire ravaged places.

Chances of anything ... even meaningful ... is not possible.

Removing politics when say the head of the Australian climate denial site is actually a person who ran for a liberal seat .... is factual.

the source of the current debate ... clouding of issues ... is this said site which Sky news and Fox and Murdoch papers print total BS ... via climate people who have dubious records and the last was a person on the dole who has been on the dole for 20 years. This woman is raving about aboriginal fire methods and missed the massive flooding of 1974.

I also add the Liberal power broker Kroger is an ex director of the Australian climate denial institute.

Even if we wanted to have a rational discussion, it is not possible. Not even remotely possible to have even a discussion based upon science.

That is if you believe in science. Having read many of your posts, you seem to think the models were wrong. OR inaccurate ... or there remains some question about their predictions which if you go to 1980 ... verses now they are less than 1% out.

Ahh I give up ... either sit on the fence and debate, for 9 years now ... or study the scientific reports, the history and reactions and either be ... one side or another.

There are about 30 questions one has to accept ... study and then decide upon. Even the simplest ones seem for some to be ... clouded. With so much rubbish via Gina Rhinehart backed site to rival the Koch brothers various sites makes factual ... clinical observation without going to source not easy.

Barnaby Joyce who wants a coal power station yet again today waded into the debate and claimed that burn-backs were somehow hindered, or caused these events. Since I wasted time explaining these type 2 fire storm or tornado bush-fires the fuel load has very little to do with their rapid spread. I did by the way give links to the science ... not that this seemed to matter.

Either declare your indifference ... indecision after 9 years or make a clear decision.

Don't become an extremist ... at the very fringes but my extensive reading on this site is that we have a mixture of Internet trolls, climate deniers on all 30 aspects of climate science .... and then at each end are ... say 5% who deny everything and then 5% the world ends tomorrow. 

Worse is someone in the denial side, as the idiot with coal in his pocket pretending nothing has occurred and PRETENDING to make soothing noises whilst having no intention whatever of any action other than total inaction. TOTAL and COMPLETE ..


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Smerf I took the time to read some of your posts.
> 
> Without fail ... you call for non political stuff.
> Your indecision on climate issues in early 2011 is unchanged 9 year latter.




You are mistaking indecision and science.

I take a scientific approach to this issue and indeed pretty much everything. Consider the available evidence, form a conclusion based up on it, but always remain open to new information should it emerge.

At a personal level well I've understood this problem my entire adult life and have with few exceptions sought to minimise my contribution to it. No change you'll find me driving a gas guzzler, indeed I'd be rather embarrassed to do so. Much the same approach with everything else too.

That does not mean I won't question the issue and my understanding of it. Given we're talking about the future and it's all based upon assumptions of emissions and modelling of their effects, it's entirely reasonable to pose the question as to what's happening in reality at any given time. It's not like, say, the issue that smoking causes cancer for which millions of experiments have been conducted, that is everyone who's been a long term smoker, and the health impacts are clearly observable. We haven't actually cooked a planet before so it's not unreasonable to keep a check to see if it's going as expected or not.

Needless to say, as the actual effects have become more apparent and in line with expected outcomes I've become more convinced that those models are correct or at least good enough. That doesn't change the fact that I thought it was a problem long ago, it just means I'm now more convinced that the models are correct.

Keeping an open mind is always wise though with anything. On a big picture level in the energy field, well if you'd asked pretty much anyone back in 1980 about 2020 then they'd have got it profoundly wrong. They'd all have scoffed at the idea of natural gas being a significant source of electricity anywhere other than the USSR or Middle East for example. It was practically zero in the UK at the time and in the USA policy, which had been enacted as law, required it to be completely phased out to literally zero by 1990. Fast forward to 2020 and reality is the opposite of previous expectations in so many ways.

Go back just 10 years and even the solar industry itself saw rooftop systems as nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Even those selling the systems didn't generally comprehend that the uptick in sales marked the start of a major boom and wasn't merely a blip.

And so on. Having an open mind to new information is never a bad thing since the reality is that most predictions of most things do turn out to be at least partly wrong. Exceptions of course but in general that's the case. 

To the extent that I do have any doubts about the climate issue it comes down to the absolutism displayed by many who in truth don't really know what they're on about. They'll protest about brown coal for example but ask them to explain why, exactly, it's such a problem and you won't get a proper answer which suggests that whatever's motivating them to protest isn't a real understanding of the issue.


----------



## Humid (8 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> You are mistaking indecision and science.
> 
> I take a scientific approach to this issue and indeed pretty much everything. Consider the available evidence, form a conclusion based up on it, but always remain open to new information should it emerge.
> 
> ...




Really the early 80s was when Woodside kicked off the North West shelf gas project


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 January 2020)

Humid said:


> Really the early 80s was when Woodside kicked off the North West shelf gas project



In Australia yes but even that was contentious with a lot of "should they be allowed to export?" questions being raised at the time.

Meanwhile in the USA the law, the actual law at that time, banned the use of gas in new power stations from 1984 and in all existing facilities by 1990. That was a hard and fast phase out.

Western Europe was all broadly similar. Keep gas for essential uses and get it, and oil, completely out of power generation was the thinking. That was the primary trigger for France building so many nukes - they relied heavily on oil prior to that.

Australia signed too by the way. We committed to not building new oil-fired steam raising plant, either government owned or in private enterprise, unless no practical alternative existed. That's where we also committed to holding fuel stocks and so on too.

As with most things, there was one fatal flaw. When Exxon management testified to the US Congress on the issue they'd failed to grasp that the failure to find gas, and hence Exxon's view that the future of it was extremely limited, was simply because nobody had intentionally looked for the stuff. At that point, late 1970's, pretty much all gas had been found accidentally whilst drilling for oil or even water. Once the industry went and consciously started looking for gas, unsurprisingly they found it but pretty much all the "big" oil companies missed that point at the time, it was the small ones that went and did it meanwhile Mobil burned $ billions trying to cook oil out of rocks and Shell went around buying up coal deposits (and accidentally gave one away many years later but that's another story).


----------



## kahuna1 (8 January 2020)

Smerf ... was just curious.

Since well I totally and scientifically disagreed with virtually every aspect of what you said recently ... and well to be honest, despite your post above, I am not sure anything you said occurs. Examine, verify ... possibly change views.

This from you posts in 2011 ... some random but very incorrect stuff ...




Smurf1976 said:


> One of the big problems is that fixing CO2 emissions comes with its own huge impact on the environment which, apart from CO2 itself, is arguably a greater impact than coal or oil. You would want to be pretty sure it was necessary before going about that extent of non-CO2 environmental destruction I would think...




Really ? Has your view changed ?




Smurf1976 said:


> Wind turbines kill the birds, including engangered wedge tailed eagles and the like.




Really ? Whilst wind turbines are not kind to birds, did you know say cats, those furry awful things kill 1,000 times more birds  ? Or mobile towers and antenna kill 10 times as many birds ?

Has your view changed ?



Smurf1976 said:


> My own opinion is that the climate is changing based on my own observations and those collected more formally. I am not convinced that CO2 is the cause, but I have an open mind to the possibility.




Really ? It was clear in our discussion this was the case. The science is actually very simple.

Has your view changed ? 2011 v 2019



Smurf1976 said:


> It's misleading at best and comes with a host of other problems. For a start, there are various studies which show pretty clearly that some forms of public transport, including the "light rail" (trams) favoured by the mainstream green movement, are actually more polluting than private cars.




Has your view changed ? ... various studies ? Okey dokey ... I accept say a person walking is better but a single person in a car is not more polluting ?

Has your view changed ? 2011 v 2019



Smurf1976 said:


> I take a scientific approach to this issue and indeed pretty much everything.




I am asking. Just asking ... any examination of the above and the myriad of your opinions and shared ones on the topic seem to come from almost word for word from the Koch Brothers site or the Australian version of it.

The windmill one is a favorite of Trump along with some other beauties.

I am confused, yes ... I know. Just trying to grasp where, for example,  this understanding of even simple endothermic reactions and CO2 in an atmosphere traps heat even if tested a billion times it does it every time. Estimating the impact also, easily estimated as the CO2 level changes. Yet on all levels computer models to CO2 to virtually every aspect you say one thing, but clearly mean or believe the other.

Just an observation.

Your arguments or post seem mild or tame and not extremest, whilst appearing to believe or favor one side, you actually believe even the worst scientifically idiotic theories.

Hence my original question and extreme frustration at some of the stuff you seem to honestly believe.
Its not hard to read, research and either accept or dismiss as being correct something as presented. I say this because I am astounded after 9 years the same appears to be your views.

Maybe I am wrong, I would welcome it but recent discussions seem if anything the theories you had in 2011, non scientific ones, have gone from bad to worse. 

Then again, I am not sure if that's the case. Its certainly very clear a lot have not changed and become more non scientific or factual v trash dogma and conspiracy theory.


----------



## Humid (8 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> In Australia yes but even that was contentious with a lot of "should they be allowed to export?" questions being raised at the time.
> 
> Meanwhile in the USA the law, the actual law at that time, banned the use of gas in new power stations from 1984 and in all existing facilities by 1990. That was a hard and fast phase out.
> 
> ...




Well they didn’t build it for domestic consumption


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Really ? Has your view changed ?




It is still the reality that fixing the issue brings about other environmental problems as a tradeoff.

Those "polluting" VW's are just one of many cases in point. In short they traded more toxics for less CO2 and the "fix" to that cheat involves more CO2 as the tradeoff.

Same could be said for heavy trucks. We could cut the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of the entire fleet really easily so long as we don't mind more smog. There's a direct tradeoff there - the modern engines achieve lower emissions of conventional (non-CO2) pollutants at the expense of more fuel and more CO2. Same with any modern diesel, fuel efficiency and CO2 are compromised in order to get a "cleaner" exhaust in other aspects.

Same with a lot of this. If it wasn't for CO2 then the environmental case against nuclear power is pretty convincing. Throw CO2 into the mix however and whilst Australia doesn't need to go nuclear, reality is we're stuck with it at the global level for the medium term at least. I'm not at all keen, because we've got no proper means of dealing with it when it goes wrong, but it has a role to play that's reality.

Same with a lot of this stuff. If you exclude the CO2 issue well then rather a lot of technologies which improve CO2 would otherwise be seen as a waste of resources and so on. Most do have the aspect that they use more metals etc or are less durable in order to consume less energy. They'd be environmental negatives if it wasn't for the CO2 aspect.



> Really ? Whilst wind turbines are not kind to birds, did you now say cats, those furry awful things kill 1,000 times more birds  ? Or mobile towers and antenna kill 10 times as many birds ?
> 
> Has your view changed ?




If a cat manages to kill a great big wedge tailed eagle or something like that well that's one rather impressive cat.

Mobile towers aren't comparable since they're not really being built as an alternative to some other technology. If we want mobile phones then we're having towers in practice.

My view hasn't changed though for the simple reason that I was in favour of wind energy then and am still in favour of it now. Not because it's good as such, it isn't good it does have impacts, but because those impacts seem to be less bad than the credible alternatives.

Therein lies my point - yes I'm happy to point out that wind turbines are bad for birds and so on. That doesn't automatically mean I'm opposed to them - there's nothing wrong with understanding an acknowledging both sides of an argument.



> Really ? It was clear in our discussion this was the case. The science is actually very simple.
> 
> Has your view changed ? 2011 v 2019




I stated my view that the climate is changing and that I was unconvinced that CO2 is the cause although it might be.

In 2020 well the climate is changing, seems fairly clear, and those who know more about the detail than me say that CO2 is a key (but not the only) cause of that. I have no reason to doubt that claim so yes my view has changed to the extent that what I considered might be the case I now consider probably is the case. Note however that at no point did I say it wasn't the case - I had an open mind.



> Has your view changed ? ... various studies ? Okey dokey ... I accept say a person walking is better but a single person in a car is not more polluting ?
> 
> Has your view changed ? 2011 v 2019




Having had a look at proper data on that one some time ago, my view has not changed at all.

Many bus routes are, from a purely emissions perspective, a net burden to the environment at least in terms of fuel use and CO2. That is the number of passengers on the bus per km traveled compares unfavourably with single occupant passenger cars as a means of transport.

That is not all bus routes obviously but there are certainly some. The reason we have buses in particular is because not everyone can drive, there are practical issues with the use of cars in city areas, for reasons of social equity and so on. Some of those services do benefit the environment most certainly but plenty are a net cost - one or two people riding in a great big vehicle, or worse still dead running (zero passengers only the driver) isn't at all efficient and a lot of bus services do in practice run with very low passenger numbers on board at any given time.

That said, well I certainly don't advocate scrapping bus services but that's for reasons not relating to the environment.

For rail transport there's a somewhat different aspect in that the power source is usually electricity. Given that the future almost certainly involves electricity being very low in emissions, that's a benefit even if some services are inefficient as such.

Circumstances do change over time. For that reason I wouldn't be too harsh on environmental groups who promoted natural gas in the 1990's so long as they're not doing so today. And so on. Best practical technology then versus what's practical now is different. How to get certain state governments to catch up with that one is the question.



> I am confused, yes ... I know. Just trying to grasp where, for example,  this understanding of even simple endothermic reactions and CO2 in an atmosphere traps heat even if tested a billion times it does it every time. Estimating the impact also, easily estimated as the CO2 level changes. Yet on all levels computer models to CO2 to virtually every aspect you say one thing, but clearly mean or believe the other.




Reality is we haven't done a billion tests indeed we haven't even done one proper test on the actual planet.

We've never pushed the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere of the real planet up and down and observed the effects. Reason = impractical.

As such we are reliant upon laboratory experiments, calculations, models and so on but we can't just conduct a repeatable experiment on the real planet and prove what happens.

Now it would be somewhat arrogant if anyone thought there was no possibility that there are things going on which humans don't fully understand in all of this. You won't find a real scientist saying they know literally everything and there's good reason for that.

To take a recent example of that, the Indian Ocean Dipole. Not really understood at all not that long ago when the accepted wisdom was that other factors determined rainfall in Australia. Now we know that the IOD does too and there's no guarantee that 10, 20 or 50 years from now we don't find out that actually there's something else as well that we presently are unaware of. That's the nature of discovery - we keep finding things out. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the previous understanding, it simply adds other factors to it.

Same with the climate. The simple fact that things are occurring now that weren't expected to occur until the middle of the century means that something isn't going quite as expected. That's unsurprising - nobody would sensibly claim that humans understand every fine detail of all this. Realistically we can get the broad stuff right but the precise aspects will be refined further over time.

My view overall with any of this is that I reject a religious-like approach of "believing" in things and seek to identify the truth and am well aware that one way of doing that is to fully understand the opposing argument.

I could likewise say that i'm an atheist but if new information were to emerge which shows that I'm wrong, that there is indeed a God, well then I'm willing to hear it certainly. 

Same with anything. In the context of energy the reason I favour pumped hydro storage as the bulk method is simply down to cost versus volume of energy stored. Bring the cost of batteries down low enough and of course I'll be in favour of them heck there's a grid connected battery on the wall at home. It's not ideology, just down to what's practical at the time.


----------



## IFocus (8 January 2020)

Smurf unfortunately big moves require policy and that comes from politics hence the mess with energy......no policy due to politics.


----------



## kahuna1 (8 January 2020)

Thanks for the response.

Having taken the time, and effort to examine many of the climate issues, both the people who deny or dispute and those the other end, I found it actually impossible to ignore one side of the scientific approach.

Then again, on this thread for 100 pages between BAS who started it myself and few others, we exchanged ideas and I suppose disbelief as some of the absurd notions some believe.

Of course mixed in there were some trolls and baiting from a few and disbelief passed back.

I will say as a person who contributed a lot to the computer modelling of various financial markets and other things, a lot of the models they use are based upon work I did and helped with over the years. Its not that I must be right, its sadly clinically and factually possible to accurately predict most things.

With respect, virtually everything you have said, is junk. Saying CO2 has not been tested a million times is possible, but once you test something 1,000 times ... to expect a different result the next time is a definition of insanity. Einstein said that.

CO2 likely to hit 1,200 PPM within 100 years unless something like massive new cheap and free energy source is invented and at that level one of the many cascading effects well tested is that clouds stop forming.

Given our recent conversation about fire and a non acceptance or even understanding that humidity and heat and wind and temperature play a pivotal role in fire is an even a simple concept, yet for many its impossible to convey, let alone convince verses their own narrative.

Fascinating to hear after 9 years and Bas positing scientific based stuff has not altered your beliefs. Not religious just science. But then again science and clinical impartial data is not open to interpretation. In fact a fact is a fact ... suggesting there is some alternative science or it hasn't been proven when it would it appear no level of proof would suffice.

Strange I learnt not to say touch burning objects as a child, I suppose I may have taken one or two lessons. A few adult accidents and it just reinforced the issue. I did not need to learn it over and over.

For you, whilst your view is your willing to hear it, no level clearly will ever or ever has changed your disbelief of climate change core issues. For you, you rest in the 1% ,  not the 5% at the denial end of the extreme. You mouth words of accepting some parts and denying the science totally and as for a cure or reduction despite the denial always being money based and political, you ignore the economics of say a green power source costing less than carbon based and call it all too hard.

I accept its unlikely we will change and that even after likely 500 million being hit with dire droughts pre 2100 or 100,000 dropping dead from heat and humidity being too high and no air conditioning and heat stoke occurring with temperatures over 40C and humidity at 80% plus, the human bag of water cannot cope.  Vast parts of the middle east and India have come very close and when this event occurs as it surely will in the next 40 years, it too likely will be ignored.

The fires we may of may not have had, well ... they are forgotten. Well not quite as 60 days more but not much will ever occur.

For some accepting this fate, denying science is not an option as its their future. A 16 year old will be around likely in 2080. I will depart prior to that date but not by much given my family.

Trying even to swing or debate your views is somewhat a waste of time and why are you on this   thread ?

Why have you been on it for 9 years ? The question is not if climate change is real ? It is implied clearly ... Is climate change unstoppable ?

In this question you either DON'T believe in the science or you do and waffling whilst believing its not proven and 500 pages and 1000 links has not changed your views and beliefs one iota.

Obviously you don't believe it. Still believe a bus carrying even half full 30 people is consuming more or emitting more CO2 than likely 20 cars with 1.5 people in each.

Simple stuff ... all of it.

I did note your comments having not even googled about cats or  what kills more than wind turbines. Then again, your views unlikely to every change.

Douglas Johnson of the U.S. Geological Survey and Joelle Gehring of the Federal Communications Commission did one massive study that .... well you should kill all cats on sight.

there are actually 20 plus studies saying all the same thing.

one of the better ones
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i6p2241-2248.html

for what its worth which is ... well nothing.
Your belief and gibberish about something, that suits your view or opinion is astounding on every aspect of everything even after 9 years.

Thanks for being a contributor to my second PHD.

Fascinating.


----------



## basilio (8 January 2020)

Kahuna I think you are being unduly rough on Smurf.  I could say it  much stronger but lets leave it at that for now.

I don't want to go through everything that is said but IMV I believe you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting his views. In any case in my view our collective objective is not to necessarily persuade everyone of the scientific certainty that we are all "going to hell in a hand basket" but attempt to create enough support for the rapid decarbonisation of our society to try and improve our future outcomes.

For instance one of the big elements of knocking out fossil fuels from transport use is electrification of buses, trucks, and almost all vehicles. 

In my view Smurfs input across the range of energy issues in this forum is exceptional and adds a dimension to our discussions that is probably not seen in almost any other forum. 

__________________________________________

Part of my life history was being involved with community groups that wanted to make  group decisions on consensus.  That didn't work out well in terms of achieving overall goals.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2020)

Well, I guess the questions are

1. is the climate warming ? (see all the graphs that show it is)

2. if it's not CO2 causing warming, then what is ? (the sun getting hotter, volcanoes etc. please provide evidence if you believe one of these or other explanations).


----------



## kahuna1 (8 January 2020)

basilio said:


> In my view Smurfs input across the range of energy issues in this forum is exceptional and adds a dimension to our discussions that is probably not seen in almost any other forum.




Fair enough.

Opinions vary. We differ in this one and you have been very tolerant to the point of ignoring just a tiny fraction of what I pointed out.'

I find it fascinating and worthy of study, that a view remains non scientifically based, in fact ignoring any and all science over the course of 9 years.

I am merely a geek in many ways and sadly know my limits which are many and huge. Apologies for any offense. I just am unable to process .... well ... errors on this scale. My issue and putting such views to one side after investigating. 

Keep up the good fight Bas and keep going Smerf maybe Sadijii and Anne can come back for round two ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> With respect, virtually everything you have said, is junk. Saying CO2 has not been tested a million times is possible, but once you test something 1,000 times ... to expect a different result the next time is a definition of insanity. Einstein said that.



Fact is we haven't tested it even once on the real planet earth or a replica. Not that I'm suggesting we ought to, but fact is all we've done is lab experiments, models, simulations and so on but it has never been tried for real. As anyone who's been involved with large scale physical things will be all too aware, what happens in practice doesn't always match the theory when it comes to the detail.

There will be all manner of things we don't understand about the detail of what happens. That's the inherent nature of complex natural systems - rarely do humans have a full understanding of the detail of how everything interacts.

For just one example of that, can you or indeed anyone provide an accurate explanation for the step changes in runoff which have been observed in south-west WA and in Tasmania since the mid-1970's? Those weren't gradual changes, they were abrupt "steps" from which there was not even a partial recovery especially in WA where the trend is more substantial.

An accurate explanation for the step changes? Not some "it's climate change" general statement but a proper explanation which identifies exactly the reason(s) why? Sure it's rainfall and temperature and that is an obvious manifestation of a changing climate but the sudden step aspect of it remains unanswered beyond a broad assumption that there must be unknown influences at work.

There are no doubt many other such examples. Observations which aren't understood and are not explained by current models. That's unsurprising - nobody would seriously think humans had worked out every fine detail of something as complex as this.

As for my personal views, well it's really quite simple. I have no firm allegiance to any side of politics. Ideologically I'd be slightly biased toward Labor in principle but that doesn't mean I've never put them toward the bottom of the ballot paper since I'm by no means "rusted on" and it depends on what policies they have at the time.

I'll happily point out the flaws with any of them. That's not to say they are necessarily "wrong" as such, but clearly they have priorities which in general don't place this issue at the top of the list. Since it became mainstream public and political knowledge in Australia circa 1987-88, we've had both major parties in government for long enough that they could have done something had they so chosen. Meanwhile various minor parties and independents could have pushed the issue harder than they did and been more willing to compromise in order to get something done even if it's imperfect.

Just because I'm in favour of something after having considered the options doesn't mean I won't point out the flaws in it. I'll be quick to point out that large scale hydro has a role to play in the energy transition but I'll also point out that dams come at a significant price environmentally depending on where they're built. It's the best option we've got at present for bulk energy storage in terms of cost and efficiency but only a fool would deny that it has an impact. As with most of this, it comes down to one impact versus another and there's no option which doesn't have some environmental negative somehow.

Or I could say that the $5K heat pump water heater I installed a few months ago is certainly highly efficient technically but if you look at the materials used, well there's more copper, steel, aluminium and other metals in that than there are in a conventional water heater. Benefit = less energy in use and less CO2 but from an environmental perspective it's nonsense to say it didn't have an impact making it. It just has less impact than the alternatives given the CO2 aspect but it's not zero.

Solar much the same. Less impact yes but it certainly isn't zero to manufacture and transport solar panels, an inverter and all balance of system components. It might be better than the alternatives but it's not zero impact.

As for things like engines, well if you've got a way to avoid the trade-off in the context of high speed diesel engines operating under varying load, that is those found in road vehicles, then there's plenty who'd like to hear it. Reality is that optimising fuel consumption in order to minimise CO2 generally means failing every non-CO2 emissions test in the book. Run clean in terms of air toxics and you use more fuel and get more CO2 by doing so - unsurprising especially in situations where fuel is injected straight into the exhaust system, making a zero contribution to moving the vehicle, in order to achieve those low non-CO2 emissions results. We're burning fuel and emitting CO2 for the sole purpose of cleaning up the exhaust in other ways - that's a very direct trade-off between CO2 and other pollutants.

That's not unique to diesel engines. There's plenty of industrial situations where turning off the pollution controls would drop CO2 emissions at the expense of increasing some other pollutant. If there's one thing that basically all pollution control equipment has in common it's that having it increases energy use. That's the trade-off. Avoid dumping heat or heavy metals in the river or avoid sulfur or fluorine going into the air or even just particulates but it takes megawatts to do it. Etc.

So far as fires are concerned, well I don't claim to be an expert on those but it's rather fundamental that you need fuel in order to have fire. There's good reason why the real experts do indeed burn off - because under the appropriate circumstances it makes a difference. Now nobody's suggesting burning literally everything to stop fires, that's defeating the point somewhat, but there's a role for it hence why it's done and hence my view that the scale of it needs to be in accordance with what the science says and not based on politics. If they need more resources then so be it, that beats having raging infernos surely. Or if they're doing enough then no problem, keep doing it but point is look at the science not this denial stuff pretending that there's no link between fuel and fire. Depending on circumstances there's a sensible role for hazard reduction burns.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Keep up the good fight Bas and keep going Smerf maybe Sadijii and Anne can come back for round two ?



I will simply say that I have no idea whether you are misunderstanding what I've said, are just being silly, or something else. I don't take offence however.

At a personal level I see it as comparable to the individual who slammed the office door very firmly in my face some years ago. Almost literally, I was a barely half a metre in front of it at the time.

The following day I interviewed said person for a permanent position. They were successful and to my knowledge are still working there now.

The issue of them slamming doors and their ability to perform a purely technical job are unrelated. Had the job been a management one then slamming doors would perhaps have been more relevant. I'd be willing to bet though that most in that situation would have been somewhat less open minded regarding the incident given I was his boss.

In terms of the sort of thinking I'm encouraging about all this, well I'll give you an analogy based on a real situation.

The population of Sydney is approximately 5 million at present. According to Bob Carr (a former NSW Premier for anyone unaware), increasing it to 8 million is a desirable objective. I don't have a link but he's certainly said it, no doubt Google etc would find it.

Now without arguing for or against, I'll point out that there's three elements here:

*Increase population by ~60%

*Building more infrastructure especially roads, rail, water and energy

*Maintaining current lifestyle of an average Sydney resident

Now if someone wants to argue that they don't want more water infrastructure or roads etc built then we've basically got two choices. Either we don't do the population increase or we don't maintain lifestyle equal to the present one. In the absence of substantial technology improvement, if we're going to have more people and maintain current lifestyles then we use more resources.

Now I don't particularly mind which way it goes, I don't live in Sydney, but I'll call out anyone who spreads nonsense to the effect that we can add 60% to population, not expand infrastructure and there won't be any downsides to that. Oh yes there will - now tell the truth. More people = more of everything so don't complain about more desal plants, dams, roads, power lines or whatever unless you're arguing for fewer people or a substantial change in the way of life.

Which one? I'm not too fussed but I'll call out nonsense yes. 

The problem we have in society is a general unwillingness to face these sort of situations without hiding parts of the story.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2020)

basilio said:


> I don't want to go through everything that is said but IMV I believe you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting his views.




I mean no harm or offence to anyone. I am however very much someone who challenges conventional wisdom, and encourages others to do likewise, and who's willing to consider every possible option. No harm to anyone is intended.

For example just because I'm somewhat anti-nuclear doesn't mean I didn't price one up as a private research exercise many years ago. For the record it was too costly but that's not the point. There's no harm in knowing the truth and no harm in having a look over the fence to see what's there.

As someone who's fundamentally a technical person it does frustrate me greatly however with the whole situation. Go back to the late 1980's and we didn't know all the details of how things would be done, that solar PV became so cheap wasn't in line with expectations from that era which expected pretty much anything else to beat it, but fundamentally we did know that we needed to move to an electric economy. We also knew that we could pursue efficiencies and we knew that within reasonable extent the building of an energy storage system wouldn't be a wasted exercise.

I'm no lawyer but I'd liken the situation to that of a lawyer sitting there in court, their mouth taped shut, listening as someone says all the wrong things and sends themselves to jail for a crime they didn't commit. Or I could liken it to a doctor who just can't get through to a patient to stop doing something that's almost certainly going to kill them unnecessarily.

There are solutions to all this and Australia used to be a world leader in all this stuff. There are countless world firsts in the Tasmanian power system alone. Likewise there were best in class systems built in Victoria in the past, one of them was actually cloned in the US incidentally, and there's plenty of impressive engineering in the Snowy scheme of course too.

In other areas we weren't the inventor but were a very early adopter. The second refrigerated LPG storage facility in the world was built by the Victorian government for example and after the 1970's oil crises WA received a degree of international attention for having managed to actually do it with shifting power generation away from oil (to coal and gas) whilst others were still drawing up the plans. WA also did some clever stuff firing multiple fuels in the same boiler at once and so on, there weren't many others in the world who got that working anywhere near as successfully.

That being so it does frustrate me greatly that as a nation we've effectively tied our hands behind our back on this. I'm anti-politics not because I hate politicians as such, and for the record I don't hate lawyers or unionists either I just think they're over-represented in parliament, but because clearly it's not working in all of this. Things are being done in spite of government not because of it and that's not a good situation so we need a better way.

For the record well I don't hate the Greens either. That said, I recognize what they are - a political party. They might be better on environmental matters than others but ultimately they're in the business of politics. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it is. The Greens are a political party as are Labor and Liberal.

There's no point getting depressed about it all though and to that end I do indeed have some lumps of coal. Now I just need to stumble across ScoMo somewhere and ask him to autograph one of them...... (well, not sure if I'll go that far but I've got some bits of coal ready just in case). Unlike the one waved around in parliament, my coal isn't glazed though.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2020)

Smurf, as I understand it, you believe that the climate is warming but that CO2 is not necessarily the cause.

Am I correctly representing your view ?

If so I'd be interested to know what other factors you feel may be responsible.


----------



## rederob (9 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Thanks for the response.



Having followed this debate for very much longer than being a member at ASF, and followed this thread since, I agree with many of your comments.
@Smurf1976's logic seems to be lacking in so many examples he put forward, so here's my take on a number of them:

VW's issues had nothing to do with climate change per se.
All vehicle transportation CO2 issues can be solved by moving rapidly to EV and hydrogen, with wind/solar the source energies.
It is a furphy to propose the nuclear industry is a possible solution to CO2 reductions when renewables can fill the void more quickly and more cheaply.  Furthermore, the nuclear solution to CO2 mitigation is very late to the party because everyone knew how expensive it really was.
The argument that other technologies cause separate problems is a classical avoidance technique, and whenever put to the test in relation to CO2 mitigation are regularly shown to be based on biased or poor assumptions.
The idea that climate cannot be modelled or that the paleoclimate record of CO2 and temperature changes are not adequate might be sufficient as reasons for doubt if there were other contenders for the solution.  @SirRumpole has queried this same point.  It's a bit like being open to the theory of gravity.  We know the consequences and can calculate on the basis of what we know, but we don't' know everything... yet!


----------



## IFocus (9 January 2020)

Liked Dr Karls summary on climate change.

He doesn't believe in climate change, he accepts the science.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 January 2020)

Lets keep testing ... say the effect of CO2 tested and known in 1880 ... 

Lets keep testing

Another 9 years please.


----------



## basilio (9 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Lets keep testing ...
> 
> Another 9 years please.



I don't think we need to "test" the current situation to breaking point.
When the evidence is overwhelming and the consequences so grave one takes action ASAP.
There is rarely total certainty about an outcome.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Smurf, as I understand it, you believe that the climate is warming but that CO2 is not necessarily the cause.
> 
> Am I correctly representing your view ?
> 
> If so I'd be interested to know what other factors you feel may be responsible.



My view is that: 

The climate is warming.

This is a serious problem.

CO2 appears to be the major cause.

There are other known causes of lesser significance but not insignificant as such. These include methane, various synthetic gases, changes in albedo and so on. Individually many of those are minor but not zero and should not be dismissed without proper research.

Given that a vast number of natural systems are involved it is almost certain that we don’t fully understand the details of various consequences and so on of warming and the consequences of that are potentially destructive.

As one random example - would a warmer climate lead to termites becoming a problem in cooler climates where they are not currently present? That alone could bring significant practical and economic consequences in those areas.

As such since about 1992 I have:

Minimised my own contribution to emissions within the bounds of reasonable practicality. That includes bringing about change among others where I’ve had the ability to do so.

Advocated that society needs to move to an electric economy and that the means of producing that electricity needs to shift in an orderly manner over a reasonable timeframe to eliminate ongoing CO2 emissions. For the record that advocacy has been primarily in the real world, targeting real MP’s and so on, not simply online.

I’ve had an open mind as to the detail of change - how to do it and in what period of time. My answer there is see what technical innovation brings and what the science says needs to be done. This does not mean making exuses for inaction - it simply means not committing to the details of how (technology etc) until we’re actually about to do it thus gaining advantage from technical improvements and so on.

In that regard the emergence of cheap solar PV, a situation that wasn’t widely foreseen even earlier this century, has changed the game substantially. Not too long ago the focus was on trying to make hot rocks or solar thermal work but cheap PV changed the game  dramatically. PV now looks likely to end up as the largest component of the end solution - an unthinkable concept even a decade ago.

I also advocate for continued research into both causes and effects. Apart from cost which isn’t huge there’s no credible argument against research and very likely something of use will be discovered. That is particularly so with regard to consequences and adaptation noting that due to the long life of buildings etc any adaptation needs to commence well before a problem arises. 

If we’re going to try and relocate a species to save it or we’re going to need to change building codes well it’s a lot better do be doing that now rather than waiting until something’s just about extinct or we’re having buildings fall down and so on. Research is never a bad idea - absolute worst case we waste a modest amount of money.

I also observe that the political agenda surrounding this issue has been hijacked by all manner of unrelated agendas the presence of which blocks any effective action. This is to the extent that in an Australian context the value of government is negative in this context - it’s holding back progress.

That’s a summary of my position on the issue.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 January 2020)

basilio said:


> I don't think we need to "test" the current situation to breaking point.
> When the evidence is overwhelming and the consequences so grave one takes action ASAP.
> There is rarely total certainty about an outcome



4

I was being sarcastic in the extreme.

Either you accept CO2 in any atmosphere causes warming or you dont. 

Either you accept the burning of carbon fuels is the cause or you do not ...

Either you accept humans are the cause or you do not

Either you accept other Greenhouse gasses such as  CFC's and CH4 ... methane are human caused or you do not

Either you accept we have not seen current CO2 levels for millions of years or you do not.

Either you accept at adding 3-4 PPM CO2 and accelerating will likely see CO2 up near 1,000 PPM with some inevitable feedback issues such as permafrost which already is melting ... or you do not.

Either you have some idea that the worse it gets, more and more cascading effects occur such as clouds being more difficult to form above 1200 PPM Co2 .... or you dont. 

A lot of these things are very open and shut, not a debate ... yes sure in anything the possibility of being incorrect exists, and YES one must keep an open mind, but when the possibility is say less than 1 in a million ... with say CO2 and its effects ... or current levels verses a million years ago, well ... 

then its some serious other issues which are not pleasant.

Intelligence
Trolling
Serious mental conditions .... unable to admit error or fault ... or say like causing pain 
Paid for carbon based lobby groups and PR ... 
Dementia
Cognitive decline

This is upsetting, but the list can go on.

If one person told you the world was flat .... you would question the above list
If a person told you smoking was good for you the same.

Some things, really beyond discussion are being rehashed and illogically so.

The question would be why do you actually think say CO2 measurement is somehow being politically altered when 4 satellites and 20 ground stations have measured it for 50 years and ice bubbles tested in the Antarctic ice shelf going back a million years have been tested independently by 15 or more nations with the same results.

If someone started talking about averages or whatever ... when they are absolute values at any point in time ... CO2 ... rainfall ... temperature ...  

Its not the time to be polite after asking to correct, its time to ... stop wasting my time .... your clearly suffering one of the list.

Not about being or needing to be right or wrong, its ... fact ... science and well discussing with a person drooling on the street clearly with issues is a waste of everyone's time and the same for one which ... looks well dressed and then starts sprouting conspiracy theories every second time they write or open their mouth.

Of course to many scientific fact or climate change is a conspiracy theory.

Important to exactly find out what or whom your dealing with from the onset.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> That’s a summary of my position on the issue.




Hopefully The Red and Kahuna1 will leave you alone now.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2020)

rederob said:


> VW's issues had nothing to do with climate change per se.




Well they were driven by governments putting pressure on car manufacturers to lower fuel consumption which was itself driven by concerns about oil supply and CO2. Achieving that was the reason European car manufacturers became so keen on putting diesel engines into passenger cars in the first place.

Take that aspect away and diesel as a fuel for private passenger cars wouldn't likely ever have become mainstream. No diesel = no reason to cheat the emissions figures for them and no real incentive to squeeze every last bit of efficiency out of the engine.

That said, I'll agree that VW engineers and management probably weren't too worried about CO2 personally. Management were worried about keeping sales up and production costs down and engineers were worried about remaining employed. That's a fair point certainly.



> All vehicle transportation CO2 issues can be solved by moving rapidly to EV and hydrogen, with wind/solar the source energies
> 
> It is a furphy to propose the nuclear industry is a possible solution to CO2 reductions when renewables can fill the void more quickly and more cheaply.  Furthermore, the nuclear solution to CO2 mitigation is very late to the party because everyone knew how expensive it really was.
> 
> The argument that other technologies cause separate problems is a classical avoidance technique, and whenever put to the test in relation to CO2 mitigation are regularly shown to be based on biased or poor assumptions.




All of those come down to the same fundamental question of how urgent is this problem?

Is the CO2 issue comparable to the 20 year old who's 20kg overweight but otherwise in good health? No panic, just lose a couple of kg a year and all will be fine.

Or is it comparable to the 60 year old who's 20kg overweight and just survived a heart attack? Better follow the doctor's advice strictly and get that weight off ASAP.

At present the response of governments and indeed the points you make rest upon the notion that it needs to be done but there's no major hurry. Yes fix CO2 but it's somewhere down the list after we sort out all sorts of other things from smog to poverty.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying that those things are unimportant but I accept reality for what it is.

As a concept I'm against nuclear. First because the more nuclear materials are around, the greater the chance that they fall into the wrong hands. Second because there WILL be another major accident that's virtually a given. Third due to the waste problem. And as you mention it's also damn expensive and takes forever to build.

Reality though is that if China or the UK or the USA were to go along with the "conventional" environmentalist's view and scrap nuclear then are they really going to build renewables as a direct replacement? Or are they going to build renewables at whatever pace anyway and closing nuclear in practice means continuing with coal and/or gas for longer?

Then there's places like Germany. Nuclear already built so the cost has been incurred so if the CO2 issue was considered urgent then keeping them in operation is one way of bringing emissions down sooner. Either by closing German fossil fuel power stations earlier than they'll now close or by exporting surplus power to surrounding countries and displacing fossil fuels there. Ultimately every megawatt hour that comes out of those nuclear plants is a megawatt hour not coming from something else.

It's much the same with vehicle emissions. Sure we'll likely be starting to put hydrogen or battery powered trucks on the road in significant numbers and sometime circa 2050's diesel will no longer be a commonly used or available product. Given the time to turnover the fleet that sounds roughly right.

Is that fast enough though? If it's not then was urban smog etc really such a problem in the period 2005-09 that we needed to further tighten emissions standards (internationally, specifically EU) and accept more CO2 as the trade-off? Or is CO2 more important and we could just live with a bit more smog for longer?

It's much the same with any internal combustion engine. Minimising CO2 and minimising other pollutants doesn't occur with the same fuel and ignition mapping. Make one better and the other gets worse. Which is most important?

*Note that I'm not decreeing the answers here, I'm just raising the issue for discussion.* There is, after all, no harm in considering different aspects of a problem and no harm in looking over the fence to see what's there. So long as we're not proposing to build a nuclear power station in Victoria, which is illegal, then no harm done discussing things.

How urgent it actually is well I'm not at all qualified to comment there. The overall response of society thus far though has put it well down the list of issues to be fixed and to be clear, global emissions are continuing to rise thus far. If that's not good enough, if it's too slow, well then my points about "anything that works" and accepting some trade-offs become more relevant if there's some urgency that won't be addressed by the approach currently being taken.


----------



## moXJO (9 January 2020)

Now everyone can offset their carbon emissions without waiting around for the government to do it.

https://projectwren.com/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2020)

One thing that worries me is that all the PV's will eventually degrade and end up as landfill or in expensive recycling processes that produce a lot of CO2 themselves.

This is another area that our governments appear to have overlooked.

Is there a national PV recycling policy ?


----------



## kahuna1 (9 January 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Kahuna1 will leave you alone now.




I am struggling to understand another persons understanding .... and failing.

Whilst we, humans, a new species in the last eye-blink are the cause of the current events, this has occurred 5 previous times. Extinction type CO2 events.

Whilst the last one 65 million years ago took 70,000 years to achieve where all mammals over 30kg were made extinct including the dinosaurs, the fossil records and the actual cause initially are well known.

What changed the atmosphere and what saved it ... was massive carbon capture over 800,000 plus years as the CO2 was removed all be it glacially slowly often captured in deposits we now burn as coal and oil releasing the very thing that made oceans acidic and the climate so extreme that even ocean life was hit.

This rapid change, is well documented and hundreds of scientific studies exist ...

Whilst no alarm goes off, no urgent action is going to occur as we are already over the precipice.
It sounds alarmist, so too was the IPCC report from 2002 let alone the dire one from 2018. Thye are the smartest minds on this planet and yet, they are to be ignored by leaders and our own carrying a lump of coal into parlimant speaks for itself let alone Abbot and his views aloing with Howard who refused all sceince and refused to sign Kyoto agreement.

In fact the USA reporting and use of the word climate change via mainstream media declined by 85% in the 12 months after the IPCC report, astounding.

I cant change any of it, nor really understand logically any of it.

If there were a real and not manufactured threat to our existence why wouldn't we act. Yes I know politicized this but to ignore the self interest lobby groups of the USA and their donations influence in policy would be absurd as too out own climate denial sites funded by oil gas and coal ... Gina Rhinehart and the Liberal party luminaries driving the media ...

The last time we hit 400 ppm CO2 the temperature was 3c warmer and that's where we are NOT heading ...  NOT EVEN CLOSE ...

IPCC models have NO factoring in for Arctic Permafrost melt and CO2 release along with CH4 Methane because USA and Canada and Saudi Arabia along with Australia had it removed. 
HAD IT REMOVED FROM THE MODELS.

Excuse was that it will not occur till post 2100 and that, given its already clearly occurring at an increasing rate is total BS.  Even ignoring 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 and I hope 15 billion tons of methane or less is likely to be released as it thaws is stupid.

This to one side, the rate of increase even without this sledgehammer hitting CO2 emissions are increasing each year.









Since we know say at 2,500 PPM its 12 degrees C likely and at 400 PPM 3 Degrees .... and the rate of CO2 is exponentially increasing each year, a 1.5c went out the window long ago.

TO remove CO2 at 400 PPM back to 290 requires all the energy released post 1750 to be applied in reverse. Natural process the last one took 900,000 years.

Hence my own 4-6 degree post 2100 scenario.

Sure things may change, cold fusion ... or some massive technological change is not enough. As BAS and others are at pains to point out, even if we went net zero by 2040 which  is unlikely .... it would take 10,000 years realistically to remove it with even cutting edge technology right now. The scope and scale is every exhaust and coal fired plant for the past 200 years. 

Sobering is the Arctic and a few other feedback loops impossible to stop the self interests of the USA and Saudi Arabians have removed. Arctic will DOUBLE the CO2 increase seen say since 1750 of 150 PPM so where we are as that occurs is likely over 500 PPM and this added to the methane and a few other impossible to avoid feedback loops well we are 1,000 PPM early next century and struggling to deal with around a 6C temperature increase.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 January 2020)

Or this ....

IPCC stuff mainly .. in fact I believe all of it is hard data ...


----------



## dutchie (9 January 2020)




----------



## kahuna1 (9 January 2020)

Lastly welcome to my world and views ...

Make your own mind up ... but again mostly IPCC stuff all be it the stuff missing feedback loops and computer models actually falling behind reality by MASSIVE margins in 2020.






For some ... illogically they will question each and every issue and data point.

Sadly I dont have the time for debate about scientific facts or chemical reactions or endothermic and exothermic ones. Either one understands the fact that the energy released in a reaction cannot be exceeded the other side or vica versa ... putting the CO2 back into the bottle is not possible or even remotely so under any conceivable advance we can make likely in a million years. 

There is no magic genie ... trees forget it at 4 tons per hectare ... yep maybe algae over vast areas but 10,000 years was based upon this super CO2 absorbing thing at 140 times the rate of trees.

Enjoy .. I know Bas and Explod and others, Dark K ...  have done the same prior ... and myself as well. 

Its sobering. Not open for rational debate. Sorry !!


----------



## rederob (9 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> That’s a summary of my position on the issue.



All the equivocations you write about are and have been covered in great detail by numerous IPCC Reports, so I will not revisit your posts and lay them out again.  Which ones have you read?
In a very different forum I was debating with an engineer who claimed that as it was very still during several days of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 it was therefore not sensible to build wind farms in Europe.
I will close in reiterating some of your poor logic in this area with just the VW example as even you noted it had no relevance to AGW.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Its sobering. Not open for rational debate. Sorry !!




I agree we are in deep shite.

I don't believe most politicians (in Australia at least) have the first idea what to do about it.

It can only get worse as the underdeveloped world develops and consumes at the rate that the developed world currently does.

The only way out imv is drastic population control or a world wide disaster reducing population by say half.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 January 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> It can only get worse as the underdeveloped world develops and consumes at the rate that the developed world currently does.




Yep ...
I do see some light ... on going to zero tech-wise, to remove it ... or remove say 1 trillion or if we count 2 trillion tons of CO2 via the Permafrost melting is just not even conceivable.

My debate is when say we see a blue ocean event in the Arctic and less than 10% of ice is left in summer. If its as early as 2025 or at best 2050, its still 50 years early. Missing from any IPCC reports and models.

Pretending you dont know that Oil and Coal is the captured carbon from the last extinction event that wiped out every animal over 30kg is, well absurd in 2020 as it was in 1970.

In my dreams ... its a 3C rise by 2100. Likely as t*he panel at Madrid with the brightest and most brilliant in the field estimated its 4-6 C  temp rise by 2100*. USA did not even send anyone above janitor status and Australia actively sabotaged the meeting. Scott Morrison sent a cola lobbyist with a lump of coal along. 

Thinking and even ignoring the 1.5C target which well, we are there ... NOW .... they just moved the starting date the USA from 1750 to 1880 .... removing the first 0.4C rise and did so, because they could with Canada and Australia rah rah rah in the background along with Saudi Arabia ....Thank the efforts of climate denial of John Howard for that one.

I dont know what happens with a rise that took 60,000 years crammed into say 500 years what the Ocean which has absorbed a lot of heat and CO2 does, its not about to get better at it as it becomes an acid bath.

Maybe I can send a few to watch volcanoes and their impacts in NZ ... or to a firestorm front or Fire Tornado front and send them with a champagne bottle filled with water. I read someone who built a fire proof house found even a champagne bottle had melted and fused with other stuff. Garden metal furniture vaporized and just silhouettes after the fire. Then again Aluminum melts at 660C and glass completely melts at 1500C and the bottle was merely very deformed, the story ... is a story. I am fairly sure the garden furniture  did not vaporize as that's 2500 C or so.   .


----------



## basilio (9 January 2020)

So now for the good news on addressing runaway global warming.
=-
-
-
-
-
-
That's right. There really isn't any.   Having said that I'm reminded of another story I read in a biography of Richard Feyman. If you remember he was one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists in the world - an an amazing character to boot. He was also a key player in the development of the nuclear bomb.

Anyway in the late 1940's he went into a very deep depression because he was absolutely sure there would be a nuclear war which would basically make earth uninhabitable. His view was based on the *certain belief *that at no time in history had new military weapons not been used and he *could see no way* the US and USSR would not end up in a war.

Obviously he pulled out of that funk and by some miracle we haven't yet blown ourselves to kingdom come. So while I respect Kahuna scholarship and (reluctantly) agree with the figures I have to be a bit schizophrenic about the situation.

I have already had my bouts of depression about CC and they cost me dearly. In truth I see my best option and I think for most others to acknowledge we have a desperate situation and take on the  personal and community efforts to radically change our  societies direction and see what we can do.

Constructive action does help. George Monbiot is probably an excellent example of a CC campaigner who knows full well what is happening but has opened whole new areas of activity to challenge the situation. Check out his rewilding work and new doco *Apocalypse Cow*, 
https://www.monbiot.com/
_____________________________________

PS   Andrew Forrest has just thrown in $70 million for bushfire relief.  He also unequivocal about teh role of CC in accelerating bushfires.  Well worth a read
 Print Email  Facebook  Twitter  More
*Mining billionaire Andrew Forrest pledges $70 million bushfire relief and recovery donation*
..A further $50 million will be spent on a "national blueprint" for fire and disaster resilience to develop new approaches to mitigate the threat of bushfires, *with a focus on climate change.*

*https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01...ges-$70m-donation-to-bushfire-relief/11854654*


----------



## kahuna1 (9 January 2020)

Yep ..

well said. I try not to think about it. A lot of the actual climate scientists have serious depression, have left the field or are in some form of despair. 

Whilst none of the above, not in denial. Not about to suffer denial or what I would call Koch brothers inspired alternative realities.

One has to be positive. One also has to be realistic. Some things are going to occur. We adapt and some will make it. Most, without a miracle will not or have their lives vastly altered. Vast tracts of land from the equator to a lot of Australia become uninhabitable or very dire outside A/C. Farming dropped on its head.

Some may debate climate measurement and so on ... I do know, that the past 40 years via satellite the previous highs were 45.3 C for my current location. I know they hit 46.3 C peak in 2019. I know they just hit 48,1 C and astounding increase and since I accept previous records back to 1900 as valid, to go from under 45C in 2000 .... to 48.1C peak is what it is.

I suspect one bonus of the bush-fires is the smoke and particles in the Atmosphere keep temps about 1C lower for 18 months to 2 years. I am sure, all will be forgotten and I told you so ... till 2023 or so.

Such is the nature of the species. An extreme capacity for compassion mixed with greed cruelty and the absence of all empathy ... We believe what we wish to. Often in denial and often of late being deliberately fed a narrative that suits small if not tiny self interest groups rather than the total species.

Eventually, one must hope, at some stage we get it right. Possibly in 2024 with a more compassionate superpower. One who does not actually actively deny any and all man made climate change. Then we have the ones mouthing support yet doing the opposite who are if not worse.

Panic ? Depression ? Well will not change a thing other than our own state. Anger same thing. I prefer to take action and call idiots, idiots and try in various ways for change. Some I know are howling at the moon for now like speaking to the current goverment. It is not possible. The dialogue has been hijacked.
Its been done brilliantly and utterly convincingly and well funded by the likes of Oil and Coal and Gas people, but one day, things will change. Knowing its being done, how its being done, the dialogue being altered makes me actually smile knowing their kids  children in 2100 will be no better off than others.  

Possibly this species not far removed from the trees will change. The younger ones and ones not so young are actually getting traction and whilst not overnight, the times they are a changing. 

I am not glib about even the 2050 situation let alone as we march towards say 2100 and if its 4 C likely 5C best guess v 1.5c now, even the blind will notice, then again USA secretary of State recently spoke about the massive oil and gas opportunities the Arctic melting would bring along with shipping routes.

Kind of sickening the USA Republican party which has a coal barons wife as the UN ambassador with no qualifications oversees the UN IPPC ... and then the USA EPA run by a coal lobbyist under Trump.

I better stop ... 2020 may bring radical change and strangely I suspect Uncle Bernie !! Who portrayed as a communist or socialist for wanting Medicare for all ... only time will tell. His Green policies will deliver a lump of coal to out PM and hit him in that fat head. 

Trump dynasty and his addiction to cold tablets and other pain killers  will be a memory.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 January 2020)

rederob said:


> All the equivocations you write about are and have been covered in great detail by numerous IPCC Reports, so I will not revisit your posts and lay them out again.



If you are accepting the future level of emissions upon which IPCC modeling is based upon then what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?

The notion that someone is concerned about this issue by its very nature requires that they either consider the warming projections as modeled by the IPCC based on assumptions of future emissions to be unacceptable or that they consider the IPCC has made a significant error and has underestimated the level of future emissions and/or the extent of warming for any given concentration of CO2.

If you're happy with their results then quite simply there's no issue. Worry about something else.

If you're not happy with their results, because you consider that extent of warming to be unacceptably high or that they've underestimated it, well then you'd logically be looking at possible means of reducing the problem beyond that factored into various "base case" models.

You seem to be accepting the "slow" approach if I'm understanding you correctly. The one which says there's a problem, we'll need to sort it but let's do x, y and z first since they're more important and then we'll get around to CO2 unless something else urgent comes up in the meantime.

If you didn't think that, if you thought it was urgent, then rationally you'd at least consider pushing CO2 emissions up the priority list from where it stands at the moment as something that won't see any serious action until after we've sorted out various other things.

My comment is not a personal one, it's just noting that as with the vast majority you seem to be seeing it as something about which there's no real urgency. A problem but not one that can't wait until after we've sorted out x, y and z first. The majority are in practice on your side with or without ackowledging it - that's what's actually happening, CO2 is on the agenda but a fair way down it.

I reiterate that it's simply an observation and isn't a personal criticism in any way. If you look at the IEA forecasts or BP or any other accepted source then they're mostly fairly similar - it'll be fixed but not in a hurry. 

That may be right but I'm unconvinced. I'm not in a panic but my thinking is that actual emissions cuts are needed somewhat sooner than a business as usual approach is likely to deliver. As such, I'm open to all workable means of achieving them.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 January 2020)

Something I’ll add to my previous posts is that whilst I obviously don’t agree with rederob and kahuna1 on a number of points, ultimately it’s just a discussion and there’s nothing personal about it.

At a personal level, well the only things I take issue with when it comes to anything written is outright lies and fraud and I’m not accusing anyone here of those that’s for sure.

A lot of this really comes down to how urgent it’s perceived to be and what you expect politicians, business and the public (globally) to do in response to any particular measure, discovery or occurrence. That is of course largely an unknown.

What I will say though is that if a government knew of a substantial emissions drop being on the way no matter what they do, and then made a policy announcement to cut emissions, well that would be at least somewhat dishonest in my view. Claiming credit for what’s happening anyway. There’s a reason I’m saying that......


----------



## rederob (10 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> If you are accepting the future level of emissions upon which IPCC modeling is based upon then what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?



My points related to the things you equivocate over on a regular basis regarding the state of the science.  Modelling is simply an extension of that knowledge which tells us where the planet is headed based on a range of different settings.  CMIP 6 is the latest modelling platform and early iterations of trajectories suggest the earlier versions are likely to be on the conservative side.
The role of politicians worldwide is realise that they can heavily influence which trajectory we head down, and not one single one gets the planet to a better place until after most reading this post have passed away (ie next century, not this one).
While there is a view that we can all do our bit to reduce our CO2 footprint, and many posters here are much better than the average, the simple reality is that *we do not have the authority* to mandate energy projects that are solely based on renewables. 
If nations really treated the planet as being in a state of climate emergency they could cut their defence budgets and reinvest it into climate change mitigation strategies.  Not one has even contemplated this.
We oldies are lucky in that at worst we only get to experience a planet a few extra degrees warmer.  Our children and theirs will not be so lucky, so what we have seen by way of summers in Australia this year will not really be the new normal.  They will be instead be regarded over time as "the good years."


----------



## SirRumpole (10 January 2020)

rederob said:


> My points related to the things you equivocate over on a regular basis regarding the state of the science.  Modelling is simply an extension of that knowledge which tells us where the planet is headed based on a range of different settings.  CMIP 6 is the latest modelling platform and early iterations of trajectories suggest the earlier versions are likely to be on the conservative side.
> The role of politicians worldwide is realise that they can heavily influence which trajectory we head down, and not one single one gets the planet to a better place until after most reading this post have passed away (ie next century, not this one).
> While there is a view that we can all do our bit to reduce our CO2 footprint, and many posters here are much better than the average, the simple reality is that *we do not have the authority* to mandate energy projects that are solely based on renewables.
> If nations really treated the planet as being in a state of climate emergency they could cut their defence budgets and reinvest it into climate change mitigation strategies.  Not one has even contemplated this.
> We oldies are lucky in that at worst we only get to experience a planet a few extra degrees warmer.  Our children and theirs will not be so lucky, so what we have seen by way of summers in Australia this year will not really be the new normal.  They will be instead be regarded over time as "the good years."




I don't know why you keep having a go at Smurf rob, he said he thinks the climate is warming, that CO2 is the most likely cause and it's a dangerous situation.

What more do you want except an argument ?


----------



## moXJO (10 January 2020)

> There is no magic genie ... trees forget it at 4 tons per hectare ... yep maybe algae over vast areas but 10,000 years was based upon this super CO2 absorbing thing at 140 times the rate of trees.
> 
> !!



A certain type of Seaweed apparently. Mass seaweed farms off Korea. Then sequestered in the deep ocean or something. It was already mapped out and is enough to offset current emissions.
A while since I read about it though.


----------



## dutchie (10 January 2020)




----------



## SirRumpole (10 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> A certain type of Seaweed apparently. Mass seaweed farms off Korea. Then sequestered in the deep ocean or something. It was already mapped out and is enough to offset current emissions.
> A while since I read about it though.




https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190603124721.htm


----------



## rederob (10 January 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know why you keep having a go at Smurf rob, he said he thinks the climate is warming, that CO2 is the most likely cause and it's a dangerous situation.
> What more do you want except an argument ?



I have questioned his *thinking *on the science which is published and where he equivocates, not his personal actions.
So here's an example:


Smurf1976 said:


> You seem to be accepting the "slow" approach if I'm understanding you correctly. The one which says there's a problem, we'll need to sort it but let's do x, y and z first since they're more important and then we'll get around to CO2 unless something else urgent comes up in the meantime.



@Smurf1976 implies the science is not clear, but he will not find this anywhere in the IPCC Reports which spell out the dangerous path that planet is on and the reasons why.  The science is unequivocal in that CO2 is presently the main danger because it is long-lived - what is added today will remain additional for no less than the next century.
My hope is that someone does find a huge error in the science and that we are not on the path spelled out by the IPCC, but I fear it has no rational basis.


----------



## kahuna1 (10 January 2020)

Whilst any effort is good, seaweed as such ... in an ocean that is acidifying at an alarming rate may work, but the similar thing that stopped and reversed  the last CO2 event took 800,000 years over several hundred thousands of km in the Arctic to achieve. Other smaller algae and trapping of vegetation are what we now burn and call OIL deposits or Coal deposits or Gas deposits. 

Its amusing to read this stuff, trapping CO2 whilst we on one hand release close to 40 billion tons of it each year and rising. The total is rising not falling and well ... some magical stop and NET zero by 2050 or 2060 ? Okey doekey. 

Seaweed, algae are great to absorb  CO2 and if captured and not used even better. They however will require massive scale and size in the order of literally thousands of sq km to even make dent. The tree people are dreaming at 4 tons per hectare CO2 removed and 400 per sq km. Yes a seaweed not as good as some intensive algae is around 250 tons per hectare v 1,000 ... or 25,000 tons per km the size of the non natural CO2 we emit is approaching 40 billion tons.

Simple calculation, even if we tried to suck up 1 trillion tons over say 50 years so that's 20 billion a year at 25,000 tons per sq km, the scope and sheer size needed is vast. Its actually 800,000 sq km working each year or 8 times the size of South Korea. That requires it to be sequestrated and not used for other things which, well will require massive investment from somewhere that produces NO income.

Sadly whilst we will peak likely well over 1,000 PPM CO2 ... the needed total to be removed will be 2 trillion tons.

I read things like this, and wonder if they are some red herring to distract us. Its really really simple math. This is also ignoring that the PH level that the seaweed needs is very touchy and the PH level of the sea is changing at an alarming if not astounding rate.

This ocean acidification is NOT contained in any IPCC projection on temperature change. Removed like Arctic Permafrost for the same reason that it has not been studied long enough and data set from the current deep sea monitoring system is merely 40 years of data. All fossils and science are ignored.

I note, that whilst I try and only use IPCC data, the worlds best ... to be told someone does not agree with their findings, or their very watered down look at the world strange. I merely knowing not a lot compared to experts are repeating their stuff. Does someone claim they are wrong ? Apparently so and often which is absurd given what they report and what is missing. Their 2018 dire warning was speaking of the difference between a 1.5 and 2 degree by 2100 rise on the planet.

If you read the summary even, they say the likely rise to end of 2017 where their data ALREADY had a 1C rise and 2018 was the 6th warmest ever year on record .... so 1.1C ... post that report ...
2019 likely second hottest year globally on record ... so 1.2 C rise. ALREADY.

AN at best is zero net by 2050-60 and with the USA withdrawing from any and all agreements this is unlikely. That ALREADY ... in 2019 we are actually NOT 1.2 C since that's till 1880 ... NOT 1750 ... since NASA and NOAH decided to start in 1880 not 1750, the IPCC models are in fact totally rubbish in many ways.

Political ... at best ... whilst dire in their warnings, vast gaps of not included totally foreseeable and dire impacts totally removed from projections and brazenly so.  Think what you will ... I merely repeat IPCC stuff on the main and whilst we are likely 1.2C from 1880 or 1.6 C from 1750 .... NOW .... end of 2019 .. the discussion in the 2018 paper the IPCC released a dire and extreme warning if you read it, which I believe few have and the summary is a mere 24 pages which is about 18 after one takes out footnotes and headers, the discussion is warning the dire and complete devastation that a rise of 2C by 2100 compared to 1.5 C would cause to the planet.

We are there .... NOW in 2020 at the lower end. Is say the ocean acidification trend going to magically stop ? Is the clearly seen fires in the Permafrost regions going to stop ? Or the melting Permafrost and the release of the CO2 and Methane CH4 captured there going to stop ?

Well the 2C worst case scenario is cold porridge ...  talking about limiting the rise from 1.5 C to 2C ... its really quite delusional given REALITY .... today we are at the lower end in 2020 ... of the 2100 estimate. We are already THERE. Last time we had even 400 PPM the rise was 3C .... NOT 2C ...

So, as someone who sadly looks and reads ... and wondered why it was removed and then read further ... and pulled apart the computer models much to my horror they had zero included.

When someone denies reality ... or gives what is a watered down approach of all will be fine ... its even using IPCC warnings of 50,000 scientists simply absurd. More so for those who sadly are near the front lines and are fully aware the actual dire missing parts make the scenario of a 1.5C rise verses 2C rise bad, but a 3C or 4C rise for those around in 2100 hard to comprehend. Whilst sea rise until the antarctic melts unlikely to go beyond 1.5 meters by 2100 the IPCC is clearly now accepting a 1 Meter rise which is a worst case 2C rise by 2100. Sadly post 2100 ... Antarctic melts and the rise becomes 5 metres by 2200 .

Ahh I dont care ... cant care. Cant change it.

Here is the current Global Temp map as of latest data ... RED ... is BAD ... all time highs globally EVER








Record warmest EVER since 1880 ... bright red ... globally this is year to date 2019.

Still December to come and Australia will sadly be all bright red for the single month. The overall much lighter pink for the year, possibly some totally replaced with bright red records.


----------



## moXJO (10 January 2020)

I'll see if I can find the original. Sure it was a tv program. The scale was doable. Maybe the guy had his maths wrong.


----------



## kahuna1 (10 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> Maybe the guy had his maths wrong.




Not being infallible ... my own may be wrong ...
100 hectares is a sq km .... at 250 tons per hectare thats 25,000 tons of CO2 removed per sq km.
TO remove over 50 years 1 trillion tons ... to get us back to 290 PPM co2 ignoring Arctic doubling the needed effort ...

20 billion times 50 years equals 1,000 billion or a trillion ...

So 20 billion at 25,000 per sq km is 800,000 sq km .... or if any realist knows the likely needed target is double that possibly even 4 times that level. I say possibly ... as the unknown effect of ocean acidification upon the major thing that currently soaks up over 50% of the CO2, the ocean is not a good one ... even at 400 ppm let alone 500 or what is assured at 1000 PPM the ocean simply stops working. Again, contained in several of the IPCC reports since 1991 that fossil records and levels well over 2,500 PPM when the only life was single cell ... are beyond questioning unless someone faked fossils from previous extinction events.

Then again, denied ... ignored ... disputed ... watered down. 

Even the most brilliant minds are making a guess HOW FAR it goes over 2C rise by 2100. They are without despite or disagreement its going to be well over 2C and as I said the panel with 5 of the IPCC top scientists on it speaking about 4-6 C rise at recent Madrid conference ... was alarming and not extremist or hysterical as these guys are clinical, conservative in the extreme. They know what was removed from the models, they know why and most accept its understating things by likely magnitudes of almost assured outcomes.

Expecting not a 3C rise when every model predicts at 400 PPM the planet will be 3C temp rise eventually at this CO2 level is 100% assured. We are at 410 ppm CO2 and rising. Whilst it may take a few decades to get there, it is assured. Sadly that it took 40,000 plus year last time to get to that and a meteor hitting the planet followed by extreme volcanic events over thousands of years as the tectonic plates went nuts after being hit with 100,000 nuclear bombs is what it is.

Likely 400 years of humans we get to not the peaks of the last extinction event, not even half that one as that involved a 13C global rise, but we will get halfway there by 2100 unless we change.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Whilst any effort is good, seaweed as such ... in an ocean that is acidifying at an alarming rate may work, but the similar thing that stopped and reversed  the last CO2 event took 800,000 years over several hundred thousands of km in the Arctic to achieve. Other smaller algae and trapping of vegetation are what we now burn and call OIL deposits or Coal deposits or Gas deposits.
> 
> Its amusing to read this stuff, trapping CO2 whilst we on one hand release close to 40 billion tons of it each year and rising. The total is rising not falling and well ... some magical stop and NET zero by 2050 or 2060 ? Okey doekey.
> 
> ...




So why is Russia,  the US and Canada cooler than average ?

Just a question not a dispute of the science.


----------



## moXJO (10 January 2020)

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...seaweed-can-help-climate-change-without-fire/

http://theconversation.com/how-farming-giant-seaweed-can-feed-fish-and-fix-the-climate-81761

Bugger all chance of finding the other show.
This in conjunction with other projects is surely a start.

Countries don't want to spend the money. That sums it up.
Emissions will continue on. Even China is still classed as a "developing nation" isn't it?


----------



## Logique (10 January 2020)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7862863/*Militant-climate-change-whingers-REFUSE-stop-disruptive-protest-Melbourne*.html   :By CHARLOTTE KARP FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
PUBLISHED: 12:27 AEDT, 8 January 2020 | UPDATED: 13:41 AEDT, 8 January 2020
_..*Police have pleaded with the organisers to change the date  but they refused*..
..Climate protesters will go ahead with planned marches in Melbourne on Friday despite authorities claiming it will drain resources from the bushfire crisis..

..'The timing of this protest probably could not be worse if we are serious about supporting the communities impacted by fire,' Acting Assistant Commissioner Tim Hansen said.._


----------



## rederob (10 January 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> So why is Russia,  the US and Canada cooler than average ?
> Just a question not a dispute of the science.



That's a great question.
The energy intensity of *all *weather systems is increasingly incrementally albeit by relatively small amounts. It does mean that there is a likelihood of winter weather events in the northern hemisphere, which are typically much more snow and ice laden than the southern hemisphere, to persist as colder for a bit longer than usual.  In the case of south-eastern USA the polar vortex effects are likely to have been swinging a bit lower for a bit longer with a bit more intensity of coldness.
Averages aside, the real issues surround the increasing number of all time record highs which continue to be set globally.  You can track these here.


----------



## kahuna1 (10 January 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> So why is Russia, the US and Canada cooler than average ?




My answer ... is the Arctic polar vortex of ultra cold winds at height NORMALLY spins above the Arctic unless disturbed. Arctic temperatures hit records and records not just little ones but up to 10C MORE than ever recorded in some places.

The Arctic vortex which spins normally over the Arctic, if you examine it NASA ... satellite does the ultra cold winds instead of being trapped and pinned there, they spun and broke into Canada lower levels and even into the USA making the temperatures in some places well below the normal all be it 1-2 C verses 10C plus for regions of the Arctic.

I am aware Trump picked upon this point denying all climate CHANGE and WARMING ... ignoring that one region is PLUS 10C and the other minus 2 C but not even near record lows ... is what it is.

The issue is CLIMATE change ... and then overall global warming. Some areas yes will become wetter or cooler ... some even eventually over say 10,000 years like the Arctic tundra could as the trapped matter melts, rots ... emits CH4 and CO2 then the nutrients in the soil make trees able to grow which is not really an option right now, but in say 1,000 years. Overall the planet warms ... some regions are the literal canary in the coal mine and the global warming will be much more extreme ... and yep 2019 for the Arctic and say Greenland was so extreme and unusual that it resembled what one might expect 50 years from now. 

Complex and confusing stuff ... but the simple thing is the high altitude gulf jet stream broke and instead of being a circle over the Arctic .... had parts of ultra cold air being pushed by extreme ground heat in the Arctic out to lower regions.


----------



## rederob (10 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Complex and confusing stuff



But explained better here.


----------



## kahuna1 (10 January 2020)

Sorry ... did not load ... will do it latter


----------



## basilio (10 January 2020)

Kahuna despairs of any practical way of turning around the  world wide rise in CO2 levels through , say, the use of seaweed.

Quite true. The issue is overwhelmingly big and there is no way a single process would be sufficient to have a significant effect. In that context the research around carbon reduction and sequestration is about multiple* concurrent *actions. They look like the following list

Work like hell to decarbonise our current economies. Renewable energy is the focus. Electrify everything we can and decommission coal and gas power ASAP.

Review and reduce material consumption of goods.  Less waste less production less CO2

Focus on radical changes to some very big CO2 producing activities . The cement industry is the major culprit. There are technologies that will turn this around - if we have the will

Have a long hard review of current farming practices that produce  GG.  That is meat and dairy. 

Work to encourage individuals and  local communities  to consciously change their  lifestyle to a low carbon activities.

And there are many others..
In terms of drawing down CO2 check out this list.
*6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Sky*
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/09/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky


----------



## kahuna1 (10 January 2020)

Sometimes the *vortex* breaks down, splitting up and spilling cold air out from the *polar* regions. ... The frigid air from the *polar vortex* warps the jet stream - another powerful air current, but much lower in the atmosphere - making it bulge down southwards.

Basically as stated ... Hot air ... extremely hot Arctic ...

visually


----------



## kahuna1 (10 January 2020)

basilio said:


> 6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Sky




Having studied most of them and a lot of others not even mentioned, some suggestions are absurd whilst reducing CO2 ... not practical ... others require some invention of limitless power or magic coming along.

Most already previously covered in depth in the 158 pages this thread and some other threads I have contributed to.

I dont disagree with any of what you have said ...
Multi Pronged attack needed. However when brute force removal via use of power to remove CO2 I honestly roll my eyes.

Algae ... seaweed and some other super CO2 absorbents and if someone mentions planting trees that are 2% as good ... I know sadly its a puff piece. Same with brute force approaches.

Possibly putting the smog back up in the air ... it reflects sunlight and when Removal ... sequestration and burying is needed, and not stressed that its say not good enough to say grow algae and then use it as an alternative fuel whilst CO2 neutral ... we need to remove and hide 1 trillion tons of CO2 if not 2 trillion tons.

I am sure some know this and BAS ... whilst I accept we will adapt and likely mitigate some of it, the task the deeper we go into the abyss ,,, setting off cascading effects and some are underway we cannot stop, the more dire and extreme any effort will need to be.

Whilst not wishing to be alarmist, and yes I sound that way, realistically we have passed the point of no return and a 4C rise locked in already. Since as say Smerf says and I agree, political and business will do not a thing and unlikely to do for some time, another 10 years likely will see another  40 PPM CO2 added.

There are things such as making the surface of the planet in vast area reflective, which is more practical and possible than some pie in the sky stuff which requires the power of every power station and nuclear generator to even try and make a dent in CO2, not a serious one ... but a dent.

I have few answers and lots of questions. I suspect a mixture of 5 or more global efforts need to occur and when we cant even agree there is a problem, globally .... politically ... self interest groups rule the world for now.

I do have hope for a regime change and the USA to be come more green as the EU which in turn puts more pressure on others like China and India along with emerging Africa.

I await with anticipation a new regime in the USA. 

Or we join Elon Musk going somewhere else.


----------



## basilio (11 January 2020)

Totally off kilter here... or perhaps not ?

_Susan Griffin relates a story, previously recounted slightly differently in an article by her that appears in González Yuen,[10] that exemplifies Desnos' surrealist mindset; his capacity to envisage solutions that defy conventional logic:[11]


“ Even in the grimmest of circumstances, a shift in perspective can create startling change. I am thinking of a story I heard a few years ago from my friend Odette, a writer and a survivor of the holocaust. Along with many others who crowd the bed of a large truck, she tells me, Robert Desnos is being taken away from the barracks of the concentration camp where he has been held prisoner. Leaving the barracks, the mood is somber; everyone knows the truck is headed for the gas chambers. And when the truck arrives no one can speak at all; even the guards fall silent. But this silence is soon interrupted by an energetic man, who jumps into the line and grabs one of the condemned. Improbable as it is, Odette explains, Desnos reads the man's palm. Oh, he says, I see you have a very long lifeline. And you are going to have three children. He is exuberant. And his excitement is contagious. First one man, then another, offers up his hand, and the prediction is for longevity, more children, abundant joy. 

As Desnos reads more palms, not only does the mood of the prisoners change but that of the guards too. How can one explain it? Perhaps the element of surprise has planted a shadow of doubt in their minds. If they told themselves these deaths were inevitable, this no longer seems so inarguable. They are in any case so disoriented by this sudden change of mood among those they are about to kill that they are unable to go through with the executions. So all the men, along with Desnos, are packed back onto the truck and taken back to the barracks. Desnos has saved his own life and the lives of others by using his imagination. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Desnos_


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2020)

rederob said:


> I have questioned his *thinking *on the science which is published and where he equivocates, not his personal actions.
> So here's an example:
> @Smurf1976 implies the science is not clear, but he will not find this anywhere in the IPCC Reports which spell out the dangerous path that planet is on and the reasons why.




What I am questioning is more about the response than the warming itself.

There is warming. That's a fact and easily proven at least in terms of the trend over the past few decades.

Science says this is largely due to CO2. I've no reason to doubt the science but that said, it would be truly amazing if we properly understood literally everything about every aspect of both the warming and consequences of it. As such, we should accept the science which says CO2 causes warming whilst also continuing research into the effects and on anything else which may also be contributing.

Knowledge isn't a bad thing, research isn't hugely expensive, and there's a very good chance something useful will be learned from research. As just one example I mentioned termites in places that don't presently have them. That one alone could cost a fortune in damage by the time anyone realises they've moved in.

What I do see though is a lack of urgency to act and that's mostly what I'm lamenting. Perhaps, and I say this genuinely, I haven't really made that point clear?

32 years of this being a mainstream issue. Think about that.....

If someone had gone into a coma back in 1988 and awoke today then they basically don't have the skills to live in the modern world such is the extent of change.

They'd have no idea about this "internet" caper. For that matter they've no idea how to book a flight or buy music - phoning Ansett or looking for your nearest Brashs store isn't going to do much good these days.

They'd be stuffed even in casual conversation and would be in rather a lot of trouble for various comments that were considered fairly normal and acceptable back then.

Turn the radio on and they'd be wondering why what sounds like some sort of faulty electronic device was being broadcast instead of music. Turn the TV on and their old one from 1988 can't receive any station at all in 2020, not one. In the event they did get a picture and saw the news, they'd be perplexed as to why anyone would be even slightly interested in anything going on in China.

And so on. The world's a dramatically different place in every way. Heck the USSR was still intact and the Berlin wall was still up in 1988.

But then there's this issue and reality is that global emissions are substantially higher today than they were in 1988. Of all things, it's the one thing that really hasn't progressed at all indeed the reverse is true. For that matter in Australia rather a lot of the electricity used today is coming from the exact same power stations it came from in 1988. They were new and state of the art back then but they're nearing end of life now (and a couple of them are rather stuffed and limping along these days ).

So my big lament isn't really about science. There's a problem, I accept that, although I'll add that it's always wise to keep exploring and researching and so on especially regarding the full implications and how we can best adapt.

What I'm lamenting is the lack of any real action. We're basically walking into an energy supply crunch and an interrelated environmental disaster with our eyes firmly shut and our ears plugged.

The approach being taken thus far is clearly not working. Blunt but reality.


----------



## rederob (12 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> What I'm lamenting is the lack of any real action. We're basically walking into an energy supply crunch and an interrelated environmental disaster with our eyes firmly shut and our ears plugged.



We have been saying this here at ASF for a long time - well some of us have - and it just goes to show that there are likely powerful *influencers *out there who continue to profits before people.
With regard to your comment about research and mitigation there are literally thousands of people around the globe contributing daily with their scientific, economic, engineering and related findings and ideas.  The IPCC has done an excellent job in their many Reports in "*synthesising*" this for us if you care to read them.  *AR6 Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change *is due in July 2021, by which time, if this year has been anything to go, some of those mitigation strategies might have passed their use by date.


----------



## kahuna1 (12 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> What I'm lamenting is the lack of any real action. We're basically walking into an energy supply crunch and an interrelated environmental disaster with our eyes firmly shut and our ears plugged.




Debate whether we went to the moon is over. One can fire a laser at the moon at the reflectors left there by lunar landings and it bounces back ..... every time.

Despite this 25% of Americans believe NASA faked the moon missions.

Debate about how fires start as say the two heads of the RFS said that 1% were started by arson should logically be over. Finished .... yes its a problem, but not the main cause. Accidental ... an issue ... but the main cause is bloody lightning. The debate is over unless one is stupid.

Debate that it took 35,000 years for 50% of the worlds species to be wiped out and the cause initially was a meteor hitting the earth with the force of 100,000 atom bombs cannot be reasonable disputed.
That it has taken humanity since 1750 to say 2050 to wipe out 50% of all species on the planet a mere 300 years or less than 1% is very clear. It is chilling. Any debate and all debate of this being factual and alarming is for the truly stupid.

There have been so far 5 extinction events where the mildest killed every mammal over 30kg and killed a mere 60% of everything to the worse ones that had 99% of all living things gone. All were CO2 rise related. All are so well evidenced scientifically that only a truly delusional trouble maker or seriously mentally disturbed person could wish to debate this. Still we debate it, deny and refute it. 

CO2 when added to an atmosphere traps heat. This realistically has been tested close to a million times. One adds more Co2 it traps more heat. IT is measurable, it is predictable and has been so sine 1885 when the first climate model was prepared which accurately predicted WHAT and where we are today. Debating how much petrol one put on  a fire and then denying more petrol makes more fire would be insane. CO2 is just another reaction. measurable and well tested and known.

Debate on this and 20 other issues is how we will and have failed. If someone wishes to debate, deny or diminish totally some of the above, put them in a room with fellow patients, give them crayons and let them play.

Of course, since our leaders, political ones both here and globally on the main for the Climate Denial Pack led by the USA with gold stars to Canada and Saudi Arabia and Australian, we have reason to wonder about the future.

A royal Commission ?   Ordered by the Prime Minister who carried a lump of Coal into the parliament in 2017 and told us not to be afraid ? The scientist will be a mixture of I am sure well meaning dedicated and real ones and the woman quoted by Murdoch media as being an expert who has spent 20 years on the dole and cant afford to keep the teeth in her head. She I might add, all be it misguided is better than some of the real well trained in the USA by Koch brothers who run some of our largest climate denial sites. 

Having a radical, an imbecile willing to dispute we went to the moon when 100,000 NASA employees over 50 years and not a single one has revealed it was a hoax, well having serious deniers who dispute and refute what is science, what is fact, I am sure the Royal Commission will be swamped with well funded coal and Oil and Gas interests and their lobbyists and paid for scientists. 

Of course it will rain eventually. We may even have a few cooler years due to the massive amounts of smoke. All will be forgotten as always.

Kiss your kids, grand kids and be thankful you will not be around near 2100.


----------



## dutchie (12 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Kiss your kids, grand kids and be thankful you will not be around near 2100.




My kids and their kids and their kids etc etc  will be fine as far as climate is concerned.
I am more worried about the war on freedom of speech.


----------



## kahuna1 (12 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> My kids and their kids and their kids etc etc will be fine as far as climate is concerned.
> I am more worried about the war on freedom of speech.




Playroom with crayons for you and your genetic line I suspect.

Debating or even accepting science or well evidenced missing species let alone future implications even short term ones, is impossible to see.

Instead its a freedom of speech ? Or lets debate or deny or pretend all will be fine in 100 years.

Added to the playroom with crayons better add lectern for free speech and padded walls with tin hats and only chosen media is to play. Possibly some TV religious evangelist speaking about creation seems suitable.

Here is PM Morrison's advisor along with Trump




IS she speaking in tongues yet ? Its great for blocked bowels. 

She is all for liberty ... free speech and her religious liberty .... all to $3,500 or $35,000 donation.

She is my personal advisor to everything .... Donald J Trump and the J stands for Genius


----------



## rederob (12 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> My kids and their kids and their kids etc etc  will be fine as far as climate is concerned.
> I am more worried about the war on freedom of speech.



Nobody here stops you from posting your rubbish on climate-related matters, and you should know there is a separate thread at ASF covering freedom of speech.


----------



## basilio (12 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> My kids and their kids and their kids etc etc  will be fine as far as climate is concerned.
> I am more worried about the war on freedom of speech.




And indeed you are perfectly entitled to you opinion dutchie as is anyone else who shares your view.

On a Government and business level however we need to be guided by (at least ) two principles
1) What is the best evidenced current advice /understanding available on a situation? (There is rarely absolute certainty )
2) What are the possible consequences of disregarding that advice ?

In the case of human caused CC the overwhelming evidence is that it is very much a reality both in theory and in the real world.  The climate is warming rapidly.

The current understood  consequences of ignoring this overwhelming evidence will be allowing a continuing rapid warming of the planet to the point of major environmental collapse.
In a rational world that is what our governments and businesses should be following.

(But hey, when one has  the most powerful world Government led by a self professed genius in Donald Trump who thinks CC is a hoax,  rational science based positions seem almost archaic. )


----------



## dutchie (12 January 2020)

basilio said:


> And indeed you are perfectly entitled to you opinion dutchie as is anyone else who shares your view.
> 
> On a Government and business level however we need to be guided by (at least ) two principles
> 1) What is the best evidenced current advice /understanding available on a situation? (There is rarely absolute certainty )
> ...



Fair points to consider and debate.


----------



## basilio (13 January 2020)

The BC has a neat couple of stories for anyone who wants to refresh their understanding of why the earth is warming so rapidly and the consequences.
And if you concerned that you might have picked up some CC zombie myths that are doing your head in - these might put a stake through their black little hearts.

*Have you got climate zombies? We debunk the myths that refuse to die*
Share

ABC Science

By environment reporter Nick Kilvert

Climate denial has been funded by industry and lobby groups.
(Getty Images: lechatnoir)
Have you got climate zombies?

They might pop up in your social media feed, or manifest in comments under climate change news online. They might even appear at your Christmas lunch. And they're rife in some media outlets — they often come out after dark.

They're the cases against climate science that were buried years ago, yet somehow, refuse to die.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-27/climate-change-denial-zombies-killed/11291724
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-13/a-pocket-guide-to-climate-change/11846808


----------



## rederob (13 January 2020)

basilio said:


> They're the cases against climate science that were buried years ago, yet somehow, refuse to die.



You're kidding Bas - fake news!


----------



## dutchie (14 January 2020)

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/1...e-in-climate-change-as-though-its-a-religion/

Hawaii Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono thinks Americans ought to fundamentally change the way they think about climate change, arguing that climate change should be thought of as a “religion” rather than a “science.”

“Believe in climate change as though it’s a religion, it’s not a science,” Hirono encouraged.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> “Believe in climate change as though it’s a religion, it’s not a science,” Hirono encouraged.



Clearly misquoted with correction below:
“*Believe in climate change denial as if it is a religion, as it not a science.*”


----------



## basilio (14 January 2020)

This story


dutchie said:


> https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/1...e-in-climate-change-as-though-its-a-religion/
> 
> Hawaii Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono thinks Americans ought to fundamentally change the way they think about climate change, arguing that climate change should be thought of as a “religion” rather than a “science.”
> 
> “Believe in climate change as though it’s a religion, it’s not a science,” Hirono encouraged.




Did you view the clip Dutchie ? In fact the Senator as making a "joke" about thinking of CC as a "religion" . She immediately made the point that " it's science."
The distortion of her intent is in the story you quoted.
Perhaps you could check and suggest they correct  their story ?


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Clearly misquoted with correction below:
> “*Believe in climate change denial as if it is a religion, as it not a science.*”



Of course, what is attributed as "denial" is a matter of religious observance, vis a vis "apostasy", as opposed to a consideration of all available science which eschews confirmation bias.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 January 2020)

There’s far too much religion in the whole energy and climate debate in my view.

Lots of people “believing” in this or that but unwilling to take a calm, rational look at what’s really going on.

One way to put that is to say Ive had to point out the flaws in the argument of someone who should know better that having gas doesn’t guarantee you’ve got electricity. There’s a great big thing missing there known as a power station. Yep, they’d overlooked the need for that bit......

Thing is, all this climate and power stuff can be understood well enough by anyone with a basic grasp of maths and science. There’s no need to get into fine detail to grasp the concepts sufficiently for the average person to understand what the issues are about.

Thing is, making it sound overly complicated is a convenient way to hide a lack of doing anything about it and that goes for both the emissions and directly related but separate as such energy supply issues.


----------



## dutchie (14 January 2020)

basilio said:


> This story
> 
> 
> Did you view the clip Dutchie ? In fact the Senator as making a "joke" about thinking of CC as a "religion" . She immediately made the point that " it's science."
> ...




“To do those things such as voter registration, get people out to vote, so we can have people here who truly are committed to human rights, environmental, climate change — believe in climate change as though it’s a religion,” the Hawaii Democrat said. “It’s not a science.”

The Washington Times


----------



## satanoperca (14 January 2020)

Far out, 159 pages of dribble.
Lets make is simple so kiddies can understand.
Is Global Warming unstoppable? 

A. YES - prove it, you need time (100's of years)
B. NO - prove it, you need time (100's of years)

So unless someone has a couple of earths to test theories on, as that what they are, modelling is just a theory and a time machine, no one can within any % of accuracy answer the question within the next 100 years.

So lets look at again.
Is the earth warming?

Yes/Maybe/No. The earth temperature and sea levels have been constantly changing.

So lets just agree the the climate is changing. Tick

So next question. 
Has man contributed to the changes, ie accelerated them?

Well I am no scientist but again will use kiddie logic to see if there is a simple answer.
What do trees do? They provide oxygen and capture carbon out of the air. They are essentially the earths lungs, without them, all life on the planet is f---ked.
What has man done over the last say 100 years, removed 50% > of the earth capacity to breath.
And in the same time man has dug up oil and coal and burnt is, releasing carbon in various forms back into the atmosphere. Again, I don't need to get into a discussion whether co2 is causing climate change.
And what do we know about forest, they also create weather, including rain fall.
So while all you kiddies and the stupid arse govnuts want to point figures there is such a simple solution that doesn't require huge debate.

*PLANT MORE F---KING TREES, LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS MORE*

And if our govnuts want to continue to promote coal, then fine, just make the miners and produces plant TREES.

And if that doesn't provide an adequate solution to the problem, I have one more suggestion.

KILLS THE PARASITES THAT ARE DISTROYING THE PLANET - HUMANS


----------



## basilio (14 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> “To do those things such as voter registration, get people out to vote, so we can have people here who truly are committed to human rights, environmental, climate change — believe in climate change as though it’s a religion,” the Hawaii Democrat said. “It’s not a science.”
> 
> The Washington Times




That is not what she said. 

You have the video clip.

Look at  it.

*The Washington Times is mistaken or lying. *
There is no mistaking what Ms Harono says.  After making the light hearted comment about believing in climate change like a religion she says. *"It's not - It's science" *
That is what she says and means. Specifically  of course to stop the sort of lying misrepresentation that  has now been passed from source to source.

But don't take my word for it. The clip is up there.  It takes less than 20 seconds to confirm the truth of the situation. The comment is at the 40 second mark

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/1...e-in-climate-change-as-though-its-a-religion/


----------



## dutchie (14 January 2020)

satanoperca said:


> Far out, 159 pages of dribble.
> Lets make is simple so kiddies can understand.
> Is Global Warming unstoppable?
> 
> ...




Great post. Agree 100%


----------



## Knobby22 (14 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> Great post. Agree 100%



I thought it showed a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method to create a simplistic statement that let the polluters off the hook.


----------



## dutchie (15 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> I thought it showed a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method to create a simplistic statement that let the polluters off the hook.



Climate change is no longer (if it ever was) scientific - it's political.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> Climate change is no longer (if it ever was) scientific - it's political.



Go and fight the bushfires and come back to us on that thought.


----------



## orr (15 January 2020)

24 seconds of Derick and Clive (aka Cook and Moore) on You Tube... To lift the mood.
Just google 'Derick and Clive Dutch'
Harsh  Dutchie?? well maybe, but you've set yourself up for it.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 January 2020)

Interesting:

*Washington:* James Murdoch has accused his family's global media empire of promoting climate denialism in a stunning attack on News Corporation's climate coverage.

The comments represent a rare public dispute among members of the Murdoch family about News Corp's editorial direction.






Rupert Murdoch flanked by sons Lachlan (left) and James. Creditoug Peters

They come as the bushfire crisis ravaging Australia has focused attention on the climate coverage in News Corp mastheads such as _The Australian_, _The Daily Telegraph_ and the _Herald Sun_.

“Kathryn and James’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known,” a spokesperson for Murdoch and his wife told _The Daily Beast _website.

"They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.”


----------



## basilio (15 January 2020)

The Guardian picked up on the story and gave it some details

They also analysed the coverage  of the bushfires The Australian and other Murdoch papers were offering the public.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...athers-news-outlets-for-climate-crisis-denial

* The Australian says it accepts climate science, so why does it give a platform to 'outright falsehoods'? *
News Corp’s paper says its journalists report the facts but critics say it publishes misleading claims

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...oes-it-give-a-platform-to-outright-falsehoods


----------



## IFocus (15 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> Climate change is no longer (if it ever was) scientific - it's political.




There was actually bi-partisan agreement on the science regarding  climate change in the US, then vested interests (fossil fuels aka big money) took charge and the Republicans took the money and turned the whole thing into a political issue using the same tactics as tobacco etc.

They also gave voice / cover to fringe BS and extreme right wing obfuscation much of which you see turn up on these threads.

it was a political savoir for the Republicans who were looking down the barrel of a diminishing white voter base so much so Abbot and Co (Andrew Robb aka O2 thief) brought it to Australia and also turned it into a vote winner for their base.

None of the above had any thing to do with science SFA......nothing it was all about politics and winning.

Also note the scumbags did the tobacco thing and accused those that accepted the science of exactly their own BS.

Now before the usual apologists turn with some vague obscure comment made by some obscure feminist, or a protester holding a placade thats represents no one, or some dingbat so called fringe scientist  but is associated with climate science a point to note, the UK didn't do any of this because the Tories didn't have to and note they actually followed the science.

Yes its political so long as vested interests fund scumbags to do their dirty work and ding bat foot soldiers (aka fools) follow.

BTW Dutchie not having a go at you.


----------



## dutchie (15 January 2020)

orr said:


> 24 seconds of Derick and Clive (aka Cook and Moore) on You Tube... To lift the mood.
> Just google 'Derick and Clive Dutch'
> Harsh  Dutchie?? well maybe, but you've set yourself up for it.



Catchy tune. I use to watch Cook and Moore on TV  - very funny.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Go and fight the bushfires and come back to us on that thought.



Despite you being a curmudgeon, I did give you credit for a modicum of critical thinking skills, even if completely polluted by politics.

I now withdraw that thought unreservedly.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2020)

And on a lighter note:


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2020)

Interesting article in the weekend AFR today, we can get to zero emissions, it is a good read for those interested.
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-a...-expensive-but-not-impossible-20200116-p53s7d


----------



## basilio (18 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Interesting article in the weekend AFR today, we can get to zero emissions, it is a good read for those interested.
> https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-a...-expensive-but-not-impossible-20200116-p53s7d




I couldn't access Saul Griffiths AFR story.However there is a very good You Tube presentation which tells the story of what we need to do and what it will require if we are to have any chance of containing global warming to a liveable degree.



_(Doesn't this all make one wish we started this 25 years ago ?)_


----------



## basilio (18 January 2020)

One of the interesting things about Saul Griffiths presentation above is the focus on Industry leading the charge and the changes to address CC.  This guy is most definitely not your average garden commie. But he understands what has to be done and recognizes that the business community have to be the drivers.

Explains, I think, why AFR ran his story.


----------



## basilio (18 January 2020)

Saul Griffiths analysis on Mass electrification and Decarbonisation of the  US economy.
*The Green New Deal: The enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon.*
*Decarbonizing with massive electrification will bring about a new American abundance.*


----------



## moXJO (19 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Saul Griffiths analysis on Mass electrification and Decarbonisation of the  US economy.
> *The Green New Deal: The enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon.*
> *Decarbonizing with massive electrification will bring about a new American abundance.*




I think this will eventually be implemented. Not because of the environmental need but more to reinvigorate economies of the world. A lot of the old jobs are gone. This is a transition that will give capitalism a shot in the arm.


----------



## moXJO (19 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Interesting:
> 
> *Washington:* James Murdoch has accused his family's global media empire of promoting climate denialism in a stunning attack on News Corporation's climate coverage.
> 
> ...



I think blaming the bushfires primarily on CC is a load of bull.  The whole thing was hijacked by the CC mob.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> I think blaming the bushfires primarily on CC is a load of bull.  The whole thing was hijacked by the CC mob.



We had the 8 average hottest days in recorded history for Australia over the last two months.
Of the other two days of recorded history heat records, one was broken the previous year.

You can't say the heat is irrelevant with relation to bushfire intensity.

The truth is the hijacking is the truth by the Newscorp press.

That press will say we should not talk about the elephant in the room while the bushfires are occurring and anyway it's the Greens fault. 

In the UK they represent the opposite side and supported the Tory climate change action which included shutting down the unionised coal mines.

Quite frankly, we are not that dumb as a country to fall for the two card trick and I think the Murdoch press will begin modifying their stance.


----------



## moXJO (19 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> We had the 8 average hottest days in recorded history for Australia over the last two months.
> Of the other two days of recorded history heat records, one was broken the previous year.
> 
> You can't say the heat is irrelevant with relation to bushfire intensity.
> ...



Since the method of taking temperature has changed which is what?
100 years?

Every previous report and investigation has shown management as the problem. To say it's primarily CC is more b.s then anything Murdoch has to say. Factors of CC have definitely contributed.  But the way it's being framed is b.s..


----------



## Knobby22 (19 January 2020)

It's both, as you say. 
Pretending it's not is wrong. I'm with James Murdoch.


----------



## kahuna1 (19 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> I think blaming the bushfires primarily on CC is a load of bull. The whole thing was hijacked by the CC mob.


----------



## basilio (19 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> I think this will eventually be implemented. Not because of the environmental need but more to reinvigorate economies of the world. A lot of the old jobs are gone. This is a transition that will give capitalism a shot in the arm.




The Green New Deal is business and worker friendly. But because it is so late in the day and effective transition will be have to be  immediate rather than staggered. That means there will be a number of stranded industries.


----------



## basilio (19 January 2020)

Latest Fire Drill Friday speeches.
147 people arrested at this regular protest...



"We are not the criminals! The criminals are the people who are letting this world burn for money," began Naomi Klein as she delivered a feisty speech promising to clear away the debris of the "climate change deniers, distractors, doomers and dividers".


----------



## moXJO (19 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> It's both, as you say.



It is both. But  the politicization of the topic by both Murdoch and CC zealots leaves the whole thing at a stalemate.



kahuna1 said:


> View attachment 99798



If Australia reduced emissions by 200% would we still have had the bushfires?

There are a huge amount of people who think if we had reduced emissions here then somehow the bushfires would not have happened.

The truth is all it will give us is bragging rights on the world stage.


----------



## moXJO (19 January 2020)

basilio said:


> The Green New Deal is business and worker friendly. But because it is so late in the day and effective transition will be have to be  immediate rather than staggered. That means there will be a number of stranded industries.



That will simply not happen. We have a lot of Asian countries expanding their middle-class. I don't see carbon reduction until tech catches up.
 I honestly think the problem will be a lot worse then they think it is.


----------



## kahuna1 (19 January 2020)




----------



## kahuna1 (19 January 2020)

Every study ...
Every single scientific study ... all 57 peer reviewed ones !! 

_In light of the Australian fires, scientists from the University of East Anglia (UEA), Met Office Hadley Centre, University of Exeter and Imperial College London have conducted a Rapid Response Review of 57 peer-reviewed papers published since the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report in 2013.

*All the studies show links between climate change and increased frequency or severity of fire weather* -- periods with a high fire risk due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds -- though some note anomalies in a few regions.
_
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200114074046.htm


----------



## sptrawler (19 January 2020)

basilio said:


> I couldn't access Saul Griffiths AFR story.However there is a very good You Tube presentation which tells the story of what we need to do and what it will require if we are to have any chance of containing global warming to a liveable degree.
> 
> 
> 
> _(Doesn't this all make one wish we started this 25 years ago ?)_




Shame you didn't think it important enough to go to the newsagent and buy the paper, it is less than $5.
Not a lot of money, to inform yourself, on something you are so passionate about?


----------



## basilio (19 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Shame you didn't think it important enough to go to the newsagent and buy the paper, it is less than $5.
> Not a lot of money, to inform yourself, on something you are so passionate about?




Really ?  After seeing the story I researched  and found a dozen stories on Saul Griffith from across the globe. The You Tube video was outstanding.
What did you make of the analysis anyway ?


----------



## sptrawler (19 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Really ?  After seeing the story I researched  and found a dozen stories on Saul Griffith from across the globe. The You Tube video was outstanding.
> What did you make of the analysis anyway ?



I was away for the weekend with the grandkids, so only had the phone and with my Aldi $99/year plan watching youtube doesn't happen.
Now I'm home I will have a look.
I only saw the article in the AFR, because it was sitting on a table at a cafe, so i sat down and read it.
I was thinking, we could reduce our emissions, by not bringing coal fired generation on after the weekend and have rolling blackouts through the suburbs during the week, then everyone is helping out.


----------



## moXJO (19 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Every study ...
> Every single scientific study ... all 57 peer reviewed ones !!
> 
> _In light of the Australian fires, scientists from the University of East Anglia (UEA), Met Office Hadley Centre, University of Exeter and Imperial College London have conducted a Rapid Response Review of 57 peer-reviewed papers published since the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report in 2013.
> ...



Last paragraph:

Professor Iain Colin Prentice, Chair of Biosphere and Climate Impacts and Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society, Imperial College London, added: "Wildfires can't be prevented, and the risks are increasing because of climate change. This makes it urgent to consider ways of reducing the risks to people. Land planning should take the increasing risk in fire weather into account."


----------



## kahuna1 (20 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> There are a huge amount of people who think if we had reduced emissions here then somehow the bushfires would not have happened.




I am not one ...
They occur ...
will occur ...
Scientists believe they will get worse ...
this year will likely in 50 years be a normal year ...

the link between CC.... is there ... clearly so in 57 peer reviewed papers.

I do wish this denial of it, CC, being any factor ... by the smoking lobby which is now the liberal right wing climate denial faction would just .... GET LOST.

I would prefer lining up Murdoch ... Koch and Morrison with Abbot ...John Howard ,,, Barnaby .. and a long list of others and placing them in front of a fire tornado and see how they fare.

I dont refute any CO2 we remove alone if the rest of the world does not act is somewhat futile.

I doubt it matters and instead of the greenies being alarmed about a 2C rise at 2100  ....  at 400PPM scientifically we hit 3C rise as the world catches up ... to the new CO2 levels over the next 200 years.

I find the protest somewhat idiotic and tame to be frank, they are reacting to the IPCC 2018 report ... emergency ... and it debated the difference of a 1.5C rise and a 2C rise and the diabolical impact that tiny difference would make.,

CO2 even if say EU and all developed nations went neutral by 2050 will hit 1000 PPM for one simple reason ....

The ARCTIC is melting and will release 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 and hopefully less than 20 billion tons of CH4 ....

Even if you wish to deny this ....  that its melting, by 2050 we hit around 500 PPM CO2 and by the time China and India are in, and we globally are net neutral ... in 2070 which is a dream, we are 600 PPM CO2 even without the sad fact the ARCTIC is bloody melting let alone issues with the AMAZON and the PH level of the sea.

Scientists are well aware of this ... at Madrid where our goverment ... led the denial of all science and agreement .... USA did not even bother going .... we led ... of PM Scott Morrison led the denial of it all.

EU have gone all CO2 neutral by 2050 ... so too UK ... they will be 50% down in 2030 ... NOT as we may be 26% down in 2030 and playing denial about the issue.

It will cost NOTHING ... other than making non green power via tax unattractive and easily done via non approval of new coal mines such as Gina Rhineharts mine along with that imbecile fathead ex senator .

Greta ... god bless her ... but ... well dear if you only examined what was NOT contained in the IPCC climate models out to 2100 ....  removed by USA and Canada and Saudi Arabia along with Australia , well Greta  ...  you would actually become a terrorist I suspect.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 January 2020)

This one







Note the massive CO2 spike post 2100 ... where the Arctic is melting and the Amazon is having wildfires ..  causing feedback ...

then have a look at the Arctic in 2020 is it already melting ? The Amazon still being burnt down ... and get back to me.

IPCC removed any of these impacts claiming they would not occur till post 2100 ...






THis is the IPCC dream the BLUE line .... impossible unless we remove 1 trillion tons of CO2 post 2050 ..

the red line and that being 4C plus verses the 2C rise that had them in a panic is reality ... REAL and virtually impossible to avoid.

We soon hit CO2 emissions of 40 billion tons ... planting trees ... remove 4 tons of CO2 per hectare each year .... ignore that in 100 years the cycle stops.

so we need to plant say 10 billion hectares of tress every year.

That's 100 million Sq KM of land.

This planet has a mere 500 million sq km of land. So if we need to plant 100 million sq km of land each year and every year to negate the CO2 we release how likely or possible is it with trees ?

Coal and Oil is concentrated captured CO2 over the course of hundreds of thousands of years in some cases. It is what stopped the last extinction events.

Capture of CO2 which is not good for large creatures ....

It took over 40,000 years and an asteroid to release the amount of CO2 we are going to likely release by 2200 .... so that's 450 years ... we released what a disaster took 40,000 to release and mother nature took close to a million years to capture it again. We release 1 million years of mother nature capturing CO2 in the form of Oil and Gas and Coal and do so in 500 years so the Koch brothers and idiots like America first and second can do as they wish along with Saudi Arabia ...

We sadly I suspect have little hope of stopping the eventual release of all easily extracted oil so that sadly means .....

Kiss those kids and grand-kids and say sorry. Look at the chart and what is the top end of it ... about half the planet at those levels will be too HOT literally to survive outside Air Conditioning.

MAGA ... Trump is the best ever president who denies CC as Fake science along with Scott Morrison who takes COAL ... F&cking coal into parliament in 2017 and says dont be afraid ... Abott His PM whom he stabbed in the back worse ... Howard that dotting old fool speaks to Morrison every day.

I am not sure ... we Australians are not far worse than Trump delusional followers who we think are stupid, I do, but an examination close to home has left me deeply ashamed and astounded the links openly between Climate denial and our leadership.

As for Murdoch press they are in overdrive ... denial overdrive. USA is distracted as always with a maniac in charge ,, but here ... any time I flick on Sky news ,,, denial  ... lets refute and deny some more. 

DO THE MATH  .... its simple you imbeciles. Planing 4  billion hectares of trees even over 20 years is impossible let alone panting 4 billion hectares each and every year .... EVERY YEAR


----------



## moXJO (20 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> I am not one ...
> They occur ...
> will occur ...
> Scientists believe they will get worse ...
> ...



It's more the social media types.
There is a link as you say. And the timeframes between events seems to be shortening. 
But there is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides. The false statements of: reducing carbon emissions in Australia would have stopped fires is b.s. As is the statement that: CC had nothing to do with the fires.

There is ignorance on both sides and it's mainly along political ideologies.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> We soon hit CO2 emissions of 40 billion tons ... planting trees ... remove 4 tons of CO2 per hectare each year .... ignore that in 100 years the cycle stops.
> 
> so we need to plant say 10 billion hectares of tress* every *year.
> 
> ...




Its what it is.

A coal deposit is a forest deposited and captured, squished down and a 40 metre intersection of coal took in reality close to 500,000 years to accumulate.

We dig it up and burn it.

We do understand this. Same for Algae that is now oil deposits ...

Releasing something built over millions of years in various locations and releasing it all ... ALL of it we can easily get to in the space of 500 years in a nutshell will be something that a person in say 2300 will look back and go ... what were they thinking ?


----------



## kahuna1 (20 January 2020)

Re the Bush fires ...

Well done highly impartial scientific view by non political UK guy with great credentials who links every single source. ...

worth the 14 mins




Not about to debate science of the experts  ....

Watch ... possibly it may change your views, opinions or even reality. Unlikely but in the Utube there are around 50 links to source data and studies.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 January 2020)

This one .... On bush-fires but also total BS via media, social media, talking heads and non experts ...

*The cause of Australia’s bushfires – what the SCIENCE says*

Longer ... but amusing ... well researched, links given to source data .... and well if your going to believe anything INFORMATION not opinion is essential.

Not another bloody royal commission.

Its 36 minutes but ... well you may learn something without too much effort.




Very very well done, both of the above ...

Watch ... possibly it may change your views, opinions or even reality. Unlikely but in the Utube there are around 50 links to source data and studies.


----------



## moXJO (21 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Re the Bush fires ...
> 
> Well done highly impartial scientific view by non political UK guy with great credentials who links every single source. ...
> 
> ...




Some really good stuff on the vid. I'd question the current carbon levels having a significant effect on growth though. Farmers generally pump 800-900 ppm of carbon dioxide to increase yields. But there would be some level of extra growth.


----------



## dutchie (21 January 2020)

Everyone should read George Orwells' "1984" and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns' "The Gulag Archipelago" before they sprout about climate change.
The hysteria of CC is being used by the UN and the elites to control the world and create a "1984" system.


----------



## chiff (21 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> Everyone should read George Orwells' "1984" and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns' "The Gulag Archipelago" before they sprout about climate change.
> The hysteria of CC is being used by the UN and the elites to control the world and create a "1984" system.



If one cannot accept the need for action on CC,surely they can see the need to act on pollution.


----------



## moXJO (21 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> Everyone should read George Orwells' "1984" and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns' "The Gulag Archipelago" before they sprout about climate change.
> The hysteria of CC is being used by the UN and the elites to control the world and create a "1984" system.



UN is a farce. I don't trust sending money to them while China and other countries are still classed as a developing nation. The corruption and bureaucracy there is legendary.


chiff said:


> If one cannot accept the need for action on CC,surely they can see the need to act on pollution.



The type of action we take is the next argument.


----------



## basilio (22 January 2020)

What scientists have to say about climate tipping points. That is rapid irreversible warming of the globe.
*Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists*
by University of Exeter

Credit: CC0 Public Domain
More than half of the climate tipping points identified a decade ago are now "active", a group of leading scientists have warned.

This threatens the loss of the Amazon rainforest and the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, which are currently undergoing measurable and unprecedented changes much earlier than expected.

This "cascade" of changes sparked by global warming could threaten the existence of human civilisations.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html


----------



## basilio (22 January 2020)

But in fact global warming is accelerating and new climate models are  re evaluating how quickly the globe will warm.  And its not good news..
*Earth warming more quickly than thought, new climate models show*
by Marlowe Hood

By 2100, average temperatures could rise 6.5 to 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed
Greenhouse gases thrust into the atmosphere mainly by burning fossil fuels are warming Earth's surface more quickly than previously understood, according to new climate models set to replace those used in current UN projections, scientists said Tuesday.

*By 2100, average temperatures could rise 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed.*

That is up to two degrees higher than the equivalent scenario in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change's (IPCC) 2014 benchmark 5th Assessment Report. 

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-earth-quickly-climate.html


----------



## basilio (22 January 2020)

basilio said:


> By 2100, average temperatures could rise 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed




So what do you think will happen to our civilisations if this scenario comes to pass?


----------



## moXJO (22 January 2020)

basilio said:


> So what do you think will happen to our civilisations if this scenario comes to pass?



 I think a tech solution will come along before that happens. Otherwise poorer nations will get culled by stronger ones to survive.


----------



## sptrawler (22 January 2020)

basilio said:


> So what do you think will happen to our civilisations if this scenario comes to pass?



We will all die, and then evolution will start again, at least this thread will stop.


----------



## kahuna1 (22 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> I think a tech solution will come along before that happens. Otherwise poorer nations will get culled by stronger ones to survive.




Pity that India and Pakistan have ICBM nuclear weapons and will be hit by crop fails and starve .... pre 2100. I vote Trumps ... forever !! 2020 Donald Jr  2024 2028 ..... Ivanka 2028 2032 .... Barron 2036 2040


----------



## basilio (22 January 2020)

On a more constructive note there are many current options to reduce emissions and improve the quality of our lives.
I wonder whats holding us up ?






       
email sign up donate
*Solutions*
Each solution reduces greenhouse gases by avoiding emissions and/or by sequestering carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

The objective of the solutions list is to be inclusive, presenting an extensive array of impactful measures already in existence. The list is comprised primarily of “no regrets” solutions—actions that make sense to take regardless of their climate impact since they have intrinsic benefits to communities and economies. These initiatives improve lives, create jobs, restore the environment, enhance security, generate resilience, and advance human health.

In our book _Drawdown, _each solution is measured and modeled to determine its carbon impact through the year 2050, the total and net cost to society, and the total lifetime savings (or cost). The exception to this are our "Coming Attraction" solutions, which are a window into what is still emerging. For these solutions, we did not measure cost, savings, or atmospheric impact, but we illuminate technologies and concepts whose growth we will continue to watch.

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions


----------



## moXJO (22 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Pity that India and Pakistan have ICBM nuclear weapons and will be hit by crop fails and starve .... pre 2100. I vote Trumps ... forever !! 2020 2024 2028 .....



Mass migration perhaps. 
The interesting thing in the video you posted  above was that the enhanced growth from carbon makes the plants suck up more nutrients and water. I have  viewed this happen in controlled systems. Water is the big one to worry about imo. It's all these secondary and trickle down effects that are hard to gauge. 

Like I said: in my opinion it's already too late. The world will not act and I think the scientists have undershot the mark on just how bad it really is.
 Better to fortify Australia's  water, food, energy, codes and public health. I'd Jack up defense as well.


----------



## kahuna1 (22 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> Mass migration perhaps.




In October 2018 USA for the first time accepted ZERO refugees in a single month.

Sadly the IPCC with its watered down estimates has 100 million climate refugees by 2100 ... its sadly likely double that.

Meanwhile the USA is debating spending 100 billion to build a flood barrier to protect New York against rising tides due to climate change. Miami just spent 500 million on pumps .... 

Funny thing is the 50 cm the IPCC had estimated by 2100 in the 2018 report is now likely 1 metre rise by then.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2020)

https://climatism.blog/2014/01/16/u...global-warming/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## kahuna1 (22 January 2020)

Climatism ... a Koch funded denial site ... blog site ... I might add.

really ?


----------



## sptrawler (22 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> https://climatism.blog/2014/01/16/u...global-warming/amp/?__twitter_impression=true



They nailed it, *global prosperity is driving warming*, people are asking everyone to find a way to mitigate their use of power, when in reality all the people have to do is reduce the amount of power they use.
They sit there worrying about global warming, while they watch the Australian open on their 65" t.v, in their air conditioned room, while blogging on their tablet and doing facetime on their phone.
As the poor become more affluent, the more the climate warms, it will be self resolving, see my earlier post.
As the population of the World grows and the affluence grows, so the developing Countries demand for energy grows to match the developed Countries. Therefore they will want and expect the same trimmings, it really is a snowball, that wont be stopped. IMO


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Climatism ... a Koch funded denial site ... blog site ... I might add.
> 
> really ?



Koch... Soros.

Pffft whatever.

Facts are what matter


----------



## kahuna1 (22 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> Facts are what matte





Facts .... well the Koch site in the 1960's led the tobacco denial ... now its on the climate.
A sad sad fact.

This persons sources are things like Cato and Heritage foundation paid idiot denial types.

Another sad fact.


----------



## basilio (22 January 2020)

moXJO said:


> Better to fortify Australia's water, food, energy, codes and public health. I'd Jack up defense as well.




Yeah  no.... 

I'd be wondering about how Oz comes with its own climate refugees. Australia will be one of the bigger casualties  of global warming. The North will become too hot too live in. As will much of the central parts of Australia.

Rising sea levels will challenge all coastal cities.  Have a look and see which parts of Oz will be inhabitable when sea levels rise 1-2 metres and temperatures are 2-3 C higher.  Then ask who ill be trying to get into these areas.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Facts .... well the Koch site in the 1960's led the tobacco denial ... now its on the climate.
> A sad sad fact.
> 
> This persons sources are things like Cato and Heritage foundation paid idiot denial types.
> ...



And yet Michael mann is your poster boy.

We can smear and propagandize all day here, but in the end only the truth will prevail. I would question why you choose to attack the messenger rather than debate the substance of the argument


----------



## dutchie (22 January 2020)

Donald Trump Attacks the Climate Change Prophets of Doom



So Henny Penny can take a hike.


----------



## sptrawler (22 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Yeah  no....
> 
> I'd be wondering about how Oz comes with its own climate refugees. Australia will be one of the bigger casualties  of global warming. The North will become too hot too live in. As will much of the central parts of Australia.
> 
> Rising sea levels will challenge all coastal cities.  Have a look and see which parts of Oz will be inhabitable when sea levels rise 1-2 metres and temperatures are 2-3 C higher.  Then ask who ill be trying to get into these areas.



No matter if we switched off everything tomorrow, it will not change the outcome for us, Australia's fate is at the hands of the larger countries especially China, India the U.S and Europe.
We just have to hope everything that can be done will be done, but I doubt there will be sufficient time, materials or space, to change 100% from fossil fuel to renewables in the next 50 years. Time will tell.
Just my opinion.


----------



## kahuna1 (22 January 2020)

Look at this drooling climate expert ...

cant even read off a teleprompter. Must have run out of stuff for his nose that he snorts.

Read the comments .... and one see.s why the USA is so so stable being led by the under 65 IQ people

I am agog at this speech ... that the USA still imports oil seems to have missed this persons narrative.


----------



## moXJO (22 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Yeah  no....
> 
> I'd be wondering about how Oz comes with its own climate refugees. Australia will be one of the bigger casualties  of global warming. The North will become too hot too live in. As will much of the central parts of Australia.
> 
> Rising sea levels will challenge all coastal cities.  Have a look and see which parts of Oz will be inhabitable when sea levels rise 1-2 metres and temperatures are 2-3 C higher.  Then ask who ill be trying to get into these areas.



Australian carbon reduction is a waste of time if we are talking deep cuts. All the pain for a token effort. 

The big polluting countries are pumping too much crap to make much of a difference anyway.


----------



## basilio (22 January 2020)

Not the point I was making was it moXJo ?

You suggested Oz should "strengthen its borders"  "Build its resilience" to keep out the climate refugees from abroad.
I think we will have our hands full dealing with the millions of people in Australia who will be unable to live in their current location. When inland tons become uninhabitable through lack of water and heat stress where will the people go ?
When whole regions become to dangerous with repeated bushfires what happens to the population ?

And finally. When rising sea levels start to compromise essential infrastructure in coastal cities ie sewerage plants - where do 4 million people move to ?

Maybe time to reset the simulator and start a new game.


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Not the point I was making was it moXJo ?
> 
> I think we will have our hands full dealing with the millions of people in Australia who will be unable to live in their current location.



The major Cities will have to be moved inland, which isn't a major problem as most houses get knocked over in 50 years anyway and our manufacturing has closed, so that doesn't need relocating. Actually Australia wont have anywhere near the problem most Countries will have with relocation.


basilio said:


> When inland tons become uninhabitable through lack of water and heat stress where will the people go ?



Desalination will become the norm and daming of the Northern region to supply water to the South is already being investigated.


basilio said:


> When whole regions become to dangerous with repeated bushfires what happens to the population ?



The bush fires will reduce because with the lack of rain nothing will grow, other than that which is irrigated. So bushfires will become a thing of the past, these current bushfires were because of the dry vegetation caused by global warming, so not as much will grow back because of lack of rain due to global warming. 


basilio said:


> And finally. When rising sea levels start to compromise essential infrastructure in coastal cities ie sewerage plants - where do 4 million people move to ?



High ground is the obvious answer.


basilio said:


> Maybe time to reset the simulator and start a new game.



That would be nice.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Releasing something built over millions of years in various locations and releasing it all ... ALL of it we can easily get to in the space of 500 years in a nutshell will be something that a person in say 2300 will look back and go ... what were they thinking ?



A point with noting is that this is a problem in itself even without considering the impact of CO2 and that concerns were raised at least as far back as the mid-1800's that with constant growth of consumption this was all going to end rather badly.

I'm aware of at least one book from the 1860's which proposes the invention of what we now know as electricity transmission and hydro-electricity as a possible solution to the problem. So the basic idea that we'd need to go electric, and get that electricity from a means other than fossil fuels, most certainly isn't a new one.


----------



## basilio (23 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> The major Cities will have to be moved inland, *which isn't a major problem *as most houses get knocked over in 50 years anyway and our manufacturing has closed, so that doesn't need relocating. Actually Australia wont have anywhere near the problem most Countries will have with relocation.




WOW !! You really do believe we are in SIMS 4 mate..
We are not talking of picking up and moving a single house. We are not considering making an inland city like Albury -Wodonga a regional centre. 

Lets put this in a nutshell.  If Australia had the physical capacity to create cities of 5 million people at elevations at least 20 metres higher than we currently have it would be a miracle.

...................................................
As for moving the cities sewage farms "to higher ground" .  I wonder what is currently sitting on that "higher ground" at the moment ? Perhaps 10,000 homes ? And exactly how high will sea levels rise ? One metre ? Two ? Seven ? 

For decades now there has been a steadfast refusal by deniers (not yourself) to acknowledge that rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice cap would raise sea levels.  That (what ever that was..)  just wasn't going to happen.


----------



## dutchie (23 January 2020)




----------



## dutchie (23 January 2020)

How to pay for solving CC problems.....


----------



## Knobby22 (23 January 2020)

What is it with old guys and Greta Thunberg? Quite weird.
Almost a fetish.


----------



## dutchie (23 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> What is it with old guys and Greta Thunberg? Quite weird.
> Almost a fetish.



Yes I love her.
The more she carries on like a pork chop , the more ridiculous her followers look.


----------



## moXJO (23 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Not the point I was making was it moXJo ?
> 
> You suggested Oz should "strengthen its borders"  "Build its resilience" to keep out the climate refugees from abroad.
> I think we will have our hands full dealing with the millions of people in Australia who will be unable to live in their current location. When inland tons become uninhabitable through lack of water and heat stress where will the people go ?
> ...



No I was talking about food security and water security. If the world did go to sht then defense needs to be able to deter countries that want what we have.
Our farmers are some of the best adaptors in the world. Developing methods, technology or just building infrastructure to allow us to continue food production would be of more value to both us and the world.
If renewable energy means we are less reliant on the whims of the gas and oil industry I'm all for it. But both sides of government come up with token gestures.
None of this means we shouldn't pollute less. But we need enough money during the transition.


----------



## moXJO (23 January 2020)

As for sea levels  my area which is a coastal town didn't seem that badly hit even under extremes. Rain and high tide may be a different story. Even a 10 meter rise and I still don't get beachfront views. In reality it will cost billions. 

I'm sure they are shifting out of a major Indonesian city due to it sinking. Not the sea rise. But will be interesting to watch.

http://coastalrisk.com.au


----------



## orr (23 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> What is it with old guys and Greta Thunberg? Quite weird.
> Almost a fetish.




As with Greta herself may i posit a spectrum related analogy;
At one end you have the Gates(old), Attenbough(V-old), Musk(getting old) , vast majority Scientific inquiring minds(not young) who have no problem with Greta.
Vs
 Down the other end there's Couch salesmen Kelly, Payola infused Shock jock Blabbermouths, Ideologically blinkered Bolts, Minerals Council Gimp Morrison, Capt'n ClownShoes Himself the Mad Monk Abbott, the Hanson Party loon Roberts; _there be Just a few_.... 
That is a sad and embarrassing parade to truk with.  

To parady the old Union Tune;
'Whos end are you on Boy's 
 Which end are you on'


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2020)

basilio said:


> WOW !! You really do believe we are in SIMS 4 mate..
> We are not talking of picking up and moving a single house. We are not considering making an inland city like Albury -Wodonga a regional centre.
> 
> Lets put this in a nutshell.  If Australia had the physical capacity to create cities of 5 million people at elevations at least 20 metres higher than we currently have it would be a miracle.
> .



Well the fact is, if the water is half way up your house and it isn't going to go down, you move or learn to swim. I think it will get rid of the unemployment problem.


----------



## cynic (23 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Well the fact is, if the water is half way up your house and it isn't going to go down, you move or learn to swim. I think it will get rid of the unemployment problem.



Or restump with much, much taller stumps and trade your automobile in exchange for a boat.


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2020)

cynic said:


> Or restump with much, much taller stumps and trade your automobile in exchange for a boat.



LOL, yes I was thinking everyone gets waterfront views in Sydney, we could all move into one of those sky scraper apartment blocks and moor the boat on the third floor.
Then I thought what about Opal Towers, no imagine the concrete cancer with the exposed reo, bugger Sydney views, i'll watch the sun set over the Indian ocean.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 January 2020)

The comments section of Trumps Davos speech about using fossil fuels ...

where he embraces and totally denies any and all climate issues are astounding. Simply put for me, simple math ... we emit 40 billion tons of CO2 ... it is like putting on a jumper for climate change. Not able to be refuted.

To remove 40 billion tons of CO2 ...  we need to plant 10 billion hectares of trees  EACH YEAR ... every year. That at 2.500 trees per hectare is 25 trillion needed to be planed EACH YEAR and EVERY year not 1 trillion over the next 300 years. 

That is 100 million sq km of land. The planet only has 500 million sq km of land. half of it ... is NOT possible to plant tree's upon ... or already used for AG production ...

Planting 1 trillion trees sounds nice. ITS A WANK .... always has been. It started at a billion in 2006 and in 14 years whilst a good thing, 15 billion have been planted !! EVEN if they tripled the around each year to say 50 billion trees  every 15 years, the 950 billion would take ... nearly 300 years to plant.

Why its a distraction and a wank is that at say 3,000 trees per hectare .... even if they planted 1 trillion trees that's a mere 333.33 million hectares or 3.3 million sq km. This is merely 3.3% of what is pumped out in one single year let alone the next 300 years of Trump types and Morrison types get their way.

Here are some .... distasteful comments of support On Trumps idiotic stance from Utube ...

*He's going to win by a landslide this year.

He keeps on winning. He has exposed the Left as pessimistic finger wavers

The world's first president that put people first and over his own ambitions.

The green movement. Is all about removing the green from the wallets of the working class and putting it in the wallets of the wealthy.

 PRESIDENT TRUMP, a Man who truly loves his country! ( one trillion trees ) now that is green energy!!!*


Its clear we are dealing with a cult, a cult of low IQ types who well ... suck up every word of this person and science is to be ignored.

I note the trial is not allowing any evidence ,,,, or witness testimony ...  meanwhile Trump is directly threatening tariffs on EU ... Again ... travel bans on more countries ... again and this is the new world as our PM licks this persons behind like mad whilst soaking it all up as gospel ... yum yum yum


----------



## dutchie (23 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Its clear we are dealing with a cult,




Yes we all know which is the cult.
You know you have lost the argument when the cult wants to censor and silence those people who don't want to agree with or follow the cult.

*“Green New Dealers: ‘Climate Deniers’ Must Be Censored And Silenced”*

“She continued, “That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and skeptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.” “


----------



## Knobby22 (23 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> Yes I love her.
> The more she carries on like a pork chop , the more ridiculous her followers look.



Fair enough.
Whatever rocks your boat and makes you happy.

I think it's a bit the other way though.

The more I see the obsessive behaviour of posting Greta memes everywhere,  the more I feel like it's a way of affirming bonds between sect members.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 January 2020)

Another idiotic source ....

A person with a degree in political science ...

Pielke Jr. argues that he is not a climate change skeptic, and accepts that man-made climate change is a real problem, he has consistently opposed the idea that extreme weather events and climate change are connected

the websites that most prominently feature or reprint Pielke’s attacks are climate denial sites like _WattsUpWithThat _and _ClimateDepot_.”

Romm describes him as *“probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere*, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change.” Romm also notes that Roger Pielke Jr. was included on _Foreign Policy_'s 2010 “Guide to Climate Skeptics” — something that Pielke informed FP that he strongly objected to

And that's your source ? 

*“probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere
*

summary, Pielke says that extreme weather cannot be equated with climate change:

“Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change? Only one answer to this question is strongly supported by the available data, the broad scientific literature and the assessments of the IPCC:

*No.*

There is exceedingly little evidence to support claims that disasters have become more costly because of human caused climate change.”

And more .... from this turkey 


*Higgins: *“Are tornadoes increasing?”

*Pielke: *“There is a lot of uncertainty about tornadoes, but there’s no evidence to suggest they’ve been increasing.”

*Higgins:* “Are floods increasing?”

*Pielke: *“As the IPCC concluded, there’s not really good data worldwide to know if they’re going up or down.”

*Higgins:* “Are droughts increasing?”

*Pielke:* “Globally, and in the United States, according to the EPA and according to the IPCC, the answer is no.”

*Higgins: *“Can you explain why someone would say, with such certainty, that extreme weather events will increase given the fact they have not?”

*Pielke: *“Well, they may increase yet in the future. And there’s a number of projections made by the IPCC that suggest that they might.”


Personally since there have been satellites since 1979 this view and all his views are astounding in the face of well documented facts. 

Since he is not a scientist in any field his views are at best political and with no qualifications in any associated field ...  a joke.

A Joke !!


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 January 2020)

avoid using common sense, cos, well, that hasnt helped.....


----------



## wayneL (23 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Fair enough.
> Whatever rocks your boat and makes you happy.
> 
> I think it's a bit the other way though.
> ...



Yeah, bonding between sect members... LMFAO at that one.


----------



## wayneL (23 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Another idiotic source ....
> 
> A person with a degree in political science ...
> 
> ...




Romm ... Two belly laughs within two posts. ASF is getting comedic!

Let's see you debunk The Rog with actual empirical data, rather than specious and -well it's barely even specious - BS.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> Let's see you debunk The Rog with actual empirical data




Your source .... is a joke even to climate deniers ... data to a political science person ? 

Keep up the good work on the fringe of the flat earth society


----------



## wayneL (23 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Your source .... is a joke even to climate deniers ... data to a political science person ?
> 
> Keep up the good work on the fringe of the flat earth society



Let's see the data Mr Smear


----------



## kahuna1 (23 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> Let's see the data Mr Smear




*Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?*

That is the title of this thread, not .... if climate change is real ... or the science real. Please go to the flat earth thread and debate with fellow types on say the Fake news climate change thread. 

I am sure you will find lifelong friends there along with deep thinkers.


----------



## IFocus (23 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> What is it with old guys and Greta Thunberg? Quite weird.
> Almost a fetish.




It is kind of weird that anyone can feel threatened by a 16 year old who holds zero power to enact change.


----------



## wayneL (23 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> *Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?*
> 
> That is the title of this thread, not .... if climate change is real ... or the science real. Please go to the flat earth thread and debate with fellow types on say the Fake news climate change thread.
> 
> I am sure you will find lifelong friends there along with deep thinkers.



That's not an argument...

Stump up with the data bro.


----------



## kahuna1 (23 January 2020)

IFocus said:


> can feel threatened by a 16 year old who holds zero power to enact change.




She is 17 now ... as of 3rd Jan .... be afraid ...







This flattering picture, photo shopped, came from the Washington times .... not the post ... a bastion of Trump and his beliefs. Basically a few steps above say the Australian or Age here ... or Fox news. Washington times is where the Trump conspiracy theory about Obama not being American came from.


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2020)

This is the reality, unfortunately.
https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

And this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tions-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity
From the article:
China’s growing appetite for new coal-fired power stations has outstripped plant closures in the rest of the world since the start of last year, data shows.

Elsewhere countries reduced their capacity by 8GW in the 18 months to June because old plants were retired faster than new ones were built. But over the same period China increased its capacity by 42.9GW despite a global move towards cleaner energy sources and a pledge to limit the use of coal.

Christine Shearer, an analyst at the NGO Global Energy Monitor, said: “China’s proposed coal expansion is so far out of alignment with the Paris agreement that it would put the necessary reductions in coal power out of reach, even if every other country were to completely eliminate its coal fleet.”
The country has a pipeline of 147GW of coal plants that are either under construction or suspension but are likely to be revived, the report says. This is more than all existing coal plants in the EU combined and almost 50% higher than the 105GW of capacity planned in the rest of the world


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> “She continued, “That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and skeptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.” “



Much as I have had concerns about fossil fuels since the 1980's and do consider that we've got a rather serious problem with CO2 and other greenhouse gases, comments like this do sow the seeds of doubt in my mind.

If everything withstands scrutiny then there's simply no need for anyone to silence dissent. Let them claim whatever and if there's no factual basis to it then there's nothing to be fearful of.

That goes for any subject. The moment someone tries to hide something, that's a huge red flag that you'd be wise to look closely.


----------



## jogibains (24 January 2020)

Don't you think that people should produce less baby. Huge Resources are used on every single human. Resources are limited.


----------



## kahuna1 (24 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> If everything withstands scrutiny then there's simply no need for anyone to silence dissent. Let them claim whatever and if there's no factual basis to it then there's nothing to be fearful of.
> 
> That goes for any subject. The moment someone tries to hide something, that's a huge red flag that you'd be wise to look closely.




Few ... take the time to look.

Most trust our goverment to do that.

Smoking and its threat were well known in 1950.
The people who supported and denied any issue did very well fully supported by massive funds for 50 years ... supported by even the goverment.

The dire threat of climate change has been well known for a similar time. The science since 1856 ...
The evidence ... predicted outcomes worsening has been occurring to only be denied by the "Smoking Lobby" Now called the climate denial lobby.

Expecting a goverment to act morally when its fueled by corruption in the case of the USA ?

Our own, openly supports the genocide in Yemen and USA where 250,000 people *died* in 2019 and 13 million starve ... you expect ours to act ?

Things will not change when the leader, our current PM takes a lump of coal into parliament in 2017 and tells offended people who understand science ... not to be afraid.

That lump of coal was formed over a million years and in his hand he held IS and WAS compressed vegetation and CO2 that corrected the last extinction event.

Holding up a dead child from Yemen .... would be about as smart ..When someone is so stupid not to even understand that, we all deserve to send our kids and grand kids to hell on earth. They deserve it with such stupid leaders and such gutless voiceless parents and grandparents, let alone displayed stupidity on their part.

Maybe our PM can go chant at church and make it all better. Or send our kids to Yemen, possibly a holiday for his family in 2020  with the Trumps, I am sure Baron will enjoy it ?


----------



## dutchie (24 January 2020)

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/201...lows-whistle-on-lies-about-climate-sea-level/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...sents-important-climate-science/#36d3df35428e

and for balance a counter article to the 500 signatured letter sent to the UN claiming there is "No climate emergency" 
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...s-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

The science is definitely not settled.


----------



## dutchie (24 January 2020)




----------



## kahuna1 (24 January 2020)

dutchie said:


> The science is definitely not settled




Yes the earth is flat ...

NASA did not go to the moon ....

Your opinion is actually valued on the above topics.


----------



## dutchie (24 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> Yes the earth is flat ...



 Yes I agree. The only thing that has me puzzled though is that no matter how much I try I can never get to the edge, to peer over.



kahuna1 said:


> NASA did not go to the moon ....



 I'm with you, of course they didn't. It was all staged at a Hollywood film lot.



kahuna1 said:


> Your opinion is actually valued on the above topics.



Well thank you kahuna1, you are such a nice person.


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2020)

Talking about going to the moon, how come they could do it 50 years ago, using slide rule calculations, and they cant do it now?
Even when they had the space shuttle and the space station, they couldnt do it, it does make you wonder doesnt it.


----------



## kahuna1 (24 January 2020)

Amusing ...






Even better ....


----------



## dutchie (25 January 2020)

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions#.XirNwiADQ7k.twitter
(read this for a laugh, if you dare)

50 years of B.S. and the planet is still going strong, people are living longer and healthier lives.
(more people die from cold conditions than from hot conditions).

The number of people living in poverty is at an all time low. 

But no doubt the reason all these predictions failed miserably is because of climate change.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 January 2020)

Straw man argument


----------



## cynic (25 January 2020)

One can hardly argue with the wisdom of this particular straw man:


----------



## IFocus (25 January 2020)

Behind Duchies link the board is mainly lawyers and marketing would hate to accuse them of cherry picking talking heads making up headlines......but.......

"
* Fred L. Smith, Jr.*Smith founded the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 1984 and is Chairman Emeritus. He combines intellectual and strategic analysis of complex policy issues ranging from the environment to corporate governance and leads *CEI's Center for Advancing Capitalism*"


----------



## kahuna1 (25 January 2020)

zzzz

Another .... fossil fuel front ...

Oil giant ExxonMobil has been one of CEI's top funders, contributing at least *$2.1 million since 1997*. [60] Donors Trust (DT) has donated *over $4 million* to CEI as of 2013. DT has been described as the “dark money ATM of the conservative movement” for its ability to take in funds from anonymous donors and distribute them to recipient organizations

*GlobalWarming.org (Cooler Heads Coalition)*
The Cooler Heads Coalition, also known as GlobalWarming.org, is formerly a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition, but now run as an “informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.”

GlobalWarming.org states, “This website is paid for and maintained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.”

THis is Funny ....

*2016*

“CEI questions global warming alarmism, makes the case for access to affordable energy, and opposes energy-rationing policies, i*ncluding the Kyoto Protoco*l, cap-and-trade legislation, and EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. CEI also opposes all government mandates and subsidies for conventional and alternative energy technologies.” [3]

*2008*

“Although global warming has been described as the greatest threat facing mankind, the policies designed to address global warming actually pose a greater threat. The Kyoto Protocol and similar domestic schemes to ration carbon-based energy use would do little to slow carbon dioxide emissions, but would have enormous costs.” [2]

*2006*

“The fuels that produce CO2 have freed us from a world of backbreaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need; the people we love. [Ominous Music] Now, some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant.  Imagine if they succeed. What would our lives be like then?* Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution. We call it life.*”


Are you serious ? 
This is your source ? 

Really ? 

Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution. We call it life. .... hilarious ... whilst we will unlikely get to 12,000 PPM CO2 .... I suggest they try it for many hours. Will increase their understanding and IQ !!


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> *Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?*
> 
> That is the title of this thread, not .... if climate change is real ... or the science real. Please go to the flat earth thread and debate with fellow types on say the Fake news climate change thread.




I think you've unintentionally summed the situation up rather well in a thread on another subject: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...sars-coronavirus-outbreak.35169/#post-1053975



> Ahhh... Y2K ? Or Bird flu ? Or is it terrorists ?
> 
> Fear fear and more fear.
> 
> Relevance of this flu ? Or likely ? NOT much.




Have no doubt that many would include climate change on that list as just another scare hence the lack of any real action.

My point there's about human psychology not climate science. Once someone's seen a few big scares they'll tend to dismiss whatever the next one is. You've done exactly the same thing with a virus, assuming it won't be too much of a problem despite having no proper evidence that it is or isn't. Others will be doing the same with with climate change. End result = no action even if the danger is very real.

Note that I've just referenced your post since it illustrates the point, it's not a personal criticism etc.


----------



## basilio (25 January 2020)

Joules MM1 said:


> avoid using common sense, cos, well, that hasnt helped.....
> 
> View attachment 99875
> View attachment 99876




Interesting...

Somehow , someone has made the last figure on the bottom line of the graph 2020.
And then they show another 8 years of temperature increase.

Just waiting for the usual suspects to proclaim how  the BOM just makes up temperature graphs to suit their  dark overlords in the  Marxist/Socialist UN cabal.

Don't disappoint us


----------



## kahuna1 (25 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Have no doubt that many would include climate change on that list as just another scare hence the lack of any real action.




As you say .... fear fear fear ...

Well my favorite show is preppers and doomsday ones who give reasons so absurd from Asteroids to Zombies. Whilst I may sound like one, resigned to a 2 C temp rise hit by 2035 and likely 3.5C  by 2100 which is more than likely unless the world changes quickly, building a shelter not an option.

I note some of the billionaires like Musk ... want to go to Mars. I note the idiot leading the world just formed the Star Trek force.

The more I think about CC ... that population growth had a mere 20 billion tons of CO2 being released 50 years ago verse a number assured to hit 40 billion tons of CO2   is to be denied, ignored and debated.

With amusement the insurance claims from natural disasters DOUBLED from 2000-2009 .... to the 2010-2019 period in inflation adjusted terms. Yep ... no problems anywhere.

Sorry my alarm went off ... time to dig that bunker and wear a tin foil hat to stop mind control.


----------



## wayneL (27 January 2020)

Many questions go unanswered, but interesting nevertheless:


----------



## IFocus (27 January 2020)

Source of Wayne's vid

*Rebel News Network, Ltd.*,[1] stylized as _*Rebel News*_, and previously known as _The Rebel Media_, _The Rebel_ and _The Rebel News Network, Ltd._, is a Canadian far-right[7] political and social commentary media website. It was founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network personalities Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley.


----------



## wayneL (27 January 2020)

Duh! 

It says Rebel News on the vid, now doesn't it? Right wing certainly, but not "far right" (I know you thing everything to the right of Mao is far right )

That doesn't take away the known facts or lingering questions, bruh!


----------



## kahuna1 (27 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> the known facts




You make me laugh .... 

I just soiled myself this time. 

USA did not turn up for the Madrid climate conference at all.
Australia actually sabotaged deliberately any and all agreements there. 

EU and 28 nations now have zero 2050 targets of ZERO CO2 emissions.

Trump turns up at Davos and declares them all mad, EU nations for their climate stance !! All 400 million of them ...

Ex Goldman Sachs treasury secretary ... Second Generation  Goldmans I might add Mnuchin and Trump attack a child, NO not Barron that hapless kid who Trump tweeting 142 times spends obviously so much time with ... pick on the child. Mnuchin ... who went to Yale ... then straight to work with daddy... did get a degree ... a 3rd class degree with not even a decent grade tells the child if only she had an economics degree she would understand.

Amusing ... when Yale professor and Economics Nobel prize  winning one comes out and defends the 17 year old child and says I actually agree and that's why I won the Nobel prize you idiot. 

Every single one of the 28 EU nations .. along with the UK ... are incorrect .... all of them ? 

As I said, I laugh ... I did examine and do examine both sides of the coin and argumentsl ... the absurdity of being told the world is flat or CO2 is not a problem is for people without any intelligence or those with CO2 interests. Ignoring ... denying and debating with the illogical or just plain stupidity is what it is.

Do I get into trouble for mentioning a 13 year old ... or a 17 year old being attacked ? both are children and it explains why the older Trump spawn are such worthy people !! 

Meanwhile Trophy wife number 16 ... Melania is pushing her anti bullying for kids and be good ... whilst her sugar daddy is attacking women ... children ... people who are not white ... or of a differing religion or sexual orientation ...


----------



## wayneL (27 January 2020)

kahuna1 said:


> You make me laugh ....
> 
> I just soiled myself this time.
> 
> ...



Thanks for not disappointing 

My predictive powers are 95% with The Force


----------



## explod (27 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> Thanks for not disappointing
> 
> My predictive powers are 95% with The Force



Yes, "The Force" is that great power of the universe and not dissimilar to a/the Gods.

La la land in FACT.


----------



## wayneL (27 January 2020)

explod said:


> Yes, "The Force" is that great power of the universe and not dissimilar to a/the Gods.
> 
> La la land in FACT.



Interesting that you say that...


----------



## orr (27 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> Thanks for not disappointing
> 
> My predictive powers are 95% with The Force



Ahh... and if only your analytical powers were some above 50%, rather than somewhere below it(way below). 
And yes that is an ad-hom, though one based on reasoned and rational  observation. 
I try not to disappoint.

Have you got a 'merch' line??? tee shirts and stickers..*"TRUK'n with da IPA"  ... "MINERALS Council RULE's OK".."GIM'ee Some o'DAT Dirty Black Stuff"*
Get it on some Pyjamas.  P.M Schmo will wear'm to bed. And the 'emissions' detectable in the morning wont be CO2...


----------



## wayneL (27 January 2020)

orr said:


> Ahh... and if only your analytical powers were some above 50%, rather than somewhere below it(way below).
> And yes that is an ad-hom, though one based on reasoned and rational  observation.
> I try not to disappoint.
> 
> ...



I am truly sorry that your messiah turned out to be a fraud, orr.


----------



## Joules MM1 (28 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Interesting...
> 
> Somehow , someone has made the last figure on the bottom line of the graph 2020.
> And then they show another 8 years of temperature increase.
> ...




Bas, mate, c'mon now......it's the weather girl ...she's in on the it....


----------



## Knobby22 (28 January 2020)

Not always good when we punch above our weight. We have achieved number 1 ranking.
We produce 1.2 per cent of global emissions and have achieved a massive energy saving of 0.8% since 2000. Is it any wonder we are facing scrutiny from other countries?


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> View attachment 99979
> 
> 
> Not always good when we punch above our weight. We have achieved number 1 ranking.
> We produce 1.2 per cent of global emissions and have achieved a massive energy saving of 0.8% since 2000. Is it any wonder we are facing scrutiny from other countries?



Assuming those figures are accurate, what is the underlying reason for that level?


----------



## Knobby22 (28 January 2020)

We were third, now we are first, therefore lack of action in Australia.
The UK for instance has made massive inroads into emissions over the last 10 years under a Conservative Government.


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> View attachment 99979
> 
> 
> Not always good when we punch above our weight. We have achieved number 1 ranking.
> We produce 1.2 per cent of global emissions and have achieved a massive energy saving of 0.8% since 2000. Is it any wonder we are facing scrutiny from other countries?



Best we all switch off our air conditioners, get rid of the second car, drop two fridge sizes and drop 5 T.V sizes.


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> We were third, now we are first, therefore lack of action in Australia.
> The UK for instance has made massive inroads into emissions *over the last 10 years under a Conservative Government*.




Just shows how perthicaly political the Australia lack of policy is under consectervive conservative governments here, still apparently its all good as long as the other mob don't get in.


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2020)

IFocus said:


> Just shows how perthicaly political the Australia lack of policy is under consectervive conservative governments here, still apparently its all good as long as the other mob don't get in.



The other mob will be a shoe in next election. Maybe.


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> We were third, now we are first, therefore lack of action in Australia.
> The UK for instance has made massive inroads into emissions over the last 10 years under a Conservative Government.



But what are the source of those emmissions?

Personal consumption, industry, electricity generation, mining, transport, agriculture, livestock industry?

Why are we higher than the US?

Perhaps the Oztrayan individual (vis a vis, "per capita") is being unfairly maligned?


----------



## macca (28 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> But what are the source of those emmissions?
> 
> Personal consumption, industry, electricity generation, mining, transport, agriculture, livestock industry?
> 
> ...




I have tried to find the details of the total quite a few times, I assume either the Csiro or a Govt dept calculates them each year.

Does not show up in any search I run, does anyone have a link to calculation of this ?


----------



## Knobby22 (28 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> But what are the source of those emmissions?
> 
> Personal consumption, industry, electricity generation, mining, transport, agriculture, livestock industry?
> 
> ...




You would have to look into it, but Texas for instance is now mainly renewable power, based, not on political decisions but on price. California has always been a leader.  And I suppose we are subsidizing our power stations to keep them going due to policy paralysis. Just my guess.

The US used to be above us, but they have improved.


----------



## rederob (29 January 2020)

macca said:


> Does not show up in any search I run, does anyone have a link to calculation of this ?



Here.


----------



## wayneL (29 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Here.
> View attachment 99991



Can we get such graphs for other comparable countries to make some comparisons?


----------



## Knobby22 (29 January 2020)

Gee, we have a lot of fugitive emissions. Better catch some of them. (Dad Joke)


----------



## wayneL (29 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Gee, we have a lot of fugitive emissions. Better catch some of them. (Dad Joke)



I had to Google what they were 

It seems they are mostly methane, which makes me want to ask what counts as emissions and whether that mix puts us at an unfair disadvantage when comparing raw numbers... Due to the nature of our country, ie large size and small population.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

When you consider electricity is our major emitter, add to that our manufacturing has declined and our smelters have reduced, I guess you have to lay a lot of the fault for high emissions at the feet of the general public.
Maybe we are just an entitled lot, who use more than our fair share and want to solve the problem by getting someone to make it clean, rather than take it on board to reduce our personal consumption.
Just asking?


----------



## rederob (29 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> When you consider electricity is our major emitter, add to that our manufacturing has declined and our smelters have reduced, I guess you have to lay a lot of the fault for high emissions at the feet of the general public.



Energy policy is a national issue, so the blame lies squarely with the federal government.
Germany, which has comparatively poor insolation strength generate 4 times as much energy from solar than Australia.
So if you do want to blame the general public, then blame those who voted a Coalition into power which then destroyed Australia's world-leading carbon pricing mechanism, and put more power back into the grid through fossil fuels.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Energy policy is a national issue, so the blame lies squarely with the federal government.
> Germany, which has comparatively poor insolation strength generate 4 times as much energy from solar than Australia.
> So if you do want to blame the general public, then blame those who voted a Coalition into power which then destroyed Australia's world-leading carbon pricing mechanism, and put more power back into the grid through fossil fuels.



You might as well, everything else gets laid at their feet, heaven forbid people should take some responsibility for their own emissions.
A bit like the obesity epidemic, the Government shoveling food into peoples mouths, while they sit on their butt watching t.v.


----------



## basilio (29 January 2020)

A way forward  on CC action.  For a start move hard and fast on renewable energy as the basis for our society. 

* Finding a way through the Overton climate window is the only way forward *
Peter Lewis  Australia urgently needs political change. We must push for centrist, reasonable policies while still campaigning hard at the margins

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...verton-climate-window-is-the-only-way-forward


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Germany, which has comparatively poor insolation strength generate 4 times as much energy from solar than Australia.
> .



You probably haven't been keeping up with the information Rob, but Australia has just about reached the limit of how much solar can be installed ATM, now we need to upgrade the transmission system and install some storage.
To compare Germany's electrical network with ours, is absolute nonsense, as you well know.


----------



## rederob (29 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> You probably haven't been keeping up with the information Rob, but Australia has just about reached the limit of how much solar can be installed ATM, now we need to upgrade the transmission system and install some storage.



This is about a failure of *POLICY*.
You tried to blame the general public, and if you have been voting for the Coalition, then you are part of Australia's problem with respect to it's clusterfarq of an energy policy.


sptrawler said:


> To compare Germany's electrical network with ours, is absolute nonsense, as you well know.



Again, how does the "general public" get involved in the "electrical network?"
ANSWER: *We do not.* 
You need to work out the difference between the role of government (and their attendant policies) and the part played by the general public.


----------



## basilio (29 January 2020)

Effect of Global warming/rising sea levels on coastal cities.

*How the 'Venice of Africa' is losing its battle against the rising ocean *
Ameth Diagne points to a single tree submerged in the ocean. It is barely visible from the patch of land where he is standing, 50 metres away. The few branches emerging from the water mark the place where he proposed to his wife 35 years earlier.
It used to be the town square of Doun Baba Dieye, a vibrant fishing community on the outskirts of Saint-Louis in northern Senegal. The village has been wiped off the map, with only the tree and crumbling walls of an abandoned school remaining as testament to its existence. Everything else is 1.5 metres under water.
*“This was home. I was born here. Everything which was important to me happened here,” says Ameth, the former village chief.*
*https://www.theguardian.com/environ...is-losing-its-battle-against-the-rising-ocean*


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

rederob said:


> This is about a failure of *POLICY*.
> You tried to blame the general public, and if you have been voting for the Coalition, then you are part of Australia's problem with respect to it's clusterfarq of an energy policy.
> Again, how does the "general public" get involved in the "electrical network?"
> ANSWER: *We do not.*
> You need to work out the difference between the role of government (and their attendant policies) and the part played by the general public.



IT isn't a failure of *POLICY, it's an orderly transition, without the public paying for it.*


----------



## rederob (29 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> IT isn't a failure of *POLICY, it's an orderly transition, without the public paying for it.*



You are completely wrong.
I receive and read input to AEMO from Australia's energy generators and they say to a person that we are in a policy void.  They want to invest, but are not willing to commit to what may become stranded assets.
If there was your so called "*orderly transition" *then why are we a decade behind Europe?  We have far better geography to generate energy from renewables that would dwarf what Germany could optimise.
I suggest you look to the UK to see what they put in place in response to the "Stern Report" to get a simple picture of what *POLICY *can achieve.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

rederob said:


> I suggest you look to the UK to see what they put in place in response to the "Stern Report" to get a simple picture of what *POLICY *can achieve.



The U.K is the fifth biggest economy in the World, on a small land mass, that is connected electrically and fuel wise with Europe, it also has a population of 66 million people.
Get a grip Rob, it will all work out o.k despite you running around in ever decreasing circles, with arms flailing.


----------



## basilio (29 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Get a grip Rob, it will all work out o.k despite you running around in ever decreasing circles, with arms flailing.




Really ? Truly ? For keeps ? 
Is that why the Business groups are imploring the Federal Government to create a clear set of policy guidelines for the rapid orderly movement to renewable energy ? 
And why the CC deniers in the government have steadfastly refused to entertain such a policy ?

www.afr.com › politics › business-and-industry-to-go-it-alone-on-a-new..
*Business and industry to 'go it alone' on a new energy policy ...*
Sep 7, 2018 - State governments, _business groups_ and industry are going it alone and preparing a framework to provide certainty for investment in the _energy_ sector, saying they are dismayed by the implosion of the Coalition's National _Energy_ Guarantee and the _policy_ vacuum that has followed.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Really ? Truly ? For keeps ?
> Is that why the Business groups are imploring the Federal Government to create a clear set of policy guidelines for the rapid orderly movement to renewable energy ?
> And why the CC deniers in the government have steadfastly refused to entertain such a policy ?
> 
> ...



When haven't Business groups implored the Government to intervene, which usually means subsidies, pump money into or public funding IMO?
The NBN, pink batts, etc
The State Goevrnments are installing H.V transmission upgrades and interconnects, the Federal Government is helping fund Snowy 2.0.
Untill the inter State H.V interconnects are finished and sections of the transmission system upgraded, from what I've read and posted there is a bit of a hold by the AEMO on any more major solar installations.
There is absolutely no point in the Government making commitments, that basically underwrite private sector investment, how many times do we have to get caught before we learn?
When the time is right, for the Government to intervene in the market place, I'm sure they will. In the recent past the Government drove the market place and it turned into a pigs ear, as is usually the way because it becomes driven by greed and ideology, rather than technical objectives and system needs.
Just my opinion.


----------



## basilio (29 January 2020)

The simple overarching policy statement that isrequired  is that Australia intends to move quickly to a  renewable energy economy as quickly as possible. 
If we are taking any notice of the France agreements it would be around 50% renewables by 2030


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

basilio said:


> The simple overarching policy statement that isrequired  is that Australia intends to move quickly to a  renewable energy economy as quickly as possible.
> If we are taking any notice of the France agreements it would be around 50% renewables by 2030



We are doing it as quickly as possible, as can be seen by the solar plants having to be backed off because the infra structure isn't there to support it. Now the infra structure is getting put in place, then more renewables can be put in.
What business want is subsidies to build the renewables, whether we can use them or not and guaranteed offtake of what they produce. All that leads to is a World of pain for the taxpayer, as has happened before with take or pay contracts.
The reality is the storage and transmission load/ generation shifting ability has to be improved so that the renewables are available when required, not all at the same time.
If we can get to 50% by 2030 I'm sure we will, just saying it doesn't in reality do anything, most of it will happen as is realistically possible. IMO


----------



## Knobby22 (29 January 2020)

We are doing terribly by world standards.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> We are doing terribly by world standards.



Well it is expected Australia's electricity generation will be 50% renewables by 2030, that sounds reasonable to me.
http://www.environment.gov.au/syste...tralias-emissions-projections-2019-report.pdf

Like I've sad before, we could all help reduce coal burning by reducing our usage, I see Queensland is going to pay you to do so. 
I suppose all the 'greenies' will be signing up and the kids from school that march on the streets, can read and do homework instead of watching t.v and gaming.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/program...emand-response-to-keep-the-lights-on/11771884


----------



## IFocus (29 January 2020)

SP you have lost the plot there is no energy policy, there is no climate policy hasn't been for the entire term of 3 LNP governments, this is no secret or conspiracy where have you been.

It is not and never has been an orderly change over to renewables its a total cluster and due to the lack of policy it will cost a mosta the later its addressed.

Not to mention the serious security issues around energy supplies as a result of.....you guessed it no energy policy.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

IFocus said:


> SP you have lost the plot there is no energy policy, there is no climate policy hasn't been for the entire term of 3 LNP governments, this is no secret or conspiracy where have you been.
> 
> It is not and never has been an orderly change over to renewables its a total cluster and due to the lack of policy it will cost a mosta the later its addressed.
> 
> Not to mention the serious security issues around energy supplies as a result of.....you guessed it no energy policy.



Well IFocus everyone has their right to their own beliefs, I see W.A changing over to renewables and gas, in an orderly manner.

I can only go off my observations of what the AEMO say and those who have something to do with the electrical distribution system over east, then from that decide what parts of the media story makes sense, and which parts sound like ramping.
Time will tell if my assumptions prove correct, that is unless Labour get in, then I assume $billions will be thrown out the window all over again and there will be rejoicing in the corridors of business.

Also where in my posts did I say anything about energy policy? I think I have said the Government should stay out of it untill it is absolutely necessary, most of the issues are at State level, as they are actually responsible for their generation and distribution. The AEMO is responsible for system security and the Federal Government probably know as much about system stability and generation as you.
But never the less your post was very emotive, but lacking in any facts or observations on which to build, basically a rather nice rant.


----------



## orr (29 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Well IFocus everyone has their right to their own beliefs, I see W.A changing over to renewables and gas, in an orderly manner.
> 
> I can only go off my observations of what the AEMO say and those who have something to do with the electrical distribution system over east, then from that decide what parts of the media story makes sense, and which parts sound like ramping.
> Time will tell if my assumptions prove correct, that is unless Labour get in, then I assume $billions will be thrown out the window all over again and there will be rejoicing in the corridors of business.
> ...




If Labor get in, or had they of, They would have implemented the National Energy Garrentee.. Ever heard of it?
you might like to find out a little about it. And what lead to this fithed rate reponce of a policy being the the only politicallly feasable possibility at the time.
And ahh Ross Guarnet had a bit to say about where things were going  in ...ahhh ...2008.
The U.K the Stern report  2006... But these were thinking people, not  controlled by the Minerals Council of Australia.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

orr said:


> If Labor get in, or had they of, They would have implemented the National Energy Garrentee.. Ever heard of it?
> you might like to find out a little about it. And what lead to this fithed rate reponce of a policy being the the only politicallly feasable possibility at the time.
> And ahh Ross Guarnet had a bit to say about where things were going  in ...ahhh ...2008.
> The U.K the Stern report  2006... But these were thinking people, not  controlled by the Minerals Council of Australia.



Another nice rant, that actually says nothing, the 'Guarantee'? Was that the one that Labour criticised, when the Coalition put it before Parliament?
Here is something for you to read, unfortunately it isn't by an Australian media outlet, so it isn't full of the usual BS.
Saudi Arabia have most things in their favour, one plenty of sunshine and two plenty of money, also if they change to solar they have more fuel to sell to other Countries that need it for energy.
So they are very interested in changing to renewables, here is a report on their stance, written by a reporter from solar energy technology media.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnpa...wable-energy-crossroads-in-2019/#7caa1a2a738b

And for your info here is the N.E.G history:
In the years leading up to the proposed NEG, energy policy in Australia included the Rudd government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the introduction and repeal of the Gillard government's Clean Energy Act 2011, the Abbott government's Emissions Reduction Fund,[5] and proposals for an Emissions Intensity Scheme (EIS)[6] and a Clean Energy Target (CET)[7] among others. Throughout this time, energy prices in energy resource rich Australia continued to rise. In October 2017 the Turnbull government announced a new proposal, the National Energy Guarantee,[8], intended to "lower electricity prices, make the system more reliable, encourage the right investment and reduce emissions".[8] Subsidies and incentives for renewable energy will be scrapped under the plan.[2] *The Labor opposition argues the plan will destroy the renewables sector,[2] but the government argues renewables can be competitive without subsidies,[2] and expects Australia will still meet its Paris Agreement obligations under the plan*.[2] The Climate Council called the NEG "a woefully inadequate response" to climate change

And despite all the ranting and chanting, we are in line to meet our Paris Agreement obligations.


----------



## rederob (29 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Also where in my posts did I say anything about energy policy?



It's the wrong thread,
But you began by suggesting the "general public" bore a lot of responsibility.  Nowhere have you shown that to be true.
You think this is about "opinions," but it's actually about the factual basis of where we are and how we compare with the rest of the world.  Germany has comparatively little renewables capacity yet generates 4 fold more energy from it than Australia because of government *POLICIES*.  There was no such thing as an "orderly transition" in Europe, and nations like the UK implemented government *policies *to reach 20% energy from renewables: remember this is a small nation with almost 3 times Australia's population.
The reality is that where governments act, renewables take up is substantial.  Australia's government has no cogent energy policy and as a result we are a comparative international renewables backwater. 
AEMO is a partnership between governments and industry and the idea that there is an *orderly transition* taking place is nonsensical.  States have a role in shaping their energy markets and this is easy for the isolated State of WA, but not for the interlinked Eastern States.  In the East it is imperative that the federal government sets a clear path for energy generators to follow, and this has not happened.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2020)

rederob said:


> AEMO is a partnership between governments and industry and the idea that there is an *orderly transition* taking place is nonsensical.  States have a role in shaping their energy markets and this is easy for the isolated State of WA, but not for the interlinked Eastern States.  In the East it is imperative that the federal government sets a clear path for energy generators to follow, and this has not happened.



The H.V transmission link between S.A and NSW, is due to be completed by 2022, and Snowy 2.0 has commenced, then the renewable excess from S.A can be used in NSW.
We have been through it endlessly, the Government can only throw money at it, the time it takes is a physical constraint. Currently the expectation is that Australia will be 50% renewables by 2030, that is good considering 10 years ago we were nearly 100%fossil fuel.
But nothing will stop the media from ramping up the emotion, it is a circulation goldmine.
It is the same as your example of Germany, a Country surrounded by other Countries, that is interconnected with them for security of supply and gets its Gas from Russia. WTF
Why not compare Germany with S.A, it is further ahead than Germany in uptake of renewables and it is connected to other States for security of supply.
Compare apples with apples.
As for the general public, we will be right up there with the U.S on personal usage, it just boils down to affluence. Per capita car ownership in Australia is right up there, same as personal computer and technology uptake in Australia is one of the World leaders, it isn't unsubstantiated it is common knowledge.
With affluence comes energy usage.
So if we cut back our usage, we will cut back our emissions, it isn't that hard to follow.
The State Government could make it mandatory in the building codes that P.V and batteries are installed in new houses, there are lots of things that could be enacted, that don't require the Federal Government intervening.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Texas for instance is now mainly renewable power, based, not on political decisions but on price. California has always been a leader.



Which Texas?

If you mean the US state then about 80% of it's from gas, coal and nuclear.

California it's about 50% from gas and nuclear although it's more complex if electricity generated outside the state and send to California is included. Some of that's hydro, some of it's fossil or nuclear (and some of it was built outside the state specifically to avoid various rules which apply there).


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 January 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Gee, we have a lot of fugitive emissions. Better catch some of them. (Dad Joke)



Actually there's more truth to that than you might think.

It's one thing to mine coal, there are environmental arguments against it but there's also at present an ongoing use of it so mining will still be around at least in the short term, but it's borderline criminal to be mining black coal without extracting the gas from it first.

That's a waste of gas for a start and a completely unnecessary source of methane emissions.

If the coal's going to be mined then extracting the gas from it first ought to be mandatory so long as there's any ongoing use of gas (and it seems likely that the use of gas will continue at least as long as the use of coal so no problem with that approach).


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Which Texas?
> 
> If you mean the US state then about 80% of it's from gas, coal and nuclear.
> 
> California it's about 50% from gas and nuclear although it's more complex if electricity generated outside the state and send to California is included. Some of that's hydro, some of it's fossil or nuclear (and some of it was built outside the state specifically to avoid various rules which apply there).



The media and the way they present things has a lot to answer for, people take anything that is said as gospel.
It wasn't long ago someone said the U.K was 50% renewables, in fact the story was renewable generation hit 50% for a very short period of time on a very good day. 

I can do the same, Australia hits 50% renewables and here is the proof.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/10/australian-grid-hits-50-renewables-for-first-time/
Shame all the activists and CC chanters, don't use the same methodology when going on about Australia.


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Compare apples with apples.



What I have spelled out is that there is no such thing as your "orderly transition."  You note that even in Australia the federal government has had to intervene to build Snowy 2.0 so as to give intermittent renewables a firming capacity.  In the USA some firming capacity is nowadays being required via battery capacity when solar farms are being built.  No such integration is part of Australia's energy policy, so no "orderly transition" is occurring.
Your have yet to show your claim that the general public bears a great responsibility for CO2 emissions and instead divert discussion to other matters.
The reason the media focus on Australia's energy policy is because we have none.  It's not brain science!


----------



## Knobby22 (30 January 2020)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/texas-us-wind-power-renewable-energy/


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Effect of Global warming/rising sea levels on coastal cities.
> 
> *How the 'Venice of Africa' is losing its battle against the rising ocean *
> Ameth Diagne points to a single tree submerged in the ocean. It is barely visible from the patch of land where he is standing, 50 metres away. The few branches emerging from the water mark the place where he proposed to his wife 35 years earlier.
> ...



This is by nobody believes alarmists, baz. There is no mentioned in The guardian article about the subsidence do with them messing about with the Senegal River.

It's nothing to do with rising oceans and all to do with a civil engineering **** up.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> What I have spelled out is that there is no such thing as your "orderly transition."  You note that even in Australia the federal government has had to intervene to build Snowy 2.0 so as to give intermittent renewables a firming capacity.  In the USA some firming capacity is nowadays being required via battery capacity when solar farms are being built.  No such integration is part of Australia's energy policy, so no "orderly transition" is occurring.
> Your have yet to show your claim that the general public bears a great responsibility for CO2 emissions and instead divert discussion to other matters.
> The reason the media focus on Australia's energy policy is because we have none.  It's not brain science!



Do you live in a cocoon or something Rob, or is it just you like to ignore facts?
https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...-help-rise-of-renewables-20200129-p53vs7.html
From the article:
_One of Australia's biggest batteries will be built in Queensland under a deal involving energy giant AGL, which backers say will strengthen the grid's ability to shift from coal to renewable power generation by smoothing out the intermittent nature of wind and solar power.

The giant new grid-scale battery at Wandoan, costing $120 million, will be built by independent power supplier Vena Energy in 18 months, the Queensland state government said
Onward it marches, untill at last you will have to concede, are you on big business payrole or what? The way you seem to be begging the Government to pump money into renewables_.

It is happening as fast as is safely possible, which I think you already know, your not that stupid. It has been explained to the point a simpleton could understand and there is nothing wrong with your faculties. IMO


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Do you live in a cocoon or something Rob, or is it just you like to ignore facts?



Why not go to the correct thread for these issues?
Your claim was about the general public playing a big role in CO2 emissions, and it was patently false.
With respect to the Wandoan battery project, it is one of many underway.  However, none of the present projects has the capacity to meet Australia's overall energy needs into the future and none of them are able to rely on existing grid infrastructure.
AEMO knows that there is inadequate existing infrastructure to properly accommodate renewables, and that is limiting the ability for renewables to flow energy into the market.  This is a clear failure of *POLICY*.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> .
> The reason the media focus on Australia's energy policy is because we have none.  It's not brain science!



I think you are just acting, as though you can't understand the problem, you probably work for a solar farm.
I will explain the problem, in simple terms it may help you.
For the sake of the explanation I will use water as the medium, it is often used in electrical analogies as the theoretical characteristics are similar.
Right lets say all of S.A water is fed from a dam located next to Adelaide, from there the water is reticulated out to Cooper Pedy, Birdsville, Murray Bridge etc and all the  Towns on the way.
When the water leaves the dam, it requires a huge main pipe possibly 4-6' diameter, as it has to carry all the water the whole system requires, as it moves further away from Adelaide and the Towns become smaller, so does the size of pipe required and the pipes installed are smaller.
By the time it gets out to Cooper Pedy, Birdsville etc, it is probably down to a 10" main.

Right 80 years later, because of climate change, the dam in Adelaide isn't getting the rainfall, but Cooper Pedy and Birdsville are getting heaps, the answer is easy build dams at Cooper Pedy and Birdsville and feed it down the pipe back to Adelaide.
The problem is you can't get enough water down the pipe, it is too small, no matter how many dams you build the water can't be used untill the pipes all the way back are increased and more dams put in along the way.
By putting more dams along the way, the size of pipe wont need to be as big, but it will still need replacing.
But add to that, we have so much water out there but it is intermittent so we are going to pipe it to NSW as well, so that water can be moved both ways.

Now lets get back to the AEMO, they are saying the HV transmission system needs upgrading and new HV interconnectors installed, which is being done as we speak, the HV link to Tasmania is being done and the connection between NSW and S.A.
Also at local levels the H.V transmission requires upgrading, switchyards will require upgrading, electrical protection systems upgraded which is being done, it takes time.
We already have too much renewable generation for the grid and there is heaps more ready to be installed, the hold up is the time required to replace and upgrade the transmission sytem which has FA to do with the Government or a Government policy IMO.
What, if the Government says we are going to be 100% renewables in 5 years, means that will happen?
I think the batteries are flat in your magic wand mate.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Why not go to the correct thread for these issues?
> Your claim was about the general public playing a big role in CO2 emissions, and it was patently false.
> .



Are you joking or what?
*What is the main producer of CO*2 ? Electricity.

*What does the electricity do*? It supplies the load required.

*How much is required*? It depends on the affluence of the people, in outer Botswana probably very little, as the people live in a mud hut with no t.v or fridge or air conditioner.
In a suburb of Sydney probably a lot as there is probably 3 t.v's, a main fridge and a beer fridge and either one very big air conditioner, or several smaller split systems.

So do people add to the CO2? Well you may think we don't, but I think the *FACTS* say we do.
If you can't understand that, well it is pointless discussing it with you IMO.


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> *What is the main producer of CO*2 ? Electricity.



Yes, through fossil fuel use.
And the residential component consumes only *a third* of that amount, so you continue to not understand the data, as per below:






Moreover, Australia is a renewables backwater, as here is what a tiny nation like the UK can achieve.
That is a matter of *POLICY*.
So the simple bottom line is that in relation to electricity generation, national policies have a huge impact on the CO2 load.
The general public are not making *POLICY *and* there is no such thing as orderly progression,* as you claim.
You keep clutching at straws.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

And a *THIRD* is nothing? like I said you are only playing stupid, but having said that, you do it well.
I'm not clutching at straws, you're talking rubbish as usual.
The only thing in your favour is, you do it with gusto.


----------



## basilio (30 January 2020)

wayneL said:


> This is by nobody believes alarmists, baz. There is no mentioned in The guardian article about the subsidence do with them messing about with the Senegal River.
> 
> It's nothing to do with rising oceans and all to do with a civil engineering **** up.




Really Wayne ?  Did you actually read the article or just make up your  denial dribble ?

*Mangone Diagné, from the regional division of Senegal’s environment ministry, puts it bluntly: “Saint-Louis is surrounded by water and is incredibly vulnerable to climate change. But the damage was caused both by nature and by men.”*
_
He is referring to an engineering mistake, which contributed to the deterioration of the Langue de Barbarie. In 2003, heavy rainfall caused the Senegal river to rise rapidly, putting Saint-Louis at risk of flooding. As a quick fix, local government dug a four-metre-wide breach, or canal, cutting through the Langue de Barbarie. The effect has been the opposite of the one intended. Although at first the river level dropped, the breach quickly started to expand. It is now 6km wide and has cut off part of the peninsula, turning it into an island – and flooding Doun Baba Dieye.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...is-losing-its-battle-against-the-rising-ocean_


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

This was your claim:


sptrawler said:


> When you consider electricity is our major emitter, add to that our manufacturing has declined and our smelters have reduced,* I guess you have to lay a lot of the fault for high emissions at the feet of the general public.*



It was untrue.
The data showing it has been provided above.
What is your new point, if you have one, as none so far is credible?


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> This was your claim:
> It was untrue.
> The data showing it has been provided above.
> What is your new point, if you have one, as none so far is credible?



Like I said it is pointless discussing it with you as has been shown in other threads, even when you are wrong, you just put your hands over your ears and keep chanting.
Time to ignore again.


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Like I said it is pointless discussing it with you as has been shown in other threads, even when you are wrong, you just put your hands over your ears and keep chanting.



The wonderful thing about the forum is that what you said is available for others to check.
Why not at least try to show that what you claimed had merit, and not indulge in your continued lies.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> The wonderful thing about the forum is that what you said is available for others to check.
> Why not at least try to show that what you claimed had merit, and not indulge in your continued lies.



O.K I will give it one more go.
Right, what policy could the Federal Government enact, that would speed up the upgrading of the transmission system?


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> O.K I will give it one more go.
> Right, what policy could the Federal Government enact, that would speed up the upgrading of the transmission system?



They could immediately build an HVDC spine along the Eastern seaboard to allow the rapid deployment of wind and solar by generators, and simultaneously ensure that the grid was technically able to "absorb" the type of electricity thus generated (as you know there are technical requirements that differ according to energy source).
More importantly, they could outline what their national policy will be in relation to a price on carbon as this is what all the States are calling for so that there is certainty in relation to multi-billion dollar commitments necessary to ensure Australia's energy future.
That said, the federal government has failed miserably to capture Australia's bountiful natural gas resources and integrate these into energy firming requirements.  Although natural gas is not emissions free, it represents a significant reduction over burning coal, and would have been significantly cheaper as well had we coralled gas reserves for domestic consumption.


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> O.K I will give it one more go.



Me too.
Your idea that the general public bore great responsibility for CO2 flies in face of 0.5% increase in demand for electricity over the past decade while the population grew around 17%.  In simple terms the general public are continuing to reduce their per capita electricity consumption.  Note also that this consumption is exclusive of the issue of the millions of households that electricity neutral (or near to it) as a result of the installation of rooftop solar.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> They could immediately build an HVDC spine along the Eastern seaboard to allow the rapid deployment of wind and solar by generators, and simultaneously ensure that the grid was technically able to "absorb" the type of electricity thus generated (as you know there are technical requirements that differ according to energy source).



Firstly the AEMO have said what their priorities are and they are being built, they didn't mention a HCDC spine down the East Coast, so where you pulled that from god knows.
Nothing can be immediately built, as it requires technical analysis design,configuration, procurement and manufacture, procurement of easement and installation.
Secondly who says a HVDC spine would be any better than local connection to the HVAC existing grid?
Thirdly I personally can't see the point of a stand alone HVDC system running 1000's of klm, when there already is already an HVAC grid with existing easement. It basically sounds like a brain fart to me and a way of getting rid of billions of dollars and will be the slowest way to allow more renewable access.


rederob said:


> More importantly, they could outline what their national policy will be in relation to a price on carbon as this is what all the States are calling for so that there is certainty in relation to multi-billion dollar commitments necessary to ensure Australia's energy future.



As has been said on most forums discussing this, whether it be the Paris agreement, the Lima accord or where ever, a price on carbon needs to be enforced globally, to enforce it here just puts us at a further financial disadvantage and we are already going backwards regarding manufacturing.


rederob said:


> That said, the federal government has failed miserably to capture Australia's bountiful natural gas resources and integrate these into energy firming requirements.  Although natural gas is not emissions free, it represents a significant reduction over burning coal, and would have been significantly cheaper as well had we coralled gas reserves for domestic consumption.



All sides of Government are to blame for that one, in W.A we have a gas reserve policy and it didn't need the Federal Government to do anything, so why is it now the Federal Governments fault? Oh I know why, because you don't like them. lol
You really do need to sit down and take a rest, the hysteria you are trying to generate must be tiring for you.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Me too.
> Your idea that the general public bore great responsibility for CO2 flies in face of 0.5% increase in demand for electricity over the past decade while the population grew around 17%.  In simple terms the general public are continuing to reduce their per capita electricity consumption.



That is due to the improvements in efficiency of appliances, not by people voluntarily cutting back their usage patterns, Australia is still one of the highest per capita users of electricity. Ask Knobby.



rederob said:


> Note also that this consumption is exclusive of the issue of the millions of households that electricity neutral (or near to it) as a result of the installation of rooftop solar.



Without batteries, they still use the grid, so they are no where near neutral. I have 6.6KW installed and we are frugal with usage, but still import.


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> It basically sounds like a brain fart to me and a way of getting rid of billions of dollars.



Take this to another thread if you want to discuss it.
You have no idea about what can be done unless it fits into your existing mind set.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Take this to another thread if you want to discuss it.
> You have no idea about what can be done unless it fits into your existing mind set.



All the comments actually pertain to climate change and renewables, so it might as well stay here, where people might learn something.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2020)

rederob said:


> Me too.
> Your idea that the general public bore great responsibility for CO2 flies in face of 0.5% increase in demand for electricity over the past decade while the population grew around 17%.  In simple terms the general public are continuing to reduce their per capita electricity consumption.  Note also that this consumption is exclusive of the issue of the millions of households that electricity neutral (or near to it) as a result of the installation of rooftop solar.




Well actually the general public is responsible for most of the emissions.

Transport transports people and goods that people buy.
Agriculture supplies food that people eat.
Manufacturing produces goods that people consume.
Land clearing is to produce food , building materials or paper products that people demand.

etc

The fact that some of these processes can become more efficient is only one side of the equation, the other is the greater the population, the higher the emissions.

The elephant in the room that few want to acknowledge is population growth. Limiting population growth is the only viable long term solution to our environmental problems.


----------



## rederob (30 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> All the comments actually pertain to climate change and renewables, so it might as well stay here, where people might learn something.



*"Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?"*


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

Fortescue Metals to Install 150MW of solar P.V and battery, to make a gas/hybrid generation hub for its mines, reducing the reliance on gas/diesel generation.

http://www.fmgl.com.au/docs/default-source/announcements/pilbara-generation-project.pdf

At a cost of $750m it isn't cheap, but is a further example of how we are reducing our carbon footprint and hopefully helping to stop global warming.


----------



## IFocus (30 January 2020)

There is no policy, try this, solar farms being built that cannot connect to the system and have to wait...............where is the policy to guide this? There isn't any.

The big moves come from policy not individuals Green Peace worked that out decades ago when they ran the "think global act local" thing and it did SFA.

The US Republicans also looked at that and then started you cannot criticize us because you do yada yada yada bcause they know it achieves nothing, zilch, zero.

Policy sets the future for security of capital investment (big money big moves eh)and shapes the outcomes  timelines  etc it is the basis for planning  for the future currently the Federal government are firmly try to hold back the tide and hold us in the past (remember Tony Abbott).

If there is no policy there is no plan.

Poor planing equal PP outcome no plan equals cluster.

Anything you see now is private industry just having a punt and going ahead to try and stay with the rest of the world.

As Red stated about the NEG FFS it was Coalition policy so they killed Turnbull same mob who is running the show now that's what this mob think of policy.......


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

Nice rant.


----------



## macca (30 January 2020)

If I intended to build a great big solar farm (or anything, for that matter) the Very First thing I would do is work out who I am going to sell to and how am I going to deliver.

If I only have one potential customer, namely the AEMO, then surely I need an undertaking In Writing that they would accept my product at the market rate before I begin searching for a site, let alone plan or commit to panels.

Extremely dumb management decisions just highlight Dumb managers.

A very old saying is  "lack of forethought and planning (aka due diligence) on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2020)

macca said:


> If I intended to build a great big solar farm (or anything, for that matter) the Very First thing I would do is work out who I am going to sell to and how am I going to deliver.
> 
> If I only have one potential customer, namely the AEMO, then surely I need an undertaking In Writing that they would accept my product at the market rate before I begin searching for a site, let alone plan or commit to panels.
> 
> ...



No apparently it is the Governments fault, for not having a take or pay contract, then they keep building them and we keep paying for them even if we cant use them.
Labour planning, sign up for it then see how it pans out, its only money and it isn't even yours, so what's the problem.
It's jobs isn't it, who gives a $hit about the business plan, pass me another napkin.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (30 January 2020)

Kids have gone back to school and some of the classrooms haven't got air-conditioning. 

How dare they.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 January 2020)

I'll keep out of any personal arguments but I'll say something that I've said to quite a few people (offline):

Emissions are roughly one third electricity, one third other energy use, one third everything else. Roughly.

Most debate focuses on electricity. When you hear someone talking about phasing out coal or using renewables, they're talking about how to generate electricity. There's dramatically less discussion about the other two thirds of emissions, including the one third which comes from non-electricity uses of energy.

Looking ahead, the long lifecycle of all this is of importance. It's a point often lost on those who work for top tier companies, earn an above average income and who live in realatively wealthy areas but crux of it is that there's a huge amount of capital employed in both the supply and use of energy and all that isn't going to be scrapped overnight.

A car lasts 20 years on average and the average car on the roads is a decade old. Yep, your 8 year "old" car is newer than average - a point worth repeating as many times as it takes someone to accept that point. If you're car's less than 10 years old then it's newer than average. Source = government statistics.

Buses are kept in public transport fleets in Australia for ~25 years, then they're sold off to Third World countries and are likely to do another ~25 years there. Yep, there's plenty of 1970's buses still roaming the streets overseas and plenty from the second half of the 1990's still around in Australia. Source = I called a few operators a few years ago and asked them how long they keep buses for and the most common answer was 25 years.

For trucks, the average heavy rigid truck in Australia is a bit over 15 years old and for articulated trucks the average age is about 12 years. So we're looking at 30 - 25 year lifespans realistically and that's average, there's still plenty of 1980's trucks around.

Household equipment varies. For things which use a large amount of energy and where there's a choice of source, eg electricity or gas, the turnover is relatively slow. About 50% of gas instant water heaters are dead at 20 years but the upper limit's about double that, it really depends on the water quality. For electric systems it's a wider range, 7 years at the low end and at the upper well I've confirmed that one from 1948 is still in use and I've found another from 1951 both in daily use.

For space heaters and air-conditioners again it's a slow turnover and it's not unusual that the answer there is "several decades". Sure there are those who'll replace a 10 year old system but there's plenty of 1980's stuff still in regular use and it wouldn't be hard to find something from the 70's.

Kitchens much the same. It's probably different in the wealthy suburbs but for the rest, there's nothing unusual about having a kitchen that dates from 1990 complete with 30 year old oven and cooktop. Nothing at all unusual about that.

Industry it's even longer. 30 years is nothing, that's about the absolute minimum lifespan of anything major and it's not unknown to see double that.

Now I'm going somewhere with all thus stuff about ages yes. In short we need to be focusing not just on the electricity aspect of emissions but on the other aspects as well, particularly the non-electricity energy side of it, due to the time any transition will take.

If we do electricity first and ignore the rest, then realistically it's going to be an extremely slow transition since that second stage, the non-electricity energy, is going to be a long and drawn out process. This stuff isn't like fashion or mobile phones, we're not going to see half the car fleet turned over in 5 years and so on.

So my point is that it's not one then the other. If there's a real aim to transition away from fossil fuels then we need to get going on the task. Not just changing how we generate electricity but also making sure we put the right equipment in new houses and so on. Even doing that, starting today, it's still going to take quite some time.

Before anyone says "focus on one thing at a time" my response there is really quite simple. The people building houses or managing bus fleets generally aren't also building or running power stations. There's simply no conflict in an "all at once" approach, since the plumber installing a water heater doesn't need to worry about how the power's generated, they only need to worry about the water heater, and those managing the power supply don't need to worry about managing a bus fleet, they just need to know that load's going to increase overnight. Etc.

I say all that knowing full well that the energy supply is in a rather precarious state. For example yesterday, that is the 30th of January, peak load across Vic + SA combined was 12,640 MW including estimated output from rooftop solar systems. At the time of the peak there was a miserable 390 MW spare, 210 MW of which is the SA government's backup diesel-fired gas turbines and the other 150 MW was a bit here and a bit there across every power station in the two states. And yes, that was with transmission from both NSW and Tas running at maximum into Victoria.

Tomorrow, 31st January, there's a ~1050 MW gap between in state supply versus forecast load for Vic + NSW combined. It's not impossible to bridge that gap between Qld, Tas and SA but there's not too may rabbits left to pull out of the hat here, the magician doesn't have too many tricks left in the box really. Especially not when old and tired equipment keeps falling over (yep, there's been a significant failure..... ).

Keep doing that, keep relying on stuff that's at the end of its life and being patched up and run at reduced pressures and so on, and ultimately we'll end up in the dark at some point. So there's a need to invest in all this with or without the CO2 issue, there's no "do nothing" option here not matter what anyone's view on the climate might be.


----------



## IFocus (31 January 2020)

The biggest transformation of Australia's economy and security that involves technology that requires over arching investment from government and private capital is happening and there is no plan or policy.

How can this be?

How can anyone believe the spin from the current government when they have to resort to dodgy accounting to meet the Paris agreement which *they *signed up for, nothing orderly about that.

Hang on look over there it Labors or the Greens fault.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 February 2020)

Over 40 degrees in Hobart yesterday and that's the second time this Summer.

So 4 such incidents since European settlement to my understanding, 2 of them in the past month and 3 of them in the past 7 years. The other one was in 1976.

OK, that's just a random data point but there's an awful lot of these sort of things happening right around the globe. Eg Adelaide has had it's highest maximum and highest minimum both since the beginning of last year. Lots more examples like that and once there's enough of something it becomes rather hard to dismiss even if each individual occurrence could indeed be random.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 February 2020)

rederob said:


> *"Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?"*



To answer that question - in practice "yes".

From a technical perspective it could have been avoided, that might still be possible, but overall what I see going on in the world today leads me to think that it's not going to happen.

Technical solutions exist but political / economic ideology stands in the way in practice. We're quite literally still stuck in the 1970's there. 

That said, the Europeans do seem to have some ideas which might just break the deadlock politically albeit by force.


----------



## explod (1 February 2020)

"Thwaites Glacier, roughly the size of Florida, is melting at an increasingly fast rate. Its melt already accounts for about 4% of global sea rise, Georgia Tech reported. The amount of ice flowing out of Thwaites and the adjacent glaciers into the sea has doubled in the past 30 years, making it one of the fastest-changing areas of Antarctica.

Moreover, Thwaites is crucial to Antarctica because it slows the ice behind it from freely flowing into the ocean. The glacier's ice shelf, or its permanent floating ice sheets, act like dirt in a clogged drain, impeding the glacier from flowing full force into the ocean, Stef Lhermitte, an assistant professor in the Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, previously told Live Science."

https://www.livescience.com/underwa...E9V5j5UqUsmmqyeKo6e8SPEM1ctyS_XXuw5lpQtHEUUUf


----------



## basilio (1 February 2020)

Great update Explod. 
It could be a worry but, as we all know, these scientists are in fact just part of an elaborate world wide fraud trying to create a undue concern about  nothing.
Did you see what the real people are saying ?

Truthseeker007 31 January 2020 09:03
Rodkeh said:

_It is only a surprise to these frauds calling themselves scientists. There is no threat and this Doomsday Glacier is just a feeble attempt at fear mongering. There is no Doomsday anything and there is no climate crisis anywhere on this planet, at this time._

_If anything it is a manufactured crisis and yes a lot of fear mongering and fear pr0n. If you follow the money a lot of the money comes from George Soros and Billy Gates on the climate change scandal. And I don't know about you but you can just see the evil in those two guys eyes. They sure aren't doing it to help the world. 
https://www.livescience.com/underwa...E9V5j5UqUsmmqyeKo6e8SPEM1ctyS_XXuw5lpQtHEUUUf
_


----------



## wayneL (1 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Great update Explod.
> It could be a worry but, as we all know, these scientists are in fact just part of an elaborate world wide fraud trying to create a undue concern about  nothing.
> Did you see what the real people are saying ?
> 
> ...



argumentum ad passiones, bazz


----------



## Dona Ferentes (1 February 2020)

Whatever happened to isostatic readjustment?


----------



## basilio (5 February 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> Whatever happened to isostatic readjustment?




Still happening.  Some places are still rising after the release of the billions of tons of ice from the last Ice Age. 
But ??? Certainly not enough to  counter the effects of the rapidly melting ice caps currently  happening


----------



## basilio (5 February 2020)

What do Australians think about global warming  and climate action?
In theory all Governments should be responding to the clear sentiments of the population - except One Nation voters
*What Australians really think about climate action*
By Annika Blau

Story Lab

Updated 5 Feb 2020, 10:10am
Published 5 Feb 2020, 5:05am
With the country burning and otherwise “quiet Australians” crying for action, it’s worth asking: what do Australians really think about climate change?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...te-change-action-morrison-government/11878510


----------



## IFocus (5 February 2020)

Its worth looking at history of molecular theory to understand the positions taken by people today on climate change.


----------



## wayneL (5 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> Its worth looking at history of molecular theory to understand the positions taken by people today on climate change.



That's a good point, especially as it pertains to the CO2 molecule.


----------



## sptrawler (5 February 2020)

Boris Johnson to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars, in the U.K from 2035.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...-he-still-doesn-t-get-it-20200205-p53xu9.html
From the article:
_Britain has pledged to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. But the government's advisory Committee on Climate Change has warned that domestic action to slash carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming is lagging far behind what is needed.

The UK's new 2035 target for ending gas and diesel sales is one of the world's most ambitious.

Several countries including France plan to stop by 2040. Norway - one of the most aggressive early adopters of electric cars - has a goal, but not a requirement, to eliminate gas and diesel cars, excluding hybrids, by 2025.
"We have to deal with our CO2 emissions, and that is why the UK is calling for us to get to net zero as soon as possible, to get every country to announce credible targets to get there - that's what we want from Glasgow" Johnson said.
"*And that's why we have pledged here in the UK to deliver net zero by 2050*_."

Wow, that is the same time frame as us.


----------



## rederob (5 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> _"*And that's why we have pledged here in the UK to deliver net zero by 2050*_."
> 
> Wow, that is the same time frame as us.



Where is that?


----------



## sptrawler (5 February 2020)

rederob said:


> Where is that?



As most emissions are actually produced by State based organisations and or policies under their control, the States will be responsible for making the commitment to replace their generation and building/transport policies and ensure the infrastructure required to support a carbon free future is incorporated in their plans. 
Queensland:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/queensland-commits-zero-net-emissions-2050/

South Australia:
http://www.climateaction.org/news/south_australia_aiming_to_reach_zero_net_emissions_by_2050

New South Wales:
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...tralian-pollution-climbs-20161102-gsg7v4.html

Victoria:
https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/b...ad-on-climate-with-zero-emissions-commitment/

Northern Territory:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-solar-to-meet-new-2050-zero-emissions-target

ACT:
https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_...ll/2016/act-commits-to-zero-emissions-by-2050

Tasmania:
http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/tasmania_achieves_zero_net_emissions_for_the_first_time

Western Australia:
https://der.wa.gov.au/images/docume...e Gas Emissions Policy for Major Projects.pdf

The States such as Tasmania and South Australia, are well on their way to becoming carbon zero.


----------



## rederob (6 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> The States such as Tasmania and South Australia, are well on their way to becoming carbon zero.



So *the federal government has no commitment for 2050*, but most States - led by Labor initiatives - either have or are setting targets.
Just so you are aware, none are becoming "*carbon zero*"  as they are instead using a 2005 emissions benchmark and hope to get back to that level in the next 30 years.
In relation to the UK, they are aiming to get back to their *1990 benchmark* and not their 2005 benchmark.  This chart shows the difference between global 1990 and later year CO2 levels:







Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 35% difference above between nations using the 1990 rather than the 2005 benchmark is significant (recognising individual nations will clearly vary from the average).


----------



## sptrawler (6 February 2020)

As long as the end goal is reached, it doesn't really matter IMO.


----------



## rederob (6 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> As long as the end goal is reached, it doesn't really matter IMO.



Given Australia is not even close to being on track, it's a bit of a stretch to think that present policies will be much chop.
As usual, that's somewhat besides the point.
Present global emission levels have already placed the planet well ahead of what the IPCC had hoped for in terms of immediate climate response.
So whatever targets have been set, they are not going to be helpful for our generation or the next as we do not have any "better" years to look forward to.
When the warmest January every recorded was just last month, and *it was not in an el nino* *year*, then things a move to Tassie looks on the cards.


----------



## sptrawler (6 February 2020)

The Telstra boss is saying people need to be aware of their own carbon footprint, as the data usage and in turn the power used to supply the data throughput is increasing dramatically.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...-of-decade-telstra-chief-20200206-p53ye2.html
From the article:
*He said Telstra was one of the largest energy users in the country and that as volumes of data increased by as much as 50 per cent each year on the Telstra network, the company's energy consumption was "considerable".*
Mr Penn said he would not comment on the politics of climate change.
"I’m not going to get into a political conversation around government’s role," he said.

He instead said individuals and businesses must become more aware of their own carbon footprints.
"Every single one of us actually have a role to play...All businesses today, especially large businesses publish their emissions. How many of us individually know what our carbon footprint is as an individual? It's capable of being known," he said.


----------



## rederob (6 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> The Telstra boss is saying people need to be aware of their own carbon footprint, as the data usage and in turn the power used to supply the data throughput is increasing dramatically.
> https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...-of-decade-telstra-chief-20200206-p53ye2.html
> From the article:
> *He said Telstra was one of the largest energy users in the country and that as volumes of data increased by as much as 50 per cent each year on the Telstra network, the company's energy consumption was "considerable".*
> ...



Telstra needs to lift its game.
Responsible telcos are nowadays are using solar and battery power from the outset, so for Tesltra to try to sheet home the blame to consumers just goes to show how out of touch they continue to be.


----------



## wayneL (6 February 2020)




----------



## wayneL (6 February 2020)

Thread plus comments:


----------



## SirRumpole (7 February 2020)

wayneL said:


> Thread plus comments:





_"If you're predisposed to hate electric cars, then there's a wonderful story making the rounds that'll support your worldview. It claims that the production of Tesla battery produces carbon emissions equivalent to driving an internal-combustion vehicle for eight years—8.2, to be precise. 


That's a sensational claim, one that's been seized upon by EV haters and gleefully postedby climate change-denying blogs and sites that despise electric cars. Just one problem: It's absolute nonsense."
_
https://www.popularmechanics.com/ca...7039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/_
_
Might be an idea to do a bit of research first ?


----------



## wayneL (7 February 2020)

Then there is this from your own propaganda rag

https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...so-climate-friendly?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## IFocus (7 February 2020)

wayneL said:


> Then there is this from your own propaganda rag
> 
> https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...so-climate-friendly?__twitter_impression=true




1st line, you may have missed this bit.

"EVs produce more CO2 than say diesel – it’s just they emit via the* power plant not the exhaust pipe*"


----------



## wayneL (7 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> 1st line, you may have missed this bit.
> 
> "EVs produce more CO2 than say diesel – it’s just they emit via the* power plant not the exhaust pipe*"



No, I didn't miss that at all. It is an important consideration in any alternative.

Do you believe co2 from a power plant is less important than from an exhaust pipe?


----------



## IFocus (7 February 2020)

wayneL said:


> No, I didn't miss that at all. It is an important consideration in any alternative.
> 
> Do you believe co2 from a power plant is less important than from an exhaust pipe?




Sigh......critical thinking?

A couple of points re power plants 1st being not all are created equal.

If CO2 is made at one source then there is an opportunity to control and maximise the efficiency of the use of fuel to create energy not the case if coming from millions of sources.

Then are a  many other points lets start with you you use electricity for cars then you don't have to truck the electricity to fuel each vehicle like fossil fuels etc not to mention the opportunity to be like VC and charge directly from solar.

If you researched (10 secs)  further then you would also see that depending on *assumptions* there are a number of other research papers showing the complete opposite.

Then further still if all Europe drove electric cars then there would be a significant benefit in less CO2 and that is not based on assumptions.

BTW nice to see you reading the Guardian that could allow you to form critical thinking


----------



## wayneL (7 February 2020)

The Gaurdian?

Critical Thinking?

Hohoho, very amusing. Not with the likes of the Moonbat, Nutter-celli, et al.


----------



## IFocus (7 February 2020)

wayneL said:


> The Gaurdian?
> 
> Critical Thinking?
> 
> Hohoho, very amusing. Not with the likes of the Moonbat, Nutter-celli, et al.




No not that,  just the fact you read stuff against your bias can lead to critical thinking


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 February 2020)

rederob said:


> Telstra needs to lift its game.
> Responsible telcos are nowadays are using solar and battery power from the outset, so for Tesltra to try to sheet home the blame to consumers just goes to show how out of touch they continue to be.



The telco is only one piece in the puzzle.

“Big data” is a big energy user that’s the reality of it and thus far the response of the industry has been to scale up supply rather than improving efficiency.

An experiment I’ve actually done is to use a computer running Windows XP for a week for all my personal use and compare that against the exact same PC, the same hardware, used for the same tasks running Windows 10.

Bottom line is Win 10 is significantly less data efficient. Same tasks done, same websites looked at including this one, substantially more data used.

Experiment was conducted in December 2019 for the record. Software used was an old (1997) version of Excel, Google Chrome browser and all data via Telstra 4G. A complete install of the operating system was done prior to the trial - Win 10 was not in any way present on the machine whilst XP was in use and vice versa. The same hardware was used for both.


----------



## rederob (8 February 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> The telco is only one piece in the puzzle.



Maybe so, but the piece *you *put in place used energy that was "free" and that's the same for me and millions of other households with solar pv.
This shows what can be achieved by companies willing to make the investment.
Again, we have no policies in Australia to stimulate such investment and instead rely on *the market*.
Meanwhile we continue to subsidise diesel to the tune of $billions.


----------



## orr (9 February 2020)

wayneL said:


>




This interests me; We have now the beginnings of down stream consequences of what will be a new industrial epoch.

So here's the chance to make use of the enthusiasms of a zelot.

Waynel?? 
JB Staubel is now after ten years taking a step back from the day to day runnings of turning a 1 Billion dollar company into a 100 Billion $$$+++ company... To do What?? He and a lieutenant from the same company are setting in train a recycling operation for the end use batteries from the products now in massive world demand from above Company to salvage materials for new batteries. 
This new Recycling Project is called REDWOOD..
So go out do your best, focus that idealogical mania and find holes in this project. Not the withered blatherings of the usual stable of nincompoops you normally proffer. But serious critilal thinkers..

I'm out looking for an objective technically savvy insight  to enable deepened critique. Maybe you can help?(suppress snig.g.er)... Looking forward to what you can bring to the table...

And My '_Messiah_'...as much as he is; Orwell  still seams to be making a fair fist of it..


----------



## basilio (10 February 2020)

There is an excellent follow up article on the Redwood project. Some of the comments made after the story suggest LiOn batteries are showing a much longer life than anticipated.

*Battery Recycling Will Be The New New Thing, And JB Straubel & Kore Power Are Leading The Way*
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/0...g-jb-straubel-kore-power-are-leading-the-way/


----------



## sptrawler (10 February 2020)

Barnaby Joyce being talked over by climate expert.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/n...-goes-toe-toe-climate-expert-coal-debate.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 February 2020)

rederob said:


> Maybe so, but the piece *you *put in place used energy that was "free" and that's the same for me and millions of other households with solar pv.
> This shows what can be achieved by companies willing to make the investment.
> Again, we have no policies in Australia to stimulate such investment and instead rely on *the market*.
> Meanwhile we continue to subsidise diesel to the tune of $billions.



I don't disagree, my own house is largely solar powered after all, but if I store something in the "cloud" well then ultimately there's a lot of energy being used there. Data, as with anything, isn't actually free despite there typically being no direct financial charge for it but we're paying for it one way or another both the direct costs and the energy use.

I don't really follow the diesel argument though. Well, OK, we're not charging for the impact of emissions but that also applies to coal and gas so it would be truer to say that we're subsidising fossil fuels rather than singling out diesel whilst ignoring the rest. It's not as though diesel is even the worst one.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 February 2020)

One cause of global warming that is often overlooked.

Animal emissions.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/04/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming/


----------



## basilio (16 February 2020)

Which direction will we take?  A couple of scenarios from the best to the  not so good..

The Future We Choose, a new book by the architects of the Paris climate accords, offers contrasting visions for how the world might look in thirty years (read the worst case scenario here)

*Air is cleaner than before the Industrial Revolution’: a best case scenario for the climate in 2050 *
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-choose-christiana-figueres-tom-rivett-carnac


*‘The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last’: a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050 
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-choose-christiana-figueres-tom-rivett-carnac
*


----------



## basilio (16 February 2020)

Tracking CO2, sea level and global temperatures over 800,000 years.

http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/impacts/slr-co2-temp-400000yrs.jpg


----------



## basilio (16 February 2020)

More about The future we Choose.

* Christiana Figueres on the climate emergency: ‘This is the decade and we are the generation’ *
Damian Carrington The leader of the 2015 Paris accord talks about her new book, The Future We Choose, and why it’s crunch time for humanity

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...gency-this-is-the-decade-the-future-we-choose


----------



## sptrawler (18 February 2020)

Rio Tinto to join Fortescue mining and put in solar/storage for a renewable hub in the Pilbarra.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/rio-tin...king-big-switch-to-solar-and-batteries-10441/
From the article:
_Mining giant Rio Tinto has become the latest major iron ore miner in West Australia’s Pilbara region to turn to renewables to lowest costs and cut emissions, announcing that a new solar farm and a lithium ion battery will supply all the daytime electricity needs and two thirds of the annual requirements of its new $2.6 billion Koodaideri project.

Rio Tinto says it will spend $98 million on a new 34MW solar farm at the Koodaideri mine in the Pilbara,  as well as a 45MW/12MWh lithium-ion battery energy storage system that will help power its entire Pilbara power network_.

_Rio Tinto joins other iron ore majors in the Pilbara also shifting to solar and battery storage because of the lower costs. Andrew “Twiggy Forrest’s Fortescue Mines announced last month that it will build an extra 150MW of solar, and a big battery, as it links up all its iron ore resources in the Pilbara into a single network for the first time_.

_This solar and battery will be additional to the 60MW solar farm being built by energy provider Alinta near the Chichester mine owned by Fortescue, as well as the 30MW/12MWh big battery at its Newman gas generator which has dramatically lowered costs and lifted reliability for mines including Gina Rinehart’s Roy Hill mines, which is also looking at solar and other renewable options_.


----------



## sptrawler (18 February 2020)

Stockland to access a $75 million senior debt facility from the federal government’s Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It is aiming to achieve net zero emissions across its logistics centres, retirement living operations and corporate head offices by 2030.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/stockla...p-up-solar-battery-efficiency-roll-out-11322/
From the article:
_Australian property group Stockland is set to roll out another 11MW of commercial solar, this time across its logistics business, with the help of a $75 million senior debt facility from the federal government’s Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Stockland, which has been busy installing upwards of 12MW of commercial solar arrays across its shopping centres nationally, is aiming to achieve net zero emissions across its logistics centres, retirement living operations and corporate head offices by 2030_.


----------



## basilio (18 February 2020)

Can enough money save the earth ?

*Jeff Bezos commits $10 billion to fight climate change*
 107 comments 
The Bezos Earth Fund will begin issuing grants this summer

Today, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced that he would be committing $10 billion to fight climate change through a new fund called the Bezos Earth Fund.

He announced new fund in a post on Instagram. Amazon confirmed the existence of the fund to _The Verge_:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/17/21141132/jeff-bezos-earth-fund-ten-billion-climate-change


----------



## Knobby22 (18 February 2020)

Doesn't he realise he will join the right wing conspiracy evil list?


----------



## sptrawler (18 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Can enough money save the earth ?



If not we are dead and the planet will start again.
The earth will survive, as for humans, anyone's guess.


----------



## basilio (19 February 2020)

Meanwhile the obvious consequences of CC roll on. Makes the point about Australia in  the story.

*Risks aren't worth it': QBE says parts of planet becoming uninsurable due to climate concerns*
Charlotte Grieve
Updated February 17, 2020 — 10.01amfirst published at 6.15am

Global insurance giant QBE has warned climate change poses a material threat to its business and the entire economy as its chief executive Pat Regan said premiums were at risk of becoming too high in areas exposed to repeated, extreme weather.
https://www.watoday.com.au/business...ebellion-ballarat-rebel-news-19-february-2020


----------



## macca (19 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Meanwhile the obvious consequences of CC roll on. Makes the point about Australia in  the story.
> 
> *Risks aren't worth it': QBE says parts of planet becoming uninsurable due to climate concerns*
> Charlotte Grieve
> ...




Sounds like a great excuse for collusion to increase premiums and profit margins.

If they use the fires in Oz as an example then they are lying, they should be saying "enforce the recommendations of the enquiries or we will increase premiums"

We need to work together to reinstate the proven methods of safety from fire.

We need to stop councils approving housing estates in flood plains, by filling in a low area we simply move the flood further down the river and flood areas that were previously dry because the water used to come down slower.

I really find the present compulsion to blame Everything on CC to be very irritating.


----------



## basilio (19 February 2020)

macca said:


> I really find the present compulsion to blame Everything on CC to be very irritating.




Perhaps you could consider learning why everyone is blaming CC for intensifying extreme weather conditions ?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/


----------



## macca (19 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Perhaps you could consider learning why everyone is blaming CC for intensifying extreme weather conditions ?
> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/




As has been shown on this forum, if we want to go cherry picking data we can find stuff to say whatever we want.

All stats can be manipulated quite easily as has been proven many times.

I have seen the effort that you and others put in on this forum to preach your gospel, I trust you are well compensated for your efforts.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 February 2020)

We don't believe in climate warming. We just accept the science.

You can believe what you like Macca but stop acting like a religious zealot, all belief and no evidence.

You've got to stop being so gullible and maybe widen your news sources.


----------



## IFocus (20 February 2020)

Macca spent 30 years in process control (chemical manufacturing) most days were a lesson in science, my background was instrumentation sorting out the control systems and instruments (around 8000) that measured stuff.

I know something about data and measuring stuff real time and historical, I know something about putting it together and avoiding the very things you mention to resolve where people blamed the systems and instruments for there own mistakes or why the stuff coming out the end was the wrong colour.

We used the same instruments that measure gases around distant stars / planets etc as an example of the tech used.

Science has been the base of my working life as Knobby says I accept the science nothing more.


----------



## IFocus (20 February 2020)

This is really bad news for the Eastern States not to mention surfers 

*New research shows increase in extreme IOD events*

Regular readers of Swellnet would be familiar with all types of acronyms for weather phenomena. From LWT to SAM, AAO, and IOD, but it's this last one - the Indian Ocean Dipole - which has had a significant impact on the late winter through to early summer 'wet' season across Indonesia, and also affected Australia through our winter and spring.



*https://www.swellnet.com/news/swell...research-shows-increase-in-extreme-iod-events*


----------



## macca (20 February 2020)

Oh, the arrogance of mankind, "it has happened for 200 years therefore it will never happen"

As has been clearly demonstrated in history the climate changes all the time to points far worse or better than current times and the hysterical brainwashing is all one sided I am afraid.

The incessant hysteria of CC is wasteful and our coming generations are having their lives ruined by vicious, cruel virtue signalling wankers.

If we spent half as much energy stopping pollution in Asia, cleaning up what has already been damaged and then sought ways to cope with the changing climate our children and grandchildren could be positive and happy.

An example of the cruelty inflict on our children................

In an area near Newcastle there is a sign erected by the local council which reads " help our kids keep the creek clean, don't litter" 

Any teenager who reads that sign would understand from it that it is their responsibility to clean the creek ! Surely it should be the Councils responsibility to clean the creek ?

See how the brainwashing is done, blame the kids if the creek gets dirty, no wonder they feel so depressed, no wonder the slightest further pressure puts them over the edge.


----------



## IFocus (20 February 2020)

macca said:


> As has been clearly demonstrated in history the climate changes all the time to points far worse or better than current times and the hysterical brainwashing is all one sided I am afraid.
> 
> The incessant hysteria of CC is wasteful and our coming generations are having their lives ruined by vicious, cruel virtue signalling wankers.




That's a hell of a way to describe the British Tory Party  

They accept the science


----------



## basilio (23 February 2020)

Why all Germans agree on stopping the coal industry_*. (Why isn't this story in the Murdoch Press ?)*_

*Analysis*
*Why Germans all agree on shutting down the coal industry*

*Related Story: The future of coal has already been decided in boardrooms around the globe

Related Story: Barnaby Joyce and his band of rebels want more coal and this battle is not just about cheap power

Related Story: Adani beware: coal is on the road to becoming completely uninsurable

Related Story: World's biggest investment firm ditches coal in 'fundamental reshaping of finance'

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/why-coal-is-being-shut-down-in-germany/11976324*


----------



## moXJO (23 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Why all Germans agree on stopping the coal industry_*. (Why isn't this story in the Murdoch Press ?)*_
> 
> *Analysis*
> *Why Germans all agree on shutting down the coal industry*
> ...



What happened to the wind turbines blowback?
They were having problems with zoning and opposition at one stage. There was a growing  backlash against the turbines and I think they zoned it 1km away from built up areas.


----------



## basilio (23 February 2020)

moXJO said:


> What happened to the wind turbines blowback?
> They were having problems with zoning and opposition at one stage. There was a growing  backlash against the turbines and I think they zoned it 1km away from built up areas.





So what ? Whatever you are saying has absolutely no relevance to the story on how all parties in Germany have come together to plan the orderly closure of all coal fired power stations and the redeployment of capital and labour to other more sustainable ventures.


----------



## explod (23 February 2020)

macca said:


> Oh, the arrogance of mankind, "it has happened for 200 years therefore it will never happen"
> 
> As has been clearly demonstrated in history the climate changes all the time to points far worse or better than current times and the hysterical brainwashing is all one sided I am afraid.
> .




How about some references to where and when it has been clearly demonstrated that it has happened to the current/recent extent such as this before.

Have you read "The Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leakey" published about 15 years back, an eye opener.

Since then we see the waters from the north of Europe and north Asia stop flowing with millions of people and farmers driven from their lands.  Now if it had all happened suddenly before these places would not have been settled by humans in the first place.  The Pacific islands have been settled happily for over 100,000 years but now are being washed away by rising waters and unprecedented storms.


----------



## sptrawler (23 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Why all Germans agree on stopping the coal industry_*. (Why isn't this story in the Murdoch Press ?)*_
> 
> *Analysis*
> *Why Germans all agree on shutting down the coal industry*



Because they are connected to the European grid and the Russian Natural gas pipe, pretty simple really.
South Australia expects to be 0% carbon, by 2030, why isn't that in the Fairfax press?
Western Australia will have shut down 50% of its coal by 2025, why isn't that in the Fairfax press?
Probably because it doesn't fit in with the agenda, that we aren't doing anything and the kids would see we are actually doing a lot.
But hey, if they were told that, they might stop running around screaming and get on with their school work. You never know their results might improve, that would be novel.


At least Albo has thrown it out there, now we should start and get some action, on the realities and how to overcome them.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...from-2050-climate-target-20200221-p5434h.html


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2020)




----------



## moXJO (24 February 2020)

basilio said:


> So what ? Whatever you are saying has absolutely no relevance to the story on how all parties in Germany have come together to plan the orderly closure of all coal fired power stations and the redeployment of capital and labour to other more sustainable ventures.



Because they won't hit their target 
Talk is cheap.


----------



## basilio (24 February 2020)

A sobering look at the various tipping points that would irrevocably change the worlds climate

Tipping points   Explainer: Nine ‘tipping points’ that could be triggered by climate change 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change


----------



## IFocus (24 February 2020)

Comment today


"It’s silly to have a target without a plan.

But apparently you can have a “strategy” without a target. Or a plan.

This is the level of stupid we have reached today.

Compounding that stupid, is the fact we have signed up to the Paris agreement. We keep hearing about how we are meeting our obligations. A big part of the Paris agreement is to work out how to become carbon neutral by the second half of the century.

Which is just another way of saying – ZERO NET EMISSIONS BY 2050.

And what did Angus Taylor say this morning, in between talking about how silly Labor’s “uncocked” policy was?

Well, *there is that targeting built into the Paris agreement where the world has agreed to get to net zero emissions in the second half of the century. That’s already there.* We’ve got to do our bit. And that’s why we’ll be focusing on technology.

I swear I have become dumber today just following this “debate”. I have actually lost brain cells."


----------



## moXJO (24 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> Comment today
> 
> 
> "It’s silly to have a target without a plan.
> ...



It's called "Ride the wave". 
Wait till other countries come up with cheap technology. Then lego patch them into a half ass solution or let business deal with it.


----------



## basilio (24 February 2020)

Always wondered where and why so many climate deniers get their talking points. And also why there are so many denialists poxing up the net.
*Turns out around a quarter of the Twitter denial comments are produced by Bots.*
Now isn't that intriguing? 
Check out the story.
*Study finds quarter of climate change tweets from bots*

A study by researchers at Brown University has found a quarter of posts about climate change on Twitter were written by bots.

Bots are computer programs that can masquerade as humans to post or send messages on social media.

Researchers discovered tweets posted by bots created the impression there was a high level of climate change denial.

The paper detailing the finds has not yet been published and was first reported by The Guardian newspaper.

The research team analysed 6.5 million tweets from the period surrounding President Donald Trump's June 2017 announcement that he was removing the United States from the Paris climate accord.

The finding showed 25% of tweets on climate change were likely posted by bots. Most of those tweets centred on denials of global warming or rejections of climate science.

"These findings suggest a substantial impact of mechanized bots in amplifying denials messages about climate change," the authors of the reporter wrote, according to The Guardian. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51595285


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> "It’s silly to have a target without a plan.
> "



That is exactly what Albo has just done, it is good to see nothing has changed.


----------



## basilio (24 February 2020)

And now for a real government ad to explain what has happened this summer.


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Always wondered where and why so many climate deniers get their talking points. And also why there are so many denialists poxing up the net.
> *Turns out around a quarter of the Twitter denial comments are produced by Bots.*
> Now isn't that intriguing?
> Check out the story.
> ...



I don't know about bots but I have well over 100 individual clients, from all walks of life, so called deniers, and so called alarmists. (I have resolved to refrain from such labels from now on)

Interestingly I have in my circle of influence quite a few PhDs..

While admittedly none are actual climate scientists, there are some geologists, an important component of climate research.

Interestingly, only the economics professor is holus-bolus on board with the whole worst case climate scenario.

Also interestingly we are able to have robust discussions with out name calling and I respect him immensely for that. <Sidebar>

 The vast majority, while admitting they could never admit as much in their institutions, are either sceptics or moderates.

I guess I'm lucky in my trade in that I am not operating in an echo chamber. I get to hear all sorts of opinions on climate and politics. 90% are intelligent and capable of critical thought. The same 90% are disdainful of the largely political argument that encapsulates the climate argument.

In my world at least, many of which are capable of interpreting scientific data, there is criticism of the data end gamr especially so with regards to political imperatives. There is an overriding belief there is a political end game.

FWIW


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2020)

What interests me is the cult like fervour, with which the CC believers, require constant reinforcement of their beliefs.
I mean it isn't as though them endlessly repeating themselves, is going to change anything and the other thing that is scary is the fanatical way they attack anyone who questions their belief.
Of course they can believe anything they want, but if someone they meet is disinterested or is still not one way or the other, they are branded as a denier and persecuted.
It really isn't a healthy situation, that people can can be so self absorbed with a belief, that anyone who isn't fully committed to the belief should be attacked.
History shows, this level of fanaticism usually ends badly.


----------



## basilio (24 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> What interests me is the cult like fervour, with which the CC believers, require constant reinforcement of their beliefs.
> I mean it isn't as though them endlessly repeating themselves, is going to change anything and the other thing that is scary is the fanatical way they attack anyone who questions their belief.
> Of course they can believe anything they want, but if someone they meet is disinterested or is still not one way or the other, they are branded as a denier and persecuted.
> It really isn't a healthy situation, that people can can be so self absorbed with a belief, that anyone who isn't fully committed to the belief should be attacked.
> History shows, this level of fanaticism usually ends badly.




Belief ? How about simple scientific  evidenced reality ?  
1) Humanity is releasing millions of years of  buried  CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel use

2) CO2 (and other Greenhouse gasses) trap  the Suns energy  and the extra CO2 is  adding an enormous additional heat load to the planet

3) The  current result is the biggest  quick increase increase in global temperatures ever seen.  Scientific  research of ice core records can attest to that.

4) The continuation of this process will result in accelerating temperatures which will undermine almost all current ecosytems and destroy the conditions which have allowed our current civilizations to flourish.

This is the summation of the  work of an overwhelmingly  number of climate scientists, biologists , glaciologists and anyone else who has studied the situation.

Why would you just say this represents a mere "belief" as if another "belief" which is a bit more user friendly could be substituted ? 

Does this expertise count for nothing ? On what basis  are you suggesting should we just consider them as just "opinions "and "a belief"  that may very well be quite wrong ? 

* Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’ *
This article is more than *3 months old*
Statement sets out ‘vital signs’ as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency

Most countries’ climate plans ‘totally inadequate’ – experts
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering


----------



## explod (24 February 2020)

explod said:


> How about some references to where and when it has been clearly demonstrated that it has happened to the current/recent extent such as this before.
> 
> Have you read "The Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leakey" published about 15 years back, an eye opener.
> 
> Since then we see the waters from the north of Europe and north Asia stop flowing with millions of people and farmers driven from their lands.  Now if it had all happened suddenly before these places would not have been settled by humans in the first place.  The Pacific islands have been settled happily for over 100,000 years but now are being washed away by rising waters and unprecedented storms.



It is interesting how a bit of what's really going on is ignored.


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Belief ? How about simple scientific  evidenced reality ?
> 1) Humanity is releasing millions of years of  buried  CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel use
> 
> 2) CO2 (and other Greenhouse gasses) trap  the Suns energy  and the extra CO2 is  adding an enormous additional heat load to the planet
> ...



 If it is more than a belief you would just accept it, rather than constantly having to re post it, if it is fact well then it is, why keep re posting the same fact?
Obviously you are trying to prove it, otherwise 'evidence' wouldn't need to be re posted endlessly?
Isn't it time we just started posting events, that can be conclusively linked to climate change, rather than just another person, who says yet again it is happening?


----------



## explod (24 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> If it is more than a belief you would just accept it, rather than constantly having to re post it, if it is fact well then it is, why keep re posting the same fact?
> Obviously you are trying to prove it, otherwise 'evidence' wouldn't need to be re posted endlessly?
> Isn't it time we just started posting events, that can be conclusively linked to climate change, rather than just another person, who says yet again it is happening?



I posted evidence the other day and it was totally ignored.  We often put up actual facts as they happen.

Most of you just won't accept reality. The scientists are telling us on tested and re rinsed facts.

Of course if you are like sko m your glasses have the cross in the way.


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2020)

explod said:


> I posted evidence the other day and it was totally ignored.  We often put up actual facts as they happen.
> 
> Most of you just won't accept reality. The scientists are telling us on tested and re rinsed facts.
> 
> Of course if you are like sko m your glasses have the cross in the way.



What if we do accept the science, but question some of what is posted as evidence, as being very marginal.
Do we have to applaud every article put up, regardless of what we think of it?
Why can't it be questioned?
Why is it so important, that there has to be 100% agreement, or else the person is deemed a denier and ridiculed, then bombarded endlessly with any article that has the words climate change in it.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 February 2020)

wayneL said:


>





Sorry wayne, you have been had again , here are the real figures.

https://factcheck.afp.com/these-fig...-power-plants-select-countries-are-inaccurate


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry wayne, you have been had again , here are the real figures.
> 
> https://factcheck.afp.com/these-fig...-power-plants-select-countries-are-inaccurate



I thought they did look fancifull, but regardless, there are a lot of coal fired power stations in the World and more being added.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I thought they did look fancifull, but regardless, there are a lot of coal fired power stations in the World and more being added.




True, and they don't count in our emissions !


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry wayne, you have been had again , here are the real figures.
> 
> https://factcheck.afp.com/these-fig...-power-plants-select-countries-are-inaccurate



Cheers

Doesn't change the substantive point however.


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2020)

Interesting problems developing for Australia, regarding emissions, as gas exports go up so do emissions and labor say exports of coal will thrive under their target.
Sounds as though some form of clever accounting will be required.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ions-amid-new-coal-fight-20200223-p543jp.html
From the article:
_Both the Coalition and Labor are engaged in fierce internal debates over future emissions reductions targets, as the Morrison government wrestles with demands for it to adopt a carbon-neutral 2050 policy to take to the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow in November.

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese declared on Sunday that Australia's coal export industry could continue to thrive under the target that Labor adopted last week, with the party also riddled with internal divisions over the message its ambitious policies send blue-collar workers in coal-mining regions_.

Emissions from electricity generation fell for a third year in a row, down 2 per cent, *while during the December quarter emissions in the National Electricity Market fell to their lowest level since records began in 2001.*
*
But emissions generated by exports have increased 54 per cent on 2005 levels and are now 39.1 per cent of Australia’s total emissions.*


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> South Australia expects to be 0% carbon, by 2030, why isn't that in the Fairfax press?
> Western Australia will have shut down 50% of its coal by 2025, why isn't that in the Fairfax press?



Power generation data or the last 12 months:

Note that figures are for consumption and don't add to 100% due to export to other states / import from other states and rounding. 

Net pumping = more pumped up than came back down during the year. 

Queensland = Fossil = 94.4%. Renewables = 13.6%. Export to NSW = 8%.

NSW = Fossil = 79.1%. Renewables = 15.4%. Net imports from other states = 6.2%. Net pumping to storage = 0.6%

Vic = Fossil = 78.0%. Renewables = 21.9%. Net imports from other states = 0.1%

SA = Fossil = 50.1%. Renewables = 55.8%. Net export to Victoria = 5.8% 

Tas = Fossil = 3.4%. Renewables 95.0%. Net import from Victoria = 1.7%

I don't have data on the same basis for WA and NT but both are predominantly fossil.


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Power generation data or the last 12 months:
> 
> Note that figures are for consumption and don't add to 100% due to export to other states / import from other states and rounding.
> 
> ...



I wonder how much more will be exported from S.A when the inter connectors are completed?


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 February 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't have data on the same basis for WA and NT but both are predominantly fossil.




WA: Fossil = 92.3%. Renewable = 7.7%

NT: Fossil = 96.5%. Renewable = 3.5%

Australia total: Fossil = 81.1%. Renewable = 18.9%

These figures are for the 2017-18 financial year whereas those I previously quoted for other states are for the past 12 months to yesterday. Note that these figures are for electricity production only and do not include other forms of energy.


----------



## basilio (26 February 2020)

Malcolm Turball is weighing in again on teh need to take urgent action to deal with global warming.




 Malcolm Turnbull *✔*  @TurnbullMalcolm 

 ·   Feb 23, 2020

 Replying to @TurnbullMalcolm 
Reverse deforestation, reforest wherever possible. A decade ago the “how” was hard to see and very expensive relative to BAU. Now we can see a feasible, affordable route to net zero - the alternative is catastrophic.





 Malcolm Turnbull *✔*  @TurnbullMalcolm 

The consequences of this transition: a habitable planet, cheaper energy, more economic growth and jobs. Regions? Most of the renewable investment is in the regions. To get there above all we need a coherent integration of climate and energy policy.

.................................
_
There is no economic case for building a new coal-fired power station in Australia anymore, regardless what you think about carbon policy – and everyone in the energy sector knows that.

But if you read the News Limited newspapers and listen to debates in Canberra, it’s a parallel universe.

As to the future of the coal industry, we should all hope that thermal coal is going to go out of business, not just in Australia but around the world.

Because if it doesn’t, and we’re still burning coal to generate energy in 30 or 40 years, we’re moving into a 3C environment, which is catastrophic.”
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...limate-morrison-coalition-labor-politics-live
_

 

 1,503 
 9:37 AM - Feb 23, 2020


----------



## sptrawler (26 February 2020)

basilio said:


> Malcolm Turball is weighing in again on teh need to take urgent action to deal with global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WOW, how long ago did we say on here, buy out the farmers on marginal land and reforrest it? Did he do it when in office?
When Colin Barnett, suggested piping water from the Ord River down the coast of W.A and irrigating, did Turnbull back him?
That is the trouble, they are all full of it and just want to be heard, a very common trait with ex politicians these days.
It is a shame most didn't take up a career in acting, they all prove that the limelight is what they yearn, not a better Australia. IMO


----------



## IFocus (26 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> When Colin Barnett, suggested piping water from the Ord River down the coast of W.A and irrigating, did Turnbull back him?
> IMO




Come on SP you worked in energy cannot remember the numbers but the energy costs alone for Barneys cluster was ridiculous for each litre far cheaper to go desal.


----------



## sptrawler (26 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> Come on SP you worked in energy cannot remember the numbers but the energy costs alone for Barneys cluster was ridiculous for each litre far cheaper to go desal.



It actually was, UNLESS you used gas driven p/p's, therein lies the reason he was pushing so hard for James Price Point onshore processing.
It would have put the Kimberly's on steriods, but hey the media didn't like it, Bob Brown didn't like it and now it's history.
The clever Country, NOT.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> WOW, how long ago did we say on here, buy out the farmers on marginal land and reforrest it? Did he do it when in office?



I think the problem is that we’re in an environment where being an MP, or even Prime Minister, isn’t a particularly effective way to get something done due to the workings of politics.

Unlisted companies realistically have the most ability to “just do it” these days followed by listed companies.

If you want to run the country then in 2020 politics isn’t the path to doing so that it traditionally was. 

If you want to get a big project off the ground these days then of all people you could meet with, the PM would be well down the list and really just a “tick the box” exercise if you actually needed government on side. If you don’t need them, you’re not asking for any changes to laws or anything like that, well why would you bother? Better off meeting with councils, contractors, potential suppliers and customers, landowners and so on.


----------



## IFocus (26 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> It actually was, UNLESS you used gas driven p/p's, therein lies the reason he was pushing so hard for James Price Point onshore processing.
> It would have put the Kimberly's on steriods, but hey the media didn't like it, Bob Brown didn't like it and now it's history.
> The clever Country, NOT.




Nope the numbers never added up of course that could change with renewables but still think the material to build the pipe / canals etc would build hundreds of desal plants still run by renewables.

Wasn't a lot of it canals? Evapouration was another issue if I remember correctly.


----------



## sptrawler (26 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> Nope the numbers never added up of course that could change with renewables but still think the material to build the pipe / canals etc would build hundreds of desal plants still run by renewables.
> 
> Wasn't a lot of it canals? Evapouration was another issue if I remember correctly.



My manager (Ray Kirkpatrick, amazing guy RIP)  was involved in costing the idea and I actually drove him through the Kimberly's to visit the Ord and the other regional stations up there. So we talked at length about the proposal and he told me about the two planned desal plants, I posted it on here years ago.
The canal plan was put forward after the media backlash, as a way of reducing the cost from the original $9billion.
It was visionary, an idea that would have set up W.A's future IMO.


----------



## macca (26 February 2020)

I believe that the only reason that Malcolm was in the Liberal Party is that he did not want to move house.

True Blue Liberal seat at the time so he joined the Libs.

If he had bitten the bullet and leased his house and moved somewhere that he could win as Labor everyone would have been far happier.

Consider the turmoil with him and Abbott, if MT was Labor then it all falls into place for MT.

Bill Shorten would have been the only loser I suppose, although deputy Prime Minister is better than beaten leader of the opposition.

Either MT retires gracefully or he joins the Labor Party, I think he is belittling himself with petty politics, he really is an intelligent guy, just in the wrong Party.


----------



## Knobby22 (26 February 2020)

Turnbull was a true Liberal. Still is. 
Wouldn't suck up to Murdoch so had to go.
Hopefully they will get back on track.


----------



## macca (26 February 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Turnbull was a true Liberal. Still is.
> Wouldn't suck up to Murdoch so had to go.
> Hopefully they will get back on track.




Liberal in the international sense, he would be a Democrat in the USA but by our standards well and truly Labor.

I do believe that if he had joined the Labor Party he would have done just as well, he probably would have lasted longer as PM.


----------



## Knobby22 (26 February 2020)

No he was a British style conservative in my view. Educated,  successful in business, erudite, able to understand science.

It's a shame for Australia Rupert got rid of him.


----------



## IFocus (26 February 2020)

*Rio Tinto announces $1bn spend to reach net zero emissions by 2050*

“Any government – so I’d make a broad point – that can provide us with some smart, clever policy to create a pathway, a framework for us to accelerate our development in that space, would be more than welcome.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...1bn-spend-to-reach-net-zero-emissions-by-2050


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 February 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> It's a shame for Australia Rupert got rid of him.



It's a shame for the entire world that Rupert has any say in the matter.


----------



## wayneL (27 February 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> No he was a British style conservative in my view. Educated,  successful in business, erudite, able to understand science.
> 
> It's a shame for Australia Rupert got rid of him.



Malcolm is a social democrat. Though some in the Oz Liberals and UK Conservatives approach that ideology, vis a vis the "red tories", most more align with center right ideologies. 

Mal would be on the extreme left of the conservatives and in no way representative of the mainstream of that party.


----------



## Humid (27 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> It actually was, UNLESS you used gas driven p/p's, therein lies the reason he was pushing so hard for James Price Point onshore processing.
> It would have put the Kimberly's on steriods, but hey the media didn't like it, Bob Brown didn't like it and now it's history.
> The clever Country, NOT.




More like Woodside didn’t like it because Browse is still in the pipeline excuse the pun


----------



## Humid (27 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> My manager (Ray Kirkpatrick, amazing guy RIP)  was involved in costing the idea and I actually drove him through the Kimberly's to visit the Ord and the other regional stations up there. So we talked at length about the proposal and he told me about the two planned desal plants, I posted it on here years ago.
> The canal plan was put forward after the media backlash, as a way of reducing the cost from the original $9billion.
> It was visionary, an idea that would have set up W.A's future IMO.




https://www.smh.com.au/national/barnetts-water-pipeline-theory-mocked-20110407-1d609.html
Gravity lol
I don’t think engineering was one of Cols strong points


----------



## Humid (27 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> Nope the numbers never added up of course that could change with renewables but still think the material to build the pipe / canals etc would build hundreds of desal plants still run by renewables.
> 
> Wasn't a lot of it canals? Evapouration was another issue if I remember correctly.




I think it just got a run around every time old mate Col was heading to an election 

Most importantly, the Barnett government is tapping into long-held anxieties not unique to Western Australians, that there simply is just not enough water. Somehow, then, more should be conjured. “Give the people water and their votes will follow,” wrote Clive Hamilton of the policies of the Howard government. With the 2013 state election due in one of Perth’s hottest months, a thirsty city might well favour the party that turns on the tap.


----------



## sptrawler (27 February 2020)

Humid said:


> I think it just got a run around every time old mate Col was heading to an election
> 
> Most importantly, the Barnett government is tapping into long-held anxieties not unique to Western Australians, that there simply is just not enough water. Somehow, then, more should be conjured. “Give the people water and their votes will follow,” wrote Clive Hamilton of the policies of the Howard government. With the 2013 state election due in one of Perth’s hottest months, a thirsty city might well favour the party that turns on the tap.



Funny how you guys can't get behind something, that was only going to cost $9billion and would have introduced new sustainable agriculture all the way down the West coast,
Yet you cheer on spending $50 billion, to put in a replacement telephone network, so that the telecommunication industry can charge us more, for something we already had.
Is there any wonder we are in a mess, I guess CY O'Conner had the same problem in his day.


----------



## Humid (27 February 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Funny how you guys can't get behind something, that was only going to cost $9billion and would have introduced new sustainable agriculture all the way down the West coast,
> Yet you cheer on spending $50 billion, to put in a replacement telephone network, so that the telecommunication industry can charge us more, for something we already had.
> Is there any wonder we are in a mess, I guess CY O'Conner had the same problem in his day.



Are you talking pipeline or canal?
A canal would of been an environmental disaster


----------



## sptrawler (27 February 2020)

Humid said:


> Are you talking pipeline or canal?
> A canal would of been an environmental disaster



The original plan was for a pipeline, pumping stations and holding dams on the way down, similar to the Kal pipe idea.
As IFocus said it was expensive water a lot dearer than desalination( from memory 6 times), the only way that it was going to be feasible was to use NG pumps, that meant getting gas up to the Ord which wasn't practical.
So the idea was shelved, but then those that liked the idea came up with plan B which was a canal, as far as I can remember this was never taken seriously.
Way to much evaporation, biological contamination and maintenance problems.
The whole idea was chucked out, as it got very little public support and resulted in a lot of ridicule.
Then the LNG find off the coast of the Kimberly came, which my guess is solved the problem of pumping, all that was required was getting the processing onshore.
The benefits were three fold, a gas and petrochemical plant could be built at Broome which gave jobs and had great access to Asia for export, it would have caused investment and employment in Broome which has massive social problems and it would have made it feasible to start moving water down to areas like Camballin.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-05-30/pastoral-industry-remembers-jack-fletcher/9812634
The Kimberly soil is extremely fertile and only requires permanent water, to have massive yeilds.
Anyway the rest is history, we don't have an extended grain growing area, we don't have a petrochemical industry, Broome still has no jobs and social upheaval and the gas is being taken 200klm offshore with no real benefit to Australia at all.
But Woodside etc are killing the pig, so all is good, Barnett is a dick and everyone rejoices.


----------



## orr (2 March 2020)

This could apply to a number of threads...
The Likelihood of  Virus induced recession, possibly global is ... well; looking like a headlight in the tunnel.
The New Deal, Roosevelt's, dug the US out of the depression.
The irony if 'The Green New Deal' was to do the same for the world this time around.
The joy of watching the conniptions of the knuckle draggers of the AGW un-aware/concerned back waters.
And the joy of the overall result.
Just like the New Deal everyone richer. even the plonkers.


----------



## sptrawler (3 March 2020)

At last an article that I think sums it up well.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-03/global-warming-mass-extinction-psychological-impact/11923370

One particular pertinent point IMO:
_ 
Climate change deniers will typically denounce any discussion of mass extinction as histrionic doomsday talk, while some climate change believers argue that discussing mass extinction now is precipitous and dampens the optimism that we can turn global warming around with a positive "can-do" spirit.

Who would have thought that both camps have a psychological mindset in common?

A naive optimism that human beings are just so clever that it will all turn out OK_.

As I have repeatedly said, the World will continue on, when humans are gone.
If global warming is caused by humans, and we keep multiplying the problem is multiplying.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2020)

orr said:


> The Likelihood of Virus induced recession, possibly global is ... well; looking like a headlight in the tunnel.
> The New Deal, Roosevelt's, dug the US out of the depression.
> The irony if 'The Green New Deal' was to do the same for the world this time around.



What I do find amusing is the media.

Those publications which panic most about climate change are downplaying the virus. Virus shows one of the problems with globalisation you see.

Those who downplay climate change are ramping the virus to the max. Doing so highlights problems with globalisation you see.

Australian media rarely engages in outright biased reporting but bias is a routine occurrence in terms of what stories are run and where they are placed. All of them do it - for anyone who disagrees I suggest attending a few press conferences will change your view.

Fear not, depending whether you like your news to Fair’ or Limited, we’re about to see the drought reduced slightly or we’re about to see Sydney “smashed” once again by a bit of rain. Even Melbourne’s going to cop this smashing it seems with some showers forecast.

Personally I prefer to stick to facts but I guess that doesn’t sell papers or generate clicks in sufficient volume. 

If we stuck to the facts and took a scientific approach then as a society we could fix this most certainly.


----------



## macca (3 March 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> What I do find amusing is the media.
> 
> Those publications which panic most about climate change are downplaying the virus. Virus shows one of the problems with globalisation you see.
> 
> ...




Over the last 7-8 years I have been saying to my adult kids and almost adult grandchildren that we are living in "the age of superlatives" every thing is a disaster, a world first, worst in two years, record hot weather (in the past 3 years), smashed etc etc 

Now that we really do have something that could require a seriously attention catching word we are so inured to them they are ignored.

The continual need for an eye catching headline has driven editors to extremism.

My daughter said that on social media, if a reader stays on that item for 60secs then it is a smash hit


----------



## sptrawler (3 March 2020)

macca said:


> Over the last 7-8 years I have been saying to my adult kids and almost adult grandchildren that we are living in "the age of superlatives" every thing is a disaster, a world first, worst in two years, record hot weather (in the past 3 years), smashed etc etc
> 
> Now that we really do have something that could require a seriously attention catching word we are so inured to them they are ignored.
> 
> ...



So true macca, I was talking to a mate who is getting close to retirement, but is nervous because of the market.
He was saying it seems as though a once in a lifetime event, happens every five years and in between those we are doomed with global warming.
The downside of 24/7 news coverage is, the public is inundated in it, so is the rest of the World, Australian tourism bookings down 30% since December.
Well would you pay to come here? according to the media, what isn't burnt to a crisp, is now flooded and there will be every chance you will be ordered to stay inside with no food or toilet paper because the shops have been stripped bare.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/hol...3-p546g1.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true
From the article:
Phillipa Harrison, managing director of Tourism Australia, told the 2020 Visitor Economy Forum on Tuesday the Australian industry had been booming before 2020 and was on track to double visitor numbers in 10 years.

But the bushfires had brought an equivalent of $6.5 billion in negative global media coverage and research showed that had deterred international travellers.


----------



## macca (3 March 2020)

Well now, 1.9 billion acres In Oz, 27 million burned, better not go there, we only have 1.8billion acres to look at.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2020)

The way the media seems to be approaching all this, it's akin to someone who when asked if they think an item of clothing is good won't answer without first checking the label. If they like the brand then it's good, if not then it's bad. If no label then they won't be able to answer the question.

There are people who really are like that and in the context of fast fashion it's no big deal but it's serious when someone's position on a scientific matter such as climate change or viruses forms their opinion based on how it fits within some predetermined view and not on the basis of any factual information.

This approach means that, in practice, a form of religion has replaced science when it comes to how society's approaching such matters. In a world built upon science and technology that's not a positive sign at all.


----------



## basilio (4 March 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Those publications which panic most about climate change are downplaying the virus. Virus shows one of the problems with globalisation you see.




That surprises me. True I mostly (but not solely) read The Guardian.
No way they are are downplaying the effects of the corona virus.  They have a running blog on the virus which brings together all the unfolding events and then substories that expand.
 Too much news perhaps...
https://www.theguardian.com/au?INTCMP=CE_AU


----------



## Knobby22 (4 March 2020)

Yes, it's actually the opposite. The media downplaying climate change are also downplaying the virus.


----------



## sptrawler (4 March 2020)

What I'm finding is, the whole incident is showing that the media just circulate and regurgitate the same information, there isn't any of them trying to join the dots IMO.
But we have been indoctrinated, into the believe all of what you read system, where the free thought function has been switched off in the human reader.
Now all we have to get to is the normal"it's the Governments fault".


----------



## sptrawler (4 March 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> This approach means that, in practice, a form of religion has replaced science when it comes to how society's approaching such matters. In a world built upon science and technology that's not a positive sign at all.



The problem IMO, with the way sections of the media report, is they project everything in a 'glass half empty' manner.
This in turn plays to a certain type of audience, those who are insecure, nervous, and constantly require reassurance, instead the media keeps feeding their insecurities.
This in turn brings out a sense of panic in these people, which they love to feed, then the  paranoia sets in.
The media have probably found this works, to keep a core circulation happening, in an otherwise falling number of readers.
Just my opinion, but all the articles have the same theme, unbelievable sense of woe and someone else to blame for everything.
Just my thoughts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 March 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, it's actually the opposite. The media downplaying climate change are also downplaying the virus.



I wouldn’t accuse either of factually incorrect reporting but go back to when the travel bans came in and to the extent anyone was challenging it, well certainly the articles I came across weren't from the likes of those who deny climate change. There were at least some who seemed to be seeing it as a trade, borders, race etc ideological issue rather than a health issue.

To the climate though well to the extent there's any bias it's really by means of what they choose to run.

Most would have heard some version of "coal power fails in the heat" since that's had a fair airing via the media.

The facts on that one though are much like saying "drivers of blue cars get cancer". Factually true but very misleading in that blue paint on a car does not _cause_ cancer just as hot weather does not _cause_ a boiler producing steam at 600 degrees to blow a tube. The person would still have got cancer if they'd bought a yellow car and the boiler tube would still have failed if it was snowing outside.

By failing to explain that, the media has created an impression in the minds of a substantial portion of the general public that hot weather causes coal plant to break down. No it does not, that's simply not true. Hot weather cuts the output of gas turbines and solar panels yes and it cuts the rating of transmission lines but it does not cause a boiler to fail.

Now my point isn't really about boilers or coal or viruses but about tribalism. We seem to have come to a point where pretty much any issue is viewed by the media and indeed the general public not based on the facts of that issue but according to where it fits within a broader ideological world view.

For those on one side, anything about coal must always be bad, anything about locking down borders etc is always bad, big business is bad mostly, etc.

For those on the other side, anything about coal is always good, anything about foreigners is at least somewhat suspicious unless they're white skinned and speak English, big business is here to save us and so on.

OK that's a bit of an exaggeration but it's not too far from the truth. Good luck finding any factual comment saying something good about coal in the Age for example. They don't lie, they just choose to not run the story.

In a previous job I've been present (off screen) at various press conferences and so on where there's the Minister speaking etc. It always amazed me how the 3 TV stations which run local news would manage to present a different story given they've all got the same film and were at the same conference. At the extreme, I've seen one commercial station give it the actual headline story and the other didn't even mention it at all. The ABC gave it a run but not as the headline (and that was perhaps the most appropriate - the story was arguably newsworthy, government spending $ millions, but not as the headline unless it was a really slow news day). 

My thinking is very much that we'd be far better off as a society without this tribal approach.

Consider the good and bad points of Labor policy. Same with Liberal, Green, National, One Nation and so on. They've all got at least something of value and they all sprout some nonsense too.

Consider the good and bad aspects of coal, wind, gas, hydro, solar and so on. There are definite problems with all of them but they all have some good aspects, they can all do at least part of the job.

Tribalism just leads to perpetual conflict, it doesn't actually provide a way forward with any of this whereas a proper consideration of all the issues in a scientific manner and formulating a plan based around that most certainly can take us forward.


----------



## wayneL (4 March 2020)

I think it's instructive that the media, weather on climate change or coronavirus, just shouldn't be listened to at all. 

It doesn't matter which side, there is always a bulshit narrative. I've even seen proponents of the ketogenic diet propose that the state of ketosis provide some sort of insulation from the worst of the symptoms.... But who the hell knows?

Which begs the question, who should we be the listening to? 
That is a really important question which I do not have the answer to.

Maybe nobody does.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 March 2020)

wayneL said:


> I think it's instructive that the media, weather on climate change or coronavirus, just shouldn't be listened to at all.
> 
> It doesn't matter which side, there is always a bulshit narrative. I've even seen proponents of the ketogenic diet propose that the state of ketosis provide some sort of insulation from the worst of the symptoms.... But who the hell knows?
> 
> ...




I always though AAP provided good factual reporting. Perhaps that is why they are closing down.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...ose-on-june-26-jobs-lost-20200303-p546dh.html


----------



## sptrawler (4 March 2020)

We are very fortunate in really only having two styles of media, so if one takes the middle ground between the two reporting styles, one finds something resembling the facts. IMO


----------



## sptrawler (4 March 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> I always though AAP provided good factual reporting. Perhaps that is why they are closing down.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...ose-on-june-26-jobs-lost-20200303-p546dh.html




I find that hard to believe Knobby, News Corp is one of the major owners.


----------



## sptrawler (4 March 2020)

sptrawler said:


> The problem IMO, with the way sections of the media report, is they project everything in a 'glass half empty' manner.
> .



Thought I would google Australia is already in recession smh and see what came up.
Well it has been predicted to happen for a long time.


----------



## basilio (4 March 2020)

wayneL said:


> Which begs the question, who should we be the listening to?
> That is a really important question which I do not have the answer to.




On the causes and consequences of climate change ? How about climate change scientists.
On the  possible causes, consequences, preparation for  and treatment of infectious diseases ? How about medical and biological scientists .

Could do a lot worse than respecting the knowledge of experts in both these fields.


----------



## IFocus (5 March 2020)




----------



## Smurf1976 (5 March 2020)

Humans tend to respond to an immediate threat far more than they do to one that's seen as being more distant.

Even investing ultimately revolves around that. People place a higher value on now than tomorrow, and if they're going to delay consumption in order to invest then they expect a reward for doing so. Much the same concept really - anything into the future is discounted and no matter how bad it is, it tends to be seen as unimportant until it's imminent.


----------



## sptrawler (6 March 2020)

Well the kids are taking climate change seriously, they are taking days off school to protest about it, the shame is they aren't taking the science seriously.

https://www.smh.com.au/education/au...r-these-year-6-questions-20200226-p544mi.html
From the article:
Half of all Australian year 10 students do not meet the NAPLAN benchmark for scientific literacy.

Results in Victoria and NSW are even less encouraging, where fewer than half of year 10 students tested meet the proficiency standard for science.


----------



## sptrawler (6 March 2020)

The other reason climate change isn't a clear and present danger is, most people know there is very little point in worrying about it because it is beyond their control.
With regard corona virus, they feel they have some control over whether they catch it or not, therefore they believe they may be able to change the outcome.
Constantly telling everyone everyday climate change is going to end the World, just further reinforces their feeling of helplessness and they just switch off or become increasingly depressed about it.
That is unless the person is of the type, that is ever the pessimist and loves to dwell on tragedy.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2020)

IFocus said:


>




Yeah!

What you do speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9628260/eco-warriors-private-jets-google-camp/amp/


----------



## basilio (6 March 2020)

wayneL said:


> Yeah!
> 
> What you do speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9628260/eco-warriors-private-jets-google-camp/amp/



That's interesting. IFocus quotes a simple graph produced by climate scientists to illustrate global warming.
Wayne parroted response is another beat up by  a  nasty, vacuous UK rag showing how the rich and famous swan around. 

Yep nothing changes does it Wayne ?  You'll still be trotting out this denial xhit until your last breath.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2020)

basilio said:


> That's interesting. IFocus quotes a simple graph produced by climate scientists to illustrate global warming.
> Wayne parroted response is another beat up by  a  nasty, vacuous UK rag showing how the rich and famous swan around.
> 
> Yep nothing changes does it Wayne ?  You'll still be trotting out this denial xhit until your last breath.



What am I denying bas?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2020)

wayneL said:


> What am I denying bas?




What's your view on the graph posted by IFocus at #3482 ?


----------



## IFocus (6 March 2020)

basilio said:


> That's interesting. IFocus quotes a simple graph produced by climate scientists to illustrate global warming.
> Wayne parroted response is another beat up by  a  nasty, vacuous UK rag showing how the rich and famous swan around.
> 
> Yep nothing changes does it Wayne ?  You'll still be trotting out this denial xhit until your last breath.





Look over there rich people acting badly


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> What's your view on the graph posted by IFocus at #3482 ?



There has been heaps of analysis on those graphs by those with varying views and agendas.

Those with a knowledge of data,stats  and scaling will see it for what it is.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2020)

wayneL said:


> There has been heaps of analysis on those graphs by those with varying views and agendas.
> 
> Those with a knowledge of data,stats  and scaling will see it for what it is.




So what is your view and what is it based on ?


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is your view and what is it based on ?



I like the colours, very pretty.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2020)

wayneL said:


> I like the colours, very pretty.




Well that says it all.

Sorry wayne you have no cred on this subject at all.

On ignore on this thread from now on I'm afraid.


----------



## explod (8 March 2020)

www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/08/im-profoundly-sad-i-feel-guilty-scientists-reveal-personal-fears-about-the-climate-crisis


----------



## IFocus (8 March 2020)

That's heavy Explod


----------



## basilio (8 March 2020)

explod said:


> www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/08/im-profoundly-sad-i-feel-guilty-scientists-reveal-personal-fears-about-the-climate-crisis




Sobering isn't it ? 

The people who know this stuff inside and out. Researched it until the only unknowns are "how long ?" and "how bad ?" And in the end they have to throw their hands up and say "I've done my best" "let's enjoy what we have now" 

I wonder what are the thoughts of those who have spent their life successfully derailing action on CC ?  There is no doubt they have succeeded. I suppose they should be pleased that all those efforts to move to a clean renewable energy economy and restoring our trashed soils will not prevail any time soon. 

It's business as usual. With everything that means.


----------



## explod (8 March 2020)

IFocus said:


> That's heavy Explod



Damned sad indeed but as you've probably gathered I've given up hope now too. It's why I don't post much anymore on it. Some of the cc deniers' here have obviously lost the ability or have never learnt to know by their own observations.

Just open another can and party.


----------



## explod (9 March 2020)

And this, the trees are now just dying from the heat. Now this has not happened before.

/theconversation.com/entire-hillsides-of-trees-turned-brown-this-summer-is-it-the-start-of-ecosystem-collapse-126107?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%209%202020%20-%201555814868&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%209%202020%20-%201555814868+CID_509d6e3ca33216c0d1f76ea99f6c8289&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Entire%20hillsides%20of%20trees%20turned%20brown%20this%20summer%20Is%20it%20the%20start%20of%20ecosystem%20collapse


----------



## macca (9 March 2020)

explod said:


> And this, the trees are now just dying from the heat. Now this has not happened before.
> 
> /theconversation.com/entire-hillsides-of-trees-turned-brown-this-summer-is-it-the-start-of-ecosystem-collapse-126107?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%209%202020%20-%201555814868&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%209%202020%20-%201555814868+CID_509d6e3ca33216c0d1f76ea99f6c8289&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Entire%20hillsides%20of%20trees%20turned%20brown%20this%20summer%20Is%20it%20the%20start%20of%20ecosystem%20collapse




the link is not working for me, try again please


----------



## IFocus (9 March 2020)

Try this Macca

http://theconversation.com/entire-h...is-it-the-start-of-ecosystem-collapse-126107?


----------



## basilio (10 March 2020)

Further feedback effects of Global Heating.

* Indian Ocean system that drives extreme weather in Australia likely to worsen with global heating *
Researchers believe the Indian Ocean Dipole is more clearly influenced by climate change than previously thought

Indian Ocean surface temperatures that helped drive hot and dry conditions in eastern Australia last year were more clearly influenced by climate change than previously thought and are likely to worsen in future, researchers have found.

Scientists studying a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole say their observations suggest Australia could experience future conditions even more extreme than those that elevated the bushfire risk during the 2019-20 fire season.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ustralia-likely-to-worsen-with-global-heating


----------



## sptrawler (10 March 2020)

With a bit of luck the corona virus will take us, before we have to witness the apocalypse.


----------



## basilio (10 March 2020)

sptrawler said:


> With a bit of luck the corona virus will take us, before we have to witness the apocalypse.




You could always try for the double feature.  A really good Corona Virus  hitout with Global Heating as the main event.. 
We can have our cake and eat it !!


----------



## basilio (10 March 2020)

But while we are talking about the corona Virus and global heating consider this

*Coronavirus and climate change are obvious risks we ignore*

Forget black swans. We’re getting run over by two gray rhinos: coronavirus and climate change.
*The intrigue:* A gray rhino is a metaphor coined by risk expert Michele Wucker to describe “highly obvious, highly probable, but still neglected” dangers, as opposed to unforeseeable or highly improbable risks — the kind in the black swan metaphor.
*The big picture:* The novel coronavirus spreading infections and fear around the world is prompting black swan references from the media and investors alike, as is climate change’s impact on financial markets.

But for epidemics like the coronavirus and the slower burn problem of global warming, there have been plenty of warnings for those who were paying attention.
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-climate-change-risks-bc81ec96-ca03-4af7-867f-2aac2648b2d5.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 March 2020)

basilio said:


> But while we are talking about the corona Virus and global heating consider this



A huge difference is the approach to the two problems.

Climate change has become politics first and foremost, everything else second.

The virus response has been a practical one first and foremost, politics being at most a minor sideline confined to specific countries.

Now once the virus is sorted then I expect the politics will be on in earnest albeit mostly out of public view, China's going to be under huge pressure from basically everyone to sort their food markets out real quick and prove they've done so, but in the meantime the focus is on fixing the problem.

If that approach were taken to climate change, focus on fixing it and forget the politics, then we'd have fixed it long ago.


----------



## macca (11 March 2020)

IFocus said:


> Try this Macca
> 
> http://theconversation.com/entire-h...is-it-the-start-of-ecosystem-collapse-126107?




thanks for the link, an interesting read.

I recall about 20 years ago all the mountain ash died off in a number of places around the Snowy but they all came back eventually.

Hopefully the rain will help them all recover


----------



## macca (11 March 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> A huge difference is the approach to the two problems.
> 
> Climate change has become politics first and foremost, everything else second.
> 
> ...




The big difference is that the Virus is here and now, something tangible can be done locally even though the two problems are sourced from the same location.

CC in China has the official OK from the UN until 2030, nothing to see here folks, move along.

I can't help but feel that the blind eye being turned to the polluters by the UN is a lot of the reason that people are fed up with the hysteria in the lesser polluting countries


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 March 2020)

macca said:


> CC in China has the official OK from the UN until 2030, nothing to see here folks, move along.
> 
> I can't help but feel that the blind eye being turned to the polluters by the UN is a lot of the reason that people are fed up with the hysteria in the lesser polluting countries




Globalisation.

So long as we don't have tariffs and import quotas etc then if China's getting a free ride then Australian industry necessarily requires the exact same free ride in order to compete on price.

So long as the climate issue is seen to be giving advantage to one country over another then it won't be resolved. That is especially so if the country gaining advantage just happens to be one which already dominates manufacturing.


----------



## basilio (2 April 2020)

New land boom in Antarctica coming .!!
Yep if we continue with Business as Usual we can anticipate a verdant Antarctica.

* Antarctica was warm enough for rainforest near south pole 90m years ago *
Experts say new evidence from Cretaceous period ‘shows us what carbon dioxide can do’
Nicola Davis
 @NicolaKSDavis 
Thu 2 Apr 2020 02.06 AEDT   Last modified on Thu 2 Apr 2020 04.54 AEDT
Shares
148



An artist’s impression of Antarctica as a swampy rainforest between 92m and 83m years ago. Photograph: James McKay/under Creative Commons licence CC-BY 4.0

Think of Antarctica and it is probably sweeping expanses of ice, and the odd penguin, that come to mind. But at the time of the dinosaurs the continent was covered in swampy rainforest.

Now experts say they have found the most southerly evidence yet of this environment in plant material extracted from beneath the seafloor in west Antarctica.

The Cretaceous, 145m to 66m years ago, was a warm period during which Earth had a greenhouse climate and vegetation grew in Antarctica.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/antarctic


----------



## basilio (2 April 2020)

Life in the Cretaceous Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150528083818.htm


----------



## sptrawler (15 April 2020)

Jeez I never thought I would be the one to resurrect this thread, but I thought the doom and gloom posters might get a lift from the Governments latest announcement, just quietly getting on with business.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...-drive-hydrogen-industry-20200414-p54jqu.html
From the article:
_Companies developing commercial-scale hydrogen energy projects can get access to $70 million worth of public money, but they must use renewable energy to power the "green hydrogen" trials.

Federal Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor has selected hydrogen as a priority in the Morrison government's "technology investment road map" to lower Australia’s carbon emissions and meet its commitment to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.
Mr Taylor said the $70 million fund would assess proposals against their potential to reach a long-term goal of producing hydrogen at $2 a kilogram, which is the “point where hydrogen becomes competitive with alternatives” in the energy grid.

“Getting costs down will be key to establishing Australia as a world leader in the hydrogen sector through both domestic uses, such as blending hydrogen into local gas networks and heavy-vehicle transport use, to exporting Australian-made hydrogen to our key trading partners, like Japan and Korea,” he said_.


----------



## basilio (15 April 2020)

It's a good story SP. In fact it highlights a significant element of the  economic direction we need to take post COVID 19. Moving very quickly and very strategically to a zero emissions renewable energy based economy.

And also setting up the infrastracture to enable us to export bulk hydrogen  produced from  renewable energy.

Ross Garnaut has developed this scenario in a series of lectures now published as  book.

* Ross Garnaut: three policies will set Australia on a path to 100% renewable energy *
This article is more than *5 months old*
The economist’s new book, Superpower, sets out how the government can embrace low-carbon opportunities in this term
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...t-australia-on-a-path-to-100-renewable-energy


----------



## sptrawler (15 April 2020)

basilio said:


> It's a good story SP. In fact it highlights a significant element of the  economic direction we need to take post COVID 19. Moving very quickly and very strategically to a zero emissions renewable energy based economy.
> 
> And also setting up the infrastracture to enable us to export bulk hydrogen  produced from  renewable energy.
> 
> ...




I did say the Morrison Government is moving along very rapidly considering the huge transition required, I think people will get a shock how rapidly Australia transitions from coal, it is a bit like the corona virus everyone said Morrison was a goose now they think hey maybe he was right.
People are way too quick to criticise in Australia, the transition from a mainly coal dependent generation system, to a gas and renewables system is a huge shift and as is being shown it will require a lot of technical input.
It isn't as easy as just throwing $&^t in and hopeing it works, lets wait untill 2030 and see how it is going IMO, by then the technical hurdles will be overcome and a lot more coal will be gone. Which will expose the critical path required to build a secure and reliable network, at the moment coal is the generator of last resort, when gas takes over that mantle coal will disappear very quickly IMO.
Talking about gas, the greenies are starting to arc up about that now, they are going to slow the whole process down unless they back off a bit IMO, all they are doing is giving the coal lobby ammunition.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...estimate-think-tank-says-20200414-p54ju5.html
From the article:
"_Gas is not a transitional fuel in the fight against climate change, it is part of the problem_."


----------



## orr (26 April 2020)

Mike Moores 'Planet of the Humans'...
At some point I'll get to the last third... And hopfully that'll get me somewhere past 2010...
Someone else do it for me please....


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Talking about gas, the greenies are starting to arc up about that now, they are going to slow the whole process down unless they back off a bit IMO, all they are doing is giving the coal lobby ammunition.




There's a very basic failing of logic in the argument of this so-called "think tank" since the question is not about burning gas, that was decided years ago, but about how to supply the gas which is going to be burned. It'll be burned regardless of where it comes from hence the reason that aspect was not considered in the assessments.

Now I do agree that burning so much gas is problematic, I won't argue there, but that debate was lost 30 years ago and is still lost today so long as one side of politics is in love with the stuff and the other side isn't exactly opposed to it either. That being so, we've locked in gas consumption, well then it needs to be supplied and the question is about the means of doing so not whether to do it. Nobody's going to accept just shutting off supply in a place where the law effectively bans the alternatives.  

I don't hate the Victorian government by the way but I contend that they're somewhat closer to the gas industry than anyone in politics is to coal and that's saying something. I mean sure, there's a fair bit of support for coal from some that's true and it's highly publicised but if you look at Victoria and gas well that really is next level stuff.


----------



## sptrawler (26 April 2020)

As we said at the beginning of this thread, using gas to make electricity, may well be the worst move ever.
Unless we come up with a sustainable replacement for gas, before we use it all, we may well be taking one step forward that may end up as three steps backwards.


----------



## explod (17 May 2020)

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...oods-and-rock-slides-devastate-western-uganda

The devastation from the polar caps temperate displacement continues to accelerate and washing peoples away.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2020)

Interesting article on the Governments stance.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...emissions-by-2050/ar-BB14hnwB?ocid=spartandhp
From the article:
_Major business groups, including the Business Council of Australia and the Ai Group, say Australia should adopt the net zero by 2050 target. Earlier this month the Ai Group called for the two biggest economic challenges in memory – recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and cutting greenhouse gas emissions – to be addressed together, saying it would boost growth and put the country on a firm long-term footing.

Every Australian state has signed up to net zero emissions by 2050, and these commitments are expressed either as targets or aspirational goals.

But asked on Tuesday whether net zero by 2050 was the federal government’s policy, Taylor said: “No.”

“*Our approach is not to have a target without a plan,*” Taylor told the ABC. He said technology improvements would drive significant reductions in emissions “and *we’d love to be able to achieve net zero by 2050, but ultimately that will depend on the pathways of technology to deliver that without damaging the economy*_”.


----------



## basilio (20 May 2020)

On the one hand major business groups, the  CC scientists , the economists and the environment groups see the opportunity and urgent need for a renewable energy based recovery.

And then we see what the government intends to prioritise we see this. $2b+ handout to big polluters with completely xxcked carbon capture projects that will never ever be viable. 

* Coalition reveals new emissions reduction measures, including paying polluters to stay under cap *
Morrison government also plans to allow businesses to bid for carbon capture projects via the $2.55bn emissions reduction fund
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-including-paying-polluters-to-stay-under-cap


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2020)

basilio said:


> On the one hand major business groups, the  CC scientists , the economists and the environment groups see the opportunity and urgent need for a renewable energy based recovery.



Well it has been proven they are cheaper than fossil fuels, so they might as well get on with it and put them in, why should the taxpayer fund it?
As has been proven by Rio, BHP and Fortescue, all it requires is the 'major business groups' to get on with it, rather than waiting for more taxpayer subsidies.
Some major property trusts are starting to install solar/batteries on their shopping centers. 
There is nothing to stop 'major business groups' from installing renewables at their 'major business' to mitigate their usage.


----------



## basilio (20 May 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Well it has been proven they are cheaper than fossil fuels, so they might as well get on with it and put them in, why should the taxpayer fund it?




Indeed. 

*So in which xxxxing universe should  $2.25 B of  tax payers funds be showered on  terminal fossil fuel  industries to develop projects that will never be economically viable to capture carbon emissions  ? *

The deniers still rule. xxxx every last god dammed one of them.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2020)

basilio said:


> Indeed.
> 
> *So in which xxxxing universe should  $2.25 B of  tax payers funds be showered on  terminal fossil fuel  industries to develop projects that will never be economically viable to capture carbon emissions  ? *
> 
> The deniers still rule.



Maybe you could supply a link to the non viable expenditure.


----------



## basilio (20 May 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you could supply a link to the non viable expenditure.




The bottom line is that adding significant extra costs to capturing CO2 from fossil fuel makes an already noncompetitive fuel even more economically disastrous. 

The economic value lies in rapid movement to an more economically and environmentally viable technology - renewable energy. 

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...olluters-have-been-free-to-increase-emissions
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-carbon-capture-hasnt-saved-us-from-climate-change-yet/
https://theconversation.com/its-tim...-failed-heres-what-we-should-do-instead-82929
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1062693641


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2020)

Now I know from what you have said, you admire the Government for its handling of the corona virus and following the guidance of the professionals rather than listening to white noise from the press.
So you no doubt agree with the Government continuing in this vein and following the scientists direction.
https://www.sustainabilitymatters.n...lls-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-1212453137
Carbon capture and storage is absolutely critical, according to Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel.

The comments were made at an address to the National Press Club, and have been welcomed by CO2CRC.

During his address, Finkel called for a technology-driven, orderly transition to clean energy and the need for carbon capture and storage (CCS), alongside renewables, to decarbonise Australia’s energy and industrial sectors.

CO2CRC CEO David Byers said that Finkel’s comments are an important acknowledgement of the role for CCS in meeting the dual challenge of supplying more energy but with fewer emissions.

“CCS is a proven technology with a critical role to play in delivering reliable, secure low-emissions energy and supporting the development of Australia’s burgeoning hydrogen industry,” he said.

“As Dr Finkel noted: ‘By producing hydrogen from natural gas or coal, using carbon capture and permanent storage ... we have four primary energy sources to meet the needs of the future — solar, wind, hydrogen from natural gas and hydrogen from coal.’


----------



## basilio (20 May 2020)

This analysis also underlines the difference in directions the government could take.
The second story highlights just how bad the policies of the Coalition have been in reducing GG emissions.
 
* Is the Coalition's gas nirvana just an attempt to have its fossil fuel cake and eat it too? *
Katharine Murphy

Ten years ago politicians used to talk up the virtues of gas as a transitional fuel. But that was 10 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...t-to-have-its-fossil-fuel-cake-and-eat-it-too

* 'For your children': former top Australian public servants call for carbon price *
Ex-Treasury head Ken Henry tells Four Corners he looks back on a decade of failed climate policy and feels ‘gutted’
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tralian-public-servants-call-for-carbon-price


----------



## basilio (20 May 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Now I know from what you have said, you admire the Government for its handling of the corona virus and following the guidance of the professionals rather than listening to white noise from the press.
> So you no doubt agree with the Government continuing in this vein and following the scientists direction.
> https://www.sustainabilitymatters.n...lls-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-1212453137
> Carbon capture and storage is absolutely critical, according to Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel.
> ...




The article deals with carbon capture from brown hydrogen.  Frankly I think this is a sop to the fossil fuel industry to  give them a piece  of the action.  
https://reneweconomy.com.au/finkels...n-light-but-could-be-lifeline-for-coal-69939/


----------



## Dona Ferentes (20 May 2020)

But the folk talking about CC probably didn't lose their jobs


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2020)

basilio said:


> The article deals with carbon capture from brown hydrogen.  Frankly I think this is a sop to the fossil fuel industry to  give them a piece  of the action.
> https://reneweconomy.com.au/finkels...n-light-but-could-be-lifeline-for-coal-69939/



So the Govern.ent should believe ghe scientist, untill you disagree.


----------



## rederob (20 May 2020)

sptrawler said:


> So the Govern.ent should believe ghe scientist, untill you disagree.



Finkel's comments were wholly in relation to a hydrogen economy where that gas was the product of fossil fuels. 
His comments also reflect his definition for "clean hydrogen."
So yes, if you want zero net CO2 emissions from producing hydrogen from fossil fuels it *IS *essential to use carbon capture technologies.
The thing is, Finkel also notes that carbon capture is *not *necessary for producing hydrogen from electrolysis.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2020)

basilio said:


> This analysis also underlines the difference in directions the government could take.
> The second story highlights just how bad the policies of the Coalition have been in reducing GG emissions.
> 
> * Is the Coalition's gas nirvana just an attempt to have its fossil fuel cake and eat it too? *
> ...




At the begining of the corona virus outbreak, everyone and his dog had an opinion and posted up stuff like you have to support the reasoning that the Government was going down the wrong track, the Government stuck with the recommendations of the Chief Medical officer and his scientists. 
Many other Governments around the World, did their own thing, which in some cases was quite different from our Government did and had different outcomes.
Our Chief Scientist, who you often quote recommends a course of action to the Government, which they are following.
Now all of a sudden the Chief Scientist is an idiot, or bought off, because you don't agree with him.
Not only that, but you have to use massive block capitals, to somehow give yourself more credibility.
Jeez Bas.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2020)

rederob said:


> Finkel's comments were wholly in relation to a hydrogen economy where that gas was the product of fossil fuels.
> His comments also reflect his definition for "clean hydrogen."
> So yes, if you want zero net CO2 emissions from producing hydrogen from fossil fuels is *IS *essential to use carbon capture technologies.
> The thing is, Finkel also notes that carbon capture is *not *necessary for producing hydrogen from electrolysis.



At last, something sensible from you, congratulations.
By the way, I actually worked on a commercial size hydrogen/electrolysis unit in the early 1970's, so I am aware of how they work.


----------



## rederob (20 May 2020)

sptrawler said:


> At the begining of the corona virus outbreak, everyone and his dog had an opinion and posted up stuff like you have to support the reasoning that the Government was going down the wrong track, the Government stuck with the recommendations of the Chief Medical officer and his scientists.
> Many other Governments around the World, did their own thing, which in some cases was quite different from our Government did and had different outcomes.



All successful outcomes have involved lockdowns; the harder the more successful.
Not all countries are geographically isolated islands and have Australia's advantage.  Yet land-locked Jordan, at the opposite end of the spectrum and with over half a million refugees, has been far more successful. 
Had Australia followed Taiwan's lead we would have had significantly fewer cases.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2020)

rederob said:


> All successful outcomes have involved lockdowns; the harder the more successful.
> Not all countries are geographically isolated islands and have Australia's advantage.  Yet land-locked Jordan, at the opposite end of the spectrum and with over half a million refugees, has been far more successful.
> Had Australia followed Taiwan's lead we would have had significantly fewer cases.



Generally the consensus appears to be, that the Australian Government following the chief medical officers advice, has done exceptionally well.
We could probably have done as well as Jordan, if they had received the cruise ships instead of us, but being landlocked probably avoided the cruise ship problem we had.
Taiwan, well they knew who they were dealing with and instantly closed its border to China and also banned cruise ships from docking, we were still helping cruise ships untill a couple of weeks ago. But that is the Australian way.
You will always get negativity, especially when politics comes into the debate, as you probably know.


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2020)

Interesting article on the Governments discussion paper, as a precursor to the renewable roadmap due later this year.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...-hot-on-gas-cool-on-coal-20200520-p54uw9.html
From the article:
_The paper says the medium-term will see an expansion of the domestic hydrogen industry, seen as a way to store and export clean energy, and in one of the most contentious elements of the paper, it names carbon capture and storage as a key technology for the long-term. Environmental groups see it as a way to encourage continued investment in coal and gas projects.
The paper casts doubt over the future of coal power in the electricity grid and highlights the case for growth in gas usage and production.

The paper said switching from coal to gas can provide "quick wins" that reduce global energy sector emissions by 10 per cent. Citing a recent CSIRO forecast, it said domestic gas usage would rise "at least 20 per cent by 2060" and gas production would climb at least 90 per cent in the same timeframe - driven largely by exports to fill Asia's growing demand for liquefied natural gas.

Angus Taylor said last month that the current low price of gas, caused by plummeting demand as a result of coronavirus travel restrictions, was a "big opportunity" to increase renewable energy.
"More gas means more capacity to absorb renewables [into the grid] because gas is flexible, dispatchable generation,” Mr Taylor said.
The paper echoed this view, noting that "gas is already playing an increasingly important role in South Australia to balance intermittent renewable electricity".

The Snowy 2.0 project in NSW and Tasmania's $4.5 billion plans for the Marinus Link can promote "the penetration of renewables by storing excess energy in high-altitude dams and flexibly generating electricity in periods of high demand", the paper said.

The Tasmanian government is seeking federal support to double its renewable energy production, store the surplus in hydro dams under the Battery of the Nation scheme and export power to the mainland via the 1500 megawatt Marinus Link interconnector under Bass Strait.
Hydroelectric power also has an "important role" as a backup battery to intermittent wind and solar power supplies, the paper said.
"The largest single influencing factor in the economic viability... is the trajectory of coal-fired generation retirement," the study said. "The benefits of Marinus Link are likely to be greater than costs when approximately 7000 megawatts of the national electricity market's present coal-fired capacity retires."

NSW produces about 8000MW of coal power, while Victoria produces about 4500MW.
The roadmap said Marinus "is an essential part of the future National Electricity Market_".


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2020)

N.S.W looks as though they will be replacing some fossil fueled generation, with hydrogen over the next few years.

https://www.h2-view.com/story/2-7bn-plans-unveiled-to-transition-new-south-wales-to-green-hydrogen/
From the article:
_New South Wales in Australia could be transitioned from fossil fuel-based electricity to green hydrogen by 2027 under bold billion-dollar plans unveiled today by Infinite Blue Energy.

Dubbed project NEO, the $3.5bn initiative will target one gigawatt (GW) of 100% green hydrogen reliable baseload power using a combination of solar PV, wind turbines and hydrogen fuel cell technology.

The project will commence with a feasibility study and detailed design over the next 18 months, focusing on transitioning away from reliance on coal fired and/or gas fuelled electricity to green hydrogen generated baseload electricity_.


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2020)

Tasmania, not wanting to be left behind on the H2 front.
https://www.h2-view.com/story/tasmanian-renewable-energy-plan-pioneers-hydrogen/
From the article:
_Tasmania is in a unique position where a large-scale renewable hydrogen production and distribution industry could be developed now using competitively priced existing and new renewables.”

The Renewable Energy Action Plan references the Tasmanian Renewable Hydrogen Action Plan which was released late last year and highlighted the state’s high hydrogen potential.

Key hydrogen-based goals that are outlined in the report include:

By 2022 to 2024:_

_Tasmania has commenced production of renewable hydrogen._
_Locally produced renewable hydrogen is being used in Tasmania._
_Export based renewable hydrogen production projects are well advanced._
_By 2025 to 2027:_

_Tasmania has commenced export of renewable hydrogen._
_From 2030:_

_Tasmania is a significant global producer and exporter of renewable_
_Locally produced hydrogen is a significant form of energy used in Tasmania_.


----------



## basilio (24 May 2020)

Global temperatures are rising at record levels. The opportunity to use the COVID crisis to reset our economy to deal with the climate crisis still stands.
 
*The climate crisis looms as the Coalition fiddles with fossil fuels *
Greg Jericho
The government is like a smoker switching to low-tar cigarettes. Its energy policy is just a sop
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ms-as-the-coalition-fiddles-with-fossil-fuels

... Nasa estimates that last month was the hottest April on record and the first four months of this year are the second hottest start to a year.

The past seven months have all been 1C or higher than the 1951-1980 average (roughly around 1.3C above the pre-industrial average) – tied with the longest streak set from October 2015 to April 2016. But unlike in 2015 and 2016 the Bureau of Meteorology records we are currently not in El Niño.

That very much suggests the pace of warming is speeding up.


----------



## explod (25 May 2020)

*1. Faster, sooner*
A two-hour cloudburst drenched Charleston on Wednesday, turning downtown streets into swirling rivers. Nearly 5 inches fell over the city’s hospitals, turning the medical district into an island. Five inches fell on Johns Island, turning parking lots into lakes. It was a mess. And it’s not normal.

Set aside the notion of climate change. The climate has always changed. The real story is about speed. The pace of change. From rain bombs to higher sea levels, the impacts are coming faster. This is as real as Wednesday’s storm. And the one four weeks ago. And so many others in the past five years.

https://www.postandcourier.com/risi...-JeT0tsaYHF92EaK13XxBOdcAdHmKVfaav6rPhBsAiKG4


----------



## sptrawler (28 May 2020)

The U.K looks like it is about to build a second mega nuclear power station, to compliment Hinkley Point which is due to be completed 2025
Hinkley Point C: 3,260MW
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...-c-nuclear-plant-what-it-costs-when-it-starts

Sizewell C: 3,200MW
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/ar...ld-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-plant-in-suffolk/

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/202...ar-power-plant-in-suffolk-has-been-submitted/


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 May 2020)

sptrawler said:


> The U.K looks like it is about to build a second mega nuclear power station, to compliment Hinkley Point which is due to be completed 2025



In general I'm not at all keen on nuclear for the simple reason that it has a lot in common with the current pandemic.

Extremely unlikely to be a problem but humans can't cope if it does go wrong. Hence the failure to properly clean up past nuclear incidents and the reality of governments, businesses and even ordinary citizens baulking at the cost of a shutdown long enough to actually eradicate COVID-19. Nuclear is unlikely to go wrong but potentially catastrophic if it does.

That said, well we both know that energy was a problem and understood to be so even before anyone suggested we can't use all the available fossil fuels due to CO2, a reality that makes it an even bigger problem. That being so, the nuclear industry won't be dead in a hurry.

Pragmatically, the solution is going to be "all of the above".

Renewables of all kinds yes. Wind and solar but also there's some role for others.

Batteries yes. Hydro too.

Nuclear will play a role.

Carbon capture and storage will play a role in some specific circumstances.

CO2 emissions will still take quite some time to come down even with an "all of the above" approach. Start ruling out specific parts because someone doesn't like this or that and it'll end up being an even slower process.


----------



## explod (1 June 2020)

Climate researchers racing to calculate how fast and how high the sea level will rise found new clues on the seafloor around Antarctica. A study released today suggests that some of the continent's floating ice shelves can, during eras of rapid warming, melt back by six miles per year, far faster than any ice retreat observed by satellites.

As global warming speeds up the Antarctic meltdown, the findings "set a new upper limit for what the worst-case might be," said lead author Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge.

The estimate of ice shelf retreat is based on a pattern of ridges discovered on the seafloor near the Larsen Ice Shelf. The spacing and size of the ridges suggest they were created as the floating ice shelves rose and fell with the tides while rapidly shrinking back from the ocean. In findings published today in Science, the researchers estimate that to corrugate the seafloor in this way, the ice would have retreated by more than 150 feet per day for at least 90 days."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...il&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-1e3f0ba0f0-327892201


----------



## basilio (1 June 2020)

explod said:


> Climate researchers racing to calculate how fast and how high the sea level will rise found new clues on the seafloor around Antarctica. A study released today suggests that some of the continent's floating ice shelves can, during eras of rapid warming, melt back by six miles per year, far faster than any ice retreat observed by satellites.
> 
> As global warming speeds up the Antarctic meltdown, the findings "set a new upper limit for what the worst-case might be," said lead author Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge.
> 
> ...




The rest of the paper makes for cheery reading as well. Long story short; the current projections of sea level rise caused by melting Antarctic ice are  far too conservative.


----------



## sptrawler (1 June 2020)

explod said:


> Climate researchers racing to calculate how fast and how high the sea level will rise found new clues on the seafloor around Antarctica. A study released today suggests that some of the continent's floating ice shelves can, during eras of rapid warming, melt back by six miles per year, far faster than any ice retreat observed by satellites.
> 
> As global warming speeds up the Antarctic meltdown, the findings "set a new upper limit for what the worst-case might be," said lead author Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge.
> 
> ...



Yes it's all very interesting, I was reading they have found at one stage there was a rain forest on Antartica, before the ice.


----------



## basilio (5 June 2020)

CO2 levels at record highs.

*Heat-trapping carbon dioxide in air hits new record high*

*




*
FILE - This Jan. 16, 2020 file photo shows a Uniper energy company coal-fired power plant and a BP refinery beside a wind generator in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. The world hit another new record high for heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, despite reduced emissions because of the coronavirus pandemic, scientists announced Thursday, June 4, 2020. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)

KENSINGTON, Maryland (AP) — The world hit another new record high for heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, despite reduced emissions because of the coronavirus pandemic, scientists announced Thursday.

Measurements of carbon dioxide, the chief human-caused greenhouse gas, averaged 417.1 parts per million at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, for the month of May, when carbon levels in the air peak, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. That’s 2.4 parts per million higher than a year ago.

Even though emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels dropped by as much 17% in April, it was a brief decline. Carbon dioxide can stay in the air for centuries, so the short-term reductions of new carbon pollution for a few months didn’t have much of a big picture effect, said NOAA senior scientist Pieter Tans.

“It illustrates how difficult it is — what a huge job it is — to bring emissions down,” Tans said. “We are really committing the Earth to an enormous amount of warming for a very large time.”

Records with direct measurements go back to 1958. And carbon dioxide levels are now nearly 100 parts per million higher than then. That’s a 31% increase in 62 years.
https://apnews.com/7e3fc630ca671584097bc0cfd0d82c30

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2636/Rise-of-carbon-dioxide-unabated


----------



## basilio (5 June 2020)

Excellent explanation of measurement of CO2 level rises by NOAAA. Worth a refresher if one isn't quite sure of what is happening with rising CO2 levels and the contributions of different factors.

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2636/Rise-of-carbon-dioxide-unabated


----------



## explod (11 June 2020)

30 celcious in the Arctic yesterday.

May just gone the hottest up there in history.

Find that it's too sad to party when thinking of the future for my children and grandchildren.

The media has blocked demonstrations, and there are many, relating to climate change.


----------



## basilio (15 June 2020)

Perhaps  we shouldn't feel too overwhelmed by the threat of COVID 19 becoming COVID 20, 21 , 22 and the Chinese dominating the world economies. The way things are going on the global heating front the oven could become considerably hotter much more quickly.

There is serious concern that current assumptions about cloud sensitivity to global heating has been  severely underestimated.

*Why Clouds Are the Key to New Troubling Projections on Warming*
_Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet. _

It is the most worrying development in the science of climate change for a long time. An apparently settled conclusion about how sensitive the climate is to adding more greenhouse gases has been thrown into doubt by a series of new studies from the world’s top climate modeling groups. 

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming


----------



## basilio (16 June 2020)

The Royal Commission into last years unprecedented bushfires is hearing about the effects of global warming on the intensity of fires. There is also expert evidence on the challenges of undertaking effective hazard reduction burns in a climate that has become far warmer and  on present seetings will continue to heat.

Long story short.  Last years  catastrophic fires are not an aberration.The next question is 
" How do we address the situation ?"

* Australia had more supersized bushfires creating their own storms last summer than in previous 30 years *
There was a near doubling of the record of pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCB) storms, royal commission hears

Australia experienced more supersized weather-generating fires in the 2019-20 bushfire season than in the previous 30 years, the royal commission into national natural disaster arrangements has heard.

Huge thunderstorm-type clouds called pyrocumulonimbus form over fires in particularly hot, dry and dangerous conditions and are capable of generating their own winds and lightning.

They were once considered “bushfire oddities” but last summer there was a “near doubling of the record of these events, in one event,” Prof David Bowman told the royal commission on Tuesday.

Bowman, a professor of environmental change biology at the University of Tasmania, said the prevalence of pyrocumulonimbus in the most recent bushfire season was “truly extraordinary”.





*  Hazard reduction burning had little to no effect in slowing extreme bushfires  *
Read more
“So something happened this last summer which is truly extraordinary, because what we would call statistically a black swan event, we saw a flock of black swans,” he said. “That just shouldn’t have happened.”
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...cumulonimbus-pyrocb-than-in-previous-30-years


----------



## basilio (18 June 2020)

Which way do we go ? 
And Fatih Birol isn't a greenie. 

* World has six months to avert climate crisis, says energy expert *
International Energy Agency chief warns of need to prevent post-lockdown surge in emissions

The world has only six months in which to change the course of the climate crisis and prevent a post-lockdown rebound in greenhouse gas emissions that would overwhelm efforts to stave off climate catastrophe, one of the world’s foremost energy experts has warned.

“This year is the last time we have, if we are not to see a carbon rebound,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency.

Governments are planning to spend $9tn (£7.2tn) globally in the next few months on rescuing their economies from the coronavirus crisis, the IEA has calculated. The stimulus packages created this year will determine the shape of the global economy for the next three years, according to Birol, and within that time emissions must start to fall sharply and permanently, or climate targets will be out of reach.

“The next three years will determine the course of the next 30 years and beyond,” Birol told the Guardian. “If we do not [take action] we will surely see a rebound in emissions. If emissions rebound, it is very difficult to see how they will be brought down in future. This is why we are urging governments to have sustainable recovery packages.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...hs-to-avert-climate-crisis-says-energy-expert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatih_Birol


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Which way do we go ?
> And Fatih Birol isn't a greenie.
> 
> * World has six months to avert climate crisis, says energy expert *
> l



Good to see you have de stressed about covid 19, and are back on the climate change wagon, as long as you have something to worry about all is good.


----------



## basilio (18 June 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Good to see you have de stressed about covid 19, and are back on the climate change wagon, as long as you have something to worry about all is good.




I don't "worry" any more. Explods simple view puts it best.
If I did think too much about the consequences of events like the last half a dozen postings I have made life would become much darker.


----------



## macca (18 June 2020)

basilio said:


> The Royal Commission into last years unprecedented bushfires is hearing about the effects of global warming on the intensity of fires. There is also expert evidence on the challenges of undertaking effective hazard reduction burns in a climate that has become far warmer and  on present seetings will continue to heat.
> 
> Long story short.  Last years  catastrophic fires are not an aberration.The next question is
> " How do we address the situation ?"
> ...




When history is ignored we will always suffer, 50,000 years of history ignored usually means lots of problems.

As ye sow so shall ye reap, 

We deliberately created a massive fuel load over many years then when it burnt, as it was Always going to, we now complain about it

The arrogance of the white fella on show once again


----------



## explod (22 June 2020)

× Close Ad











*Arctic records its hottest temperature ever*
By Jeff Berardelli

June 20, 2020 / 7:21 PM / CBS News

Alarming heat scorched Siberia on Saturday as the small town of Verkhoyansk (67.5°N latitude) reached 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit, 32 degrees above the normal high temperature. If verified, this is likely the hottest temperature ever recorded in Siberia and also the hottest temperature ever recorded north of the Arctic Circle, which begins at 66.5°N.

The town is 3,000 miles east of Moscow and further north than even Fairbanks, Alaska. On Friday, the city of Caribou, Maine, tied an all-time record at 96 degrees Fahrenheit and was once again well into the 90s on Saturday. To put this into perspective, the city of Miami, Florida, has only reached 100 degrees one time since the city began keeping temperature records in 1896.

Verkhoyansk is typically one of the coldest spots on Earth. This past November, the area reached nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit below zero, one of the first spots to drop that low in the winter of 2019-2020. The scene below is certainly more characteristic of eastern Siberia.

Reaching 100 degrees in or near the Arctic is almost unheard of. Although the reading is questionable, back in 1915 the town of Prospect Creek, Alaska, not quite as far north as Verkhoyansk, is reported to have reached near 100 degrees. And in 2010 a town a few miles south of the Arctic circle in Russia reached 100.





*Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox*

As a result of the hot-dry conditions right now, numerous fires rage nearby, and smoke is visible for thousands of miles on Satellite images.

This heat is not an isolated occurrence. Parts of Siberia have been sizzling for weeks and running remarkably above normal since January. May featured astonishing warmth in western Siberia, where some locales were 18 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, not just for a day, but for the month. As a whole, western Siberia averaged 10 degrees above normal for May, obliterating anything previously experienced.

On May 23, the Siberian town of Khatanga, far north of the Arctic Circle, hit 78 degrees Fahrenheit. This was 46 degrees above normal and shattered the previous record by a virtually unheard-of 22 degrees. On June 9, Nizhnyaya Pesha, an area 900 miles northeast of Moscow, near the Arctic Ocean's Barents Sea, hit a sweltering 86 degrees Fahrenheit, a staggering 30 degrees above normal.

Climate Change [/paste:font]

 Arctic records its hottest temperature ever 
 2020 likely to be the warmest year on record globally 
 "Two different realities": Why America needs environmental justice 
 World Oceans Day: New study finds deep ocean waters warming at a faster pace 
 Extinctions raise risk of "biological annihilation," study warns 
 More in Climate Change 
What's perhaps even more impressive is that this relative warmth has persisted since December, with average temperatures in western Siberia 10 degrees Fahrenheit abov
​ECMWF
The average heat across Russia from January to May is so remarkable that it matches what's projected to be normal by the year 2100 if current trends in heat-trapping carbon emissions continue. In the image below, the data point for 2020 is almost off the charts, and matches what climate models expect to be typical many decades from now.

The extreme events of recent years are due to a combination of natural weather patterns and human-caused climate change. The weather pattern giving rise to this heat wave is an incredibly stubborn ridge of high pressure; a dome of heat which extends vertically upward through the atmosphere. The sweltering heat is forecast to remain in place for at least the next week, catapulting temperatures easily into the 90s in eastern Siberia.

But this heat wave can not be viewed as an isolated weather pattern. Last summer, the town of Markusvinsa, a village in northern Sweden on the southern edge of the Arctic Circle, hit 94.6°F. Warming and drying of the landscape is leading to unprecedented Arctic fires, with the summer of 2019 being the worst fire season on record. 


Due to heat trapping greenhouse gases that result from the burning of fossil fuels and feedback loops, the Arctic is warming at more than two times the average rate of the globe. This phenomenon is known as Arctic Amplification, which is leading to the decline of sea ice, and in some cases snow cover, due to rapidly warming temperatures. 

Over the past four decades, sea ice volume has decreased by 50%. The lack of white ice, and corresponding increase in dark ocean and land areas, means less light is reflected and more is absorbed, creating a feedback loop and heating the area disproportionately.

As the average climate continues to heat up, extremes like the current heat wave will become more frequent and intensify. Scientists say there is only one way to dampen the impact of climate change and that is to stop burning fossil fuels.

First published on June 20, 2020 / 7:21 PM

© 2020 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Jeff Berardelli
Jeff Berardelli is CBS News Meteorologist and Climate Specialist. Follow him on Twitter @WeatherProf.


----------



## basilio (22 June 2020)

The perma frost in Siberia must be looking pretty sick with these temperatures.
And that opens up another can of worms.


----------



## explod (23 June 2020)

38 Celsius in the arctic overnight and wild bushfires in Siberia,

If the govnuts had pulled heads in this was not supposed to occur till 2100. 

Pass me another scotch.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (23 June 2020)

explod said:


> 38 Celsius in the arctic overnight and wild bushfires in Siberia,
> 
> If the govnuts had pulled heads in this was not supposed to occur till 2100.
> 
> Pass me another scotch.




I don't think planet Earth will turn into Venus for another few billion years.

There are aspects of climate change that will require a response, within say the next few hundred years, like rising sea levels.

I am an environmentalist on the grounds of food security and freshwater security.


----------



## basilio (23 June 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> I don't think planet Earth will turn into Venus for another few billion years.
> 
> There are aspects of climate change that will require a response, within say the next few hundred years, like rising sea levels.
> 
> I am an environmentalist on the grounds of food security and freshwater security.




Absolutely correct Chronos. Earth will not turn into Venus for ages and ages and ages. Thank heavens for that.

On the other hand every single bit of research and physical evidence tells us  that on the current trajectory we face a 3-5C increase in temperature  within the next 70 years. And the effects of that will basically make large areas of the Earth uninhabitable by people and most current eco systems.

*Rising sea levels ?*
How about checking out what scientists are saying about the accelerating melting around Antarctica? And the ask yourself what effect a couple of metres increase in sea level might have around the world in the next 30-50 years ?
https://www.livescience.com/why-giant-antarctic-glacier-melting-so-fast.html


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (23 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Absolutely correct Chronos. Earth will not turn into Venus for ages and ages and ages. Thank heavens for that.
> 
> On the other hand every single bit of research and physical evidence tells us  that on the current trajectory we face a 3-5C increase in temperature  within the next 70 years. And the effects of that will basically make large areas of the Earth uninhabitable by people and most current eco systems.
> 
> ...





We can address the sea level rise with tidal barrages that produce electricity. Just a few hundred years beyond your imagination .


----------



## basilio (24 June 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> We can address the sea level rise with tidal barrages that produce electricity. Just a few hundred years beyond your imagination .




You and reality have a very tenuous relationship don't you Chronos ?  
Sea levels rising across the world by a couple of metres and you want to build tidal barges to "address the issue" .
The dumbest kids I taught wouldn't have seriously proposed such a solution. Perhaps going back in time to change the world, building under/over water cities, moving to higher ground.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (24 June 2020)

basilio said:


> You and reality have a very tenuous relationship don't you Chronos ?
> Sea levels rising across the world by a couple of metres and you want to build tidal barges to "address the issue" .
> The dumbest kids I taught wouldn't have seriously proposed such a solution. Perhaps going back in time to change the world, building under/over water cities, moving to higher ground.




Look what they have in the Netherlands.


----------



## basilio (24 June 2020)

*In face of rising sea levels the Netherlands ‘must consider controlled withdrawal’*
The Netherlands is famous for its polders and dikes. We are known as that industrious little nation on the North Sea that has successfully kept the sea at bay for centuries. But the sea that we have been fighting for our entire history was not increasing in _volume_. This situation is now being seriously disrupted by warming seawater and melting glaciers and ice caps, leading to a slow but steady sea level rise.

https://www.vn.nl/rising-sea-levels-netherlands/


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (24 June 2020)

basilio said:


> *In face of rising sea levels the Netherlands ‘must consider controlled withdrawal’*
> The Netherlands is famous for its polders and dikes. We are known as that industrious little nation on the North Sea that has successfully kept the sea at bay for centuries. But the sea that we have been fighting for our entire history was not increasing in _volume_. This situation is now being seriously disrupted by warming seawater and melting glaciers and ice caps, leading to a slow but steady sea level rise.
> 
> https://www.vn.nl/rising-sea-levels-netherlands/



It's not rocket science


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (24 June 2020)

basilio said:


> You and reality have a very tenuous relationship don't you Chronos ?
> Sea levels rising across the world by a couple of metres and you want to build tidal barges to "address the issue" .
> The dumbest kids I taught wouldn't have seriously proposed such a solution. Perhaps going back in time to change the world, building under/over water cities, moving to higher ground.



You used to teach children, that is frightening


----------



## basilio (24 June 2020)

*Rapid Antarctic Ice Melt in the Past Bodes Ill for the Future*
Geological evidence shows glaciers retreated by as much as 6 miles in a year at the end of the last ice age

... Dowdeswell said he believes the circumstances today might be similar to what was going on at the end of the last ice age.

Today, scientists believe that currents of warm ocean water are helping to melt Antarctica's fastest-melting glaciers from the bottom up. The warm water seeps beneath the ice shelves at the edges of the glaciers, causing them to thin and destabilize.

"The circumstances of ice shelf systems thinning were likely to be similar 11,000 or 12,000 years ago," Dowdeswell said.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ce-melt-in-the-past-bodes-ill-for-the-future/


----------



## basilio (28 June 2020)

Maybe this is the core reason why serious action on CC just isn't happening ?
 

*Government climate advisers running scared of change, says leading scientist *
...Rapid transformation needed, Kevin Anderson says, particularly in lifestyles of rich
_
....the models also ignored the fact that it was the lifestyles of a relatively wealthy few that gave rise to the lion’s share of emissions. 

“Globally the wealthiest 10% are responsible for half of all emissions, the wealthiest 20% for 70% of emissions. If regulations forced the top 10% to cut their emissions to the level of the average EU citizen, and the other 90% made no change in their lifestyles, that would still cut total emissions by a third.


“If we were serious about this crisis we could do this in a year – if we were really serious we could do it in a month, but we are not and our emissions just keep rising.
_
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ientist-criticises-uk-over-its-climate-record


----------



## basilio (28 June 2020)

The record temperatures caused by man made global heating in the Arctic is creating a mass thaw of permafrost. 

*How Thawing Permafrost Is Beginning to Transform the Arctic*
The frozen layer of soil that has underlain the Arctic tundra for millennia is now starting to thaw. This thawing, which could release vast amounts of greenhouse gases, is already changing the Arctic landscape by causing landslides, draining lakes, and altering vegetation. 

.....What we do know is that if the Arctic continues to warm as quickly as climatologists are predicting, an estimated 2.5 million square miles of permafrost — 40 percent of the world’s total — could disappear by the end of the century, with enormous consequences. The most alarming is expected to be the release of huge stores of greenhouse gases, including methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide that have remained locked in the permafrost for ages. Pathogens will also be released.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-melting-permafrost-is-beginning-to-transform-the-arctic


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2020)

I suppose one upside from the virus is the affluence of people will reduce, therefore it should follow on that there will be less money spent on travel and power hungry devices, so it may actually reduce the use of fossil fuel.

https://www.traveller.com.au/travel...of-cheap-travel-for-the-masses-is-over-h1p2pu


----------



## Dona Ferentes (1 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I suppose one upside from the virus is the affluence of people will reduce, therefore it should follow on that there will be less money spent on travel and power hungry devices, so it may actually reduce the use of fossil fuel.



 plenty of gasbags still at it, though


----------



## basilio (1 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I suppose one upside from the virus is the affluence of people will reduce, therefore it should follow on that there will be less money spent on travel and power hungry devices, so it may actually reduce the use of fossil fuel.
> 
> https://www.traveller.com.au/travel...of-cheap-travel-for-the-masses-is-over-h1p2pu




Why not leave the whole issue of "global warming"  to the process of self resolution ? Clearly if it is a problem then the necessary adjustments will be  automatically applied to address teh issue. 
In that case it is probably just a waste of pixels having the discussion...


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Why not leave the whole issue of "global warming"  to the process of self resolution ? Clearly if it is a problem then the necessary adjustments will be  automatically applied to address teh issue.
> In that case it is probably just a waste of pixels having the discussion...



It will be self resolving, either we can reduce it or we can't, if we can't then we disappear.
After humans have gone, the world returns to balance and the cycle starts again.
See it is self resolving, the only thing that isn't self resolving, is to think that humans can continue with population growth ad infinitum.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Why not leave the whole issue of "global warming"  to the process of self resolution ? Clearly if it is a problem then the necessary adjustments will be  automatically applied to address teh issue.
> In that case it is probably just a waste of pixels having the discussion...



Another way of looking at it Bas is, if we halve the carbon footprint per capita, but double the population in reality we have gone nowhere.
It certainly wont be solved on this forum.


----------



## wayneL (1 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> It certainly wont be solved on this forum.



Woulda thunk it


----------



## basilio (1 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Another way of looking at it Bas is, if we halve the carbon footprint per capita, but double the population in reality we have gone nowhere.
> It certainly wont be solved on this forum.




Not necessarily. If you check out post 3566 some of the biggest savings in carbon footprint will come from the wealthiest people in our societies - and that includes the newly wealthy in China and India of course.

And you right when you say it won't be solved on this forum. But I keep coming back to the principle that this forum is a microcosm of our society albeit more on the conservative older side. In that context the views formulated here could reflect a wider mood.

But as you say on that basis there is no chance of any change of perspective around CC.  It looks like we are going to allow our present path a free run to its final consequences.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Not necessarily. If you check out post 3566 some of the biggest savings in carbon footprint will come from the wealthiest people in our societies - and that includes the newly wealthy in China and India of course.



I can't see that happening, going from a mud hut into an air conditioned condo, I would have guessed would increase the carbon footprint. Who knows they may pass wind less on a better diet? But that may be negated by the carbon footprint of the packaging the food comes in, it is complex.


----------



## moXJO (4 July 2020)

Saw an interesting comment from a story on a hydrogen battery from here.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...storage-options-20200702-p558dj.html#comments
*
I understand most people don’t study science, or know enough about science, but it amazes me how many people don’t seem to even read the article.

People commenting about how flammable hydrogen is - and yet the article clearly states the innovation is that it is a solid storage of hydrogen, and that you won’t get the conditions where there is enough hydrogen to cause a sudden burst of ignition.

The article and diagram in the article shows how it is a battery technology to store power - linked to a solar panel system - and people comment that solar would be better than this approach.

The article states that this is consistent with the LNP National Hydrogen Strategy - and people say - no doubt the LNP will try and kill it - or they don’t want technology like this.

For ages I thought our politics has devolved due to the politicians - Reading the comments on articles like this I realise it’s the people that have devolved - into tribes so blinded by their ideology/biases/views that they can’t even read/see information - because anything that doesn’t support their view of the world is simply ignored.

And that is the REAL reason we haven’t solved these big issues.*


----------



## basilio (4 July 2020)

moXJO said:


> Saw an interesting comment from a story on a hydrogen battery from here.
> https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...storage-options-20200702-p558dj.html#comments
> *
> I understand most people don’t study science, or know enough about science, but it amazes me how many people don’t seem to even read the article.
> ...




Fascinating...
I read through the comments on the article and frankly I didn't find many critical or off point comments about the proposed technology.
My thoughts are I just cannot see how it will make sense from a household perspective.
The proposal is that each household will have its on mini electrolysis device to turn excess solar power into solid storage hydrogen  and then use a fuel cell to reuse the hydrogen as electricity.

*And this extended convoluted  process is supposed to cost 2cKhr ?  WTF*

The current alternative is a battery bank which stores excess solar energy and then releases it back to the household. 

Firstly using electricity to create hydrogen from electrolysis is wasteful. Breaking the hydrogen-Oxygen bonds uses a ton of energy which is lost in the process. In any case the proposed new system has three separate devices to construct and maintain versus one battery bank. There is all informed talk of imminent 20 year life batteries coming from Tesla and others Suddenly batteries look very cost effective.

*The big deal for this process  IMO is the  successful   cost effective development of solid storage hydrogen.  The application for the development would be with large scale wind/solar operations which want to use surplus power ie no cost and save it for later transmission. *The principle is there but suggesting it become a household project seems unrealistic. 

Another option might be to use the solar/electrolyser/hydrogen process to  replace current natural gas use in a home. Can work but the cost effectiveness seems puzzling.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Fascinating...
> I read through the comments on the article and frankly I didn't find many critical or off point comments about the proposed technology.
> My thoughts are I just cannot see how it will make sense from a household perspective.
> The proposal is that each household will have its on mini electrolysis device to turn excess solar power into solid storage hydrogen  and then use a fuel cell to reuse the hydrogen as electricity.
> ...





The driving force behind hydrogen seems to be the export market. Use our ample natural supply of solar energy to turn water into hydrogen, then ammonia which can be transported overseas and turned back into electricity via fuel cells and the CSIRO membrane.

I doubt if the process is suitable for households when you can just charge batteries, but the ammonia process is great for exporting electricity.


----------



## moXJO (4 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Fascinating...
> I read through the comments on the article and frankly I didn't find many critical or off point comments about the proposed technology.
> My thoughts are I just cannot see how it will make sense from a household perspective.
> The proposal is that each household will have its on mini electrolysis device to turn excess solar power into solid storage hydrogen  and then use a fuel cell to reuse the hydrogen as electricity.
> ...



Apparently 30 year life which is a massive improvement on batteries at this time.


----------



## explod (8 July 2020)

This article should put fear into everyone. Earth for our survival is stuffed.

https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/the-...Pt4LAeAk1toeAhSd4aL76Os3rwREFAoCC7j8_xuua74O0

"We always expected the Arctic to change faster than the rest of the globe,” one researcher told the Washington_ Post_. “But I don’t think anyone expected the changes to happen as fast as we are seeing them happen.” Siberian towns are experiencing a heat wave throughout the region, with many smashing centuries-old temperature records, records that are now being broken year after year. Scientists say that the area is warming at three times the rate of the rest of the world, due to a phenomenon called “Arctic amplification,” in which melting ice exposes more dark sea and lake waters, turning zones that were once net heat-reflecting into heat-absorbing. And temperatures rise even more."


----------



## explod (8 July 2020)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/...V__UZVqYD_U4FxtlZJwkMa_GnroIUebaJFjBLamYWFsVA

And the world turns the other cheek


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2020)

explod said:


> This article should put fear into everyone. Earth for our survival is stuffed.
> "



Which begs the question, why keep going on about it?


----------



## explod (8 July 2020)

To get the cheeks turning back.

On my station wagon I have a sign on both sides in bold letters "Climate Emergency" and only today a bloke asked me if it was my car and he said "congratulations on what you do"

We must try.


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2020)

explod said:


> To get the cheeks turning back.
> 
> On my station wagon I have a sign on both sides in bold letters "Climate Emergency" and only today a bloke asked me if it was my car and he said "congratulations on what you do"
> 
> We must try.



Nice, it has taken how many years, for someone to ask about the sign on your EH station wagon.​


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Another option might be to use the solar/electrolyser/hydrogen process to replace current natural gas use in a home. Can work but the cost effectiveness seems puzzling.




Something I'll note about the cost issue in the context of residential use is that it doesn't necessarily need to be the cheapest option, it only needs to be one that consumers are happy to use.

It's only in trade exposed industry, anything where we're competing with the rest of the world, where paying an extra 1 cent / kWh kills the idea stone dead. With household, you could in many cases double the cost of doing something when compared to the cheapest option and it would still be a goer.

For home use hydrogen powered cooking, heating etc may well prove to be popular even if it costs twice as much as electric. Comes down to marketing, consumer preferences and so on not just price.


----------



## basilio (9 July 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Something I'll note about the cost issue in the context of residential use is that it doesn't necessarily need to be the cheapest option, it only needs to be one that consumers are happy to use.
> 
> It's only in trade exposed industry, anything where we're competing with the rest of the world, where paying an extra 1 cent / kWh kills the idea stone dead. With household, you could in many cases double the cost of doing something when compared to the cheapest option and it would still be a goer.
> 
> For home use hydrogen powered cooking, heating etc may well prove to be popular even if it costs twice as much as electric. Comes down to marketing, consumer preferences and so on not just price.



Good point, perhaps. 

It is certainly true that many consumer preferences are created through clever marketing, visual appeal, snob appeal, newness appeal,  "*I have to have a new kitchen* " appeal.

From my experience gas is the preferred cooking medium for cooks. Easier to control and so on.

Another point in the conversation is the advice of installers and companies selling products.  If they are making a better dollar on a system and/or if it is an easier install there will be more encouragement of customers to go that way.

In the big picture however maybe we have gone past the point of allowing traditional promotional forces to determine how we generate energy and what we produce.


----------



## sptrawler (9 July 2020)

AGL has already stated they will close their coal generation, if consumers are prepared to pay the extra money required, presumably to replace it.


----------



## basilio (9 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> AGL has already stated they will close their coal generation, if consumers are prepared to pay the extra money required, presumably to replace it.



Nah. Wind and solar are far cheaper to generate electricity.

The coal stations are at the end of their life and replacements costs and running costs not to mention the environmental impact makes them dodo's .


----------



## sptrawler (9 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Nah. Wind and solar are far cheaper to generate electricity.
> 
> The coal stations are at the end of their life and replacements costs and running costs not to mention the environmental impact makes them dodo's .



That is very true Bas, the thing is they want someone to pay for their replacement.
It is a bit like the NBN, it needed doing but the telco's didn't want to pay for it, so the general public paid for it and then get charged more to use it.
We have a funny way of taking responsibility for something that should in reality be the responsibility of the service provider IMO.
I think it is their responsibility to replace their aging infrastructure, they will get the benefit of increased profit margins, so when their plant wears out either they replace it or go broke.
If that means the State Governments get back into generation so be it, at least the profit goes to the Government, not the shareholders.
Snowy 2.0 and the Tassie battery, should in reality give a lot more head room to install renewables. When they are complete, the Governments probably will make it a condition that large installations have to include storage.
Just my thoughts and guesses.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Snowy 2.0 and the Tassie battery, should in reality give a lot more head room to install renewables.




The business model for the Tasmanian projects is really quite simple.

1. Only show in town.

2. Someone will buy the tickets, only question being who pays be that government, consumers via government or consumers via private generating companies / retailers but ultimately someone will stump up the cash.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 July 2020)

basilio said:


> From my experience gas is the preferred cooking medium for cooks. Easier to control and so on.
> 
> Another point in the conversation is the advice of installers and companies selling products. If they are making a better dollar on a system and/or if it is an easier install there will be more encouragement of customers to go that way.




That's where my thinking is regarding hydrogen.

Even today, gas is rarely the cheapest option on a strictly economic basis. Despite that however, it has a 57% share of the water heating market in SA and for Victoria it's about 70%. It's also high in WA (about 60%) and the ACT (about 50%). In Victoria especially, government policy makes using gas not literally compulsory but hard to avoid in practice and it has an extremely high market share in newly built homes as a result.

Homeowners like continuous flow gas water heaters and, since they're lightweight and easy to install, so do plumbers which leads them to push consumers in that direction in any situation where gas is available.

I could make a pretty strong argument that from an efficiency, economic and environmental perspective a decent quality heat pump is the winning technology. In practice though, well if consumers like gas and hydrogen can fix the issue well then it's a solution. A relatively less efficient solution but a solution nonetheless.


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2020)

The virus apparently has brought about the biggest drop in global emissions in history, there you go @basilio I told you the quickest way to fix emissions is to get people to stop using stuff.


----------



## rederob (11 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> The virus apparently has brought about the biggest drop in global emissions in history, there you go @basilio I told you the quickest way to fix emissions is to get people to stop using stuff.



Yet CO2 emissions remain at post-industrial record highs:





This NOAA graphic shows *daily CO2* *averages with black dots*, *weekly CO2 averages with red lines* (Sunday to Saturday) and *monthly CO2 averages with blue lines.*


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Yet CO2 emissions remain at post-industrial record highs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Rob you can help fix that, AGL have a plan where if you pay them a bit more for electricity they will plant more trees, so there you go you can go that extra mile and lead by example.


----------



## rederob (11 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Well Rob you can help fix that, AGL have a plan where if you pay them a bit more for electricity they will plant more trees, so there you go you can go that extra mile and lead by example.



The block we built on was cleared land 30 years ago. Now we have 3 silky oak and 5 iron bark trees, several other varieties of gum trees, half a dozen palm tree varieties around the pool, 3 different fruit trees and some self sown trees we can't get rid of. 
Maybe AGL should be paying me.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2020)

rederob said:


> The block we built on was cleared land 30 years ago. Now we have 3 silky oak and 5 iron bark trees, several other varieties of gum trees, half a dozen palm tree varieties around the pool, 3 different fruit trees and some self sown trees we can't get rid of.
> Maybe AGL should be paying me.



We can never do too much.


----------



## macca (11 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> We can never do too much.




My wife believes that as well, 150 trees and shrubs planted on 2.5 acres of old dairy farm, no wonder my DIL though we were greenies


----------



## basilio (11 July 2020)

There are a thousand ways* to  reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and gain  other valuable results.
Here is 1001.

* Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air *
It may be best near-term way to remove CO2, say scientists, but cutting fossil fuel use remains critical

Spreading rock dust on farmland could suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air every year, according to the first detailed global analysis of the technique.

The chemical reactions that degrade the rock particles lock the greenhouse gas into carbonates within months, and some scientists say this approach may be the best near-term way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
..The rock dust approach, called enhanced rock weathering (ERW), has several advantages, the researchers say. First, many farmers already add limestone dust to soils to reduce acidification, and adding other rock dust improves fertility and crop yields, meaning application could be routine and desirable.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lds-could-remove-vast-amounts-of-co2-from-air


----------



## basilio (11 July 2020)

The  (Liberal) NSW government has opened a plan that will coordinate vast renewable energy investment across the State. As a result billions of dollars companies have proposed multi billions of dollars  of wind and solar investment. 

Well done.  
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.c...ts-27-gw-of-solar-wind-and-battery-proposals/
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...rgy-zone-in-new-england-could-power-35m-homes


----------



## explod (12 July 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...Z-Xn7dKnr4HKvtq_FMwx4WG5aNxoixuKUQV24A8PTvLOQ


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2020)

India pushing ahead with renewables, also restricting solar panel imports from China.
https://eurasiantimes.com/india-chi...ches-solar-power-plant-to-stop-china-imports/
The 750-megawatt power plant in the central state of Madhya Pradesh is being dubbed as the largest in Asia by local media. The project is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 million tons each year.

“Several steps are being taken to increase domestic manufacturing and it has been decided that government’s departments and institutions will only buy domestically manufactured solar cells and modules,” said Modi, in the wake of recent border tensions with China.
“Hopefully very soon India will be a major exporter of power. The International Solar Alliance was launched with the motive to unite the entire world in terms of solar energy.” The project is a step toward India’s ambitious target of installing 175 gigawatts of renewable energy by the year 2022.


----------



## basilio (21 July 2020)

Young Greta Thunberg is still around and making waves.
(Does Greta look like a younger version of Yevgeniya Rudneva ?)

* Greta Thunberg gives €1m award money to climate groups *
Influential climate campaigner says Gulbenkian rights award gave her ‘more money than I can begin to imagine’

Agence France-Presse

Tue 21 Jul 2020 01.39 BST





 Climate campaigner Greta Thunberg won the Gulbenkian prize for humanity on Monday. Photograph: Mattias Osterlund/A

Greta Thunberg has been awarded a Portuguese rights award and promptly pledged the €1m ($1.15m) prize to groups working to protect the environment and halt climate change.

“That is more money than I can begin to imagine, but all the prize money will be donated, through my foundation, to different organisations and projects who are working to help people on the front line, affected by the climate crisis and ecological crisis,” the Swedish teenager said in a video posted online on Monday.

She was awarded the Gulbenkian prize for humanity for the way she “has been able to mobilise younger generations for the cause of climate change and her tenacious struggle to alter a status quo that persists”, Jorge Sampaio, chair of the prize jury, said earlier.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...unberg-gives-1m-award-money-to-climate-groups


----------



## basilio (22 July 2020)

New discoveries on methane leaks in Antarctica. 

* First active leak of sea-bed methane discovered in Antarctica *
Researchers say potent climate-heating gas almost certainly escaping into atmosphere
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...k-of-sea-bed-methane-discovered-in-antarctica


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2020)

Good luck with this.

I suppose it depends whether the jury is "woke" enough.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07...alian-government-over-climate-change/12480612


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Good luck with this.
> 
> I suppose it depends whether the jury is "woke" enough.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07...alian-government-over-climate-change/12480612



A more ridiculous thing I have never heard. 

But, the world is ridiculous, so who knows.... and I'm dreaming up all sorts of BS to sue the government over now.

If the woke idiots open this can of worms, it's all over.


----------



## basilio (22 July 2020)

Anyone actually read the article in full ?

If one is of the view that CC is just a  scientific lie, a complete xank and will have minimal effect on Oz then clearly this case is a nonsense.

On the other hand if in fact we are cooking at a great rate, have been warned about it for 30 years and the government has turned a blind eye to the  ongoing  consequences  *and has completely ignored these predictable outcomes in promoting government bonds *perhaps there is a case of  deceit and negligence.

And lets be absolutely clear about what the case wants to achieve.
*There are no demands for reparation or any financial recompense. *The precious taxpayer does not stand to lose a cent if this case is successful.

So what do the plaintiffs want ?

Check it out


----------



## cynic (22 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Anyone actually read the article in full ?
> ...
> ...And lets be absolutely clear about what the case wants to achieve.
> *There are no demands for reparation or any financial recompense. *The precious taxpayer does not stand to lose a cent if this case is successful.
> ...



Marxism!


----------



## macca (22 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Anyone actually read the article in full ?
> 
> If one is of the view that CC is just a  scientific lie, a complete xank and will have minimal effect on Oz then clearly this case is a nonsense.
> 
> ...




Tying up a court to listen to this drivel denies a genuine case the opportunity to be heard.

In the event that she loses then she should be bankrupted unless the cheer squad stump up costs.


----------



## orr (23 July 2020)

macca said:


> Tying up a court to listen to this drivel denies a genuine case the opportunity to be heard.
> 
> In the event that she loses then she should be bankrupted unless the cheer squad stump up costs.




Or in the case that the Government Bonds being contested are found to have associated risk not disclosed to the purchasers a financial crime will have been exposed. 

A light has been turned on and I'm watching the cockroaches scatter... back into your crevices.


----------



## dutchie (23 July 2020)

cynic said:


> Marxism!



Spot on cynic.
The spread of Marxism  (Communism)  in the West is a far greater threat to humanity than so called Global Warming will ever be. The damage it will do is imminent.


----------



## basilio (23 July 2020)

orr said:


> Or in the case that the Government Bonds being contested are found to have associated risk not disclosed to the purchasers a financial crime will have been exposed.
> 
> A light has been turned on and I'm watching the cockroaches scatter... back into your crevices.




Thanks for actually reading the story. 
Yep the issue is just one of financial risk acknowledgment which all financial institutions are obliged to do when  inviting investment in their products.

At this stage the Australian government does not formally identify climate change as a material risk to our future capacity to pay back bonds.

Why not ?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Why not ?




Because climate change is cr@p. (T. Abbott).

I wouldn't be expecting a Labor government to be disclosing those risks either. They want people to buy bonds and would be expecting investors to do their own research.

Governments issuing bonds are not like companies issuing shares. Governments don't go broke and they can't just walk away like corporations can. It's a different dynamic.


----------



## rederob (23 July 2020)

dutchie said:


> Spot on cynic.
> The spread of Marxism  (Communism)  in the West is a far greater threat to humanity than so called Global Warming will ever be. The damage it will do is imminent.



If so, where is your evidence of either?
It seems to be part of your ongoing posting regime of making totally baseless claims.


----------



## dutchie (23 July 2020)

rederob said:


> It seems to be part of your ongoing posting regime of making totally baseless claims.



People in glass houses.......


----------



## wayneL (23 July 2020)

orr said:


> Or in the case that the Government Bonds being contested are found to have associated risk not disclosed to the purchasers a financial crime will have been exposed.
> 
> A light has been turned on and I'm watching the cockroaches scatter... back into your crevices.



I think a greater undisclosed risk is that of to basement of the currency. That is provable. The effect of *anthropogenic* climate change is not. 

As the bushfires have been cited in this case, they are on a hiding to nothing as most expert opinion shows that anthropogenic genetic factors we're not affected in the bushfires.... Unless of course you cite the humans actually having started them, in which case they are suing the wrong party.

I would possibly be going after climate change activists, that is probably more provable; if indeed there is some remarkable way where this is even winnable 

Either way the law of unintended consequences seems to be exerting itself


----------



## rederob (23 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> I think a greater undisclosed risk is that of to basement of the currency. That is provable. The effect of *anthropogenic* climate change is not.



If you accept science as what can be known, and  maths as proof, then climate change is beyond doubt.


wayneL said:


> As the bushfires have been cited in this case, they are on a hiding to nothing as most expert opinion shows that anthropogenic genetic factors we're not affected in the bushfires.... Unless of course you cite the humans actually having started them, in which case they are suing the wrong party.



???
First, the worst fires had no human hand.
Secondly, the science on AGW warned of the probability of these fires occurring at the levels they did.


wayneL said:


> I would possibly be going after climate change activists, that is probably more provable; if indeed there is some remarkable way where this is even winnable



That says a lot about your understanding of AGW and law.


----------



## wayneL (23 July 2020)

Okay Rob, as you seen to be both a practicing barrister and a climate scientist, not to mention an omnipotent and omnipresent seer, I am going to suggest to the young lady concerned to sack her activist legal team, who are clearly trying to float a turd, and seek the services of almighty, all seeing and all knowing rederob </sarc>


----------



## IFocus (23 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> Okay Rob, as you seen to be both a practicing barrister and a climate scientist, not to mention an omnipotent and omnipresent seer, I am going to suggest to the young lady concerned to sack her activist legal team, who are clearly trying to float a turd, and seek the services of almighty, all seeing and all knowing rederob </sarc>




Ahh it would help if you could form an argument on the issue backed by some evidence / logic / lack of political BS even a graph or two......some thing like this, remember.







Now the source is WA Water Corp note same information has been available under Liberal / Labor Govs and no WA state government has gotten into the BS politics on falling rain fall you see in federal or even other states.
As the water Corp CEO said some time ago there is no one in the Water Corp that doesn't accept climate change for good reason.

https://www.watercorporation.com.au/Our-water


You would think less rain fall greater risk of wild fires ........perhaps?


----------



## rederob (23 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> Okay Rob, as you seen to be both a practicing barrister and a climate scientist, not to mention an omnipotent and omnipresent seer, I am going to suggest to the young lady concerned to sack her activist legal team, who are clearly trying to float a turd, and seek the services of almighty, all seeing and all knowing rederob </sarc>



Address the topic and stop playing the man.
WRT to bushfires, your claims are not backed by science.  There is an ongoing Royal Commission into Bushfires and no doubt a lot of science will be included in its coverage.
Here's an early snapshot:
_" The fire season in parts of eastern Australia has lengthened by almost four months since the 1950s, with *climate change* a prominent driver in the trend, the Bureau of Meteorology says."_​
As posted by @IFocus, the data confirming the science is strong, yet there remain many who think it's maybe something else - maybe the tooth fairy!  If it's not the tooth fairy, then who or what?


----------



## basilio (24 July 2020)

Dutchie I notice  on this thread  that you never, ever, ever offer the smallest shred of evidence for anything you say. 

"Climate change is rubbish" " Marxism is the Greatest Threat to the world" so on and so forth. These are simply your grand opinions cast as... whatever.

Asking for any evidence to back up your normal sweeping comments is of course futile. You can't, you won't and you never will. 

Nonetheless Redrob  actually asked you to provide some/any evidence to back up your sweeping claims. That is not playing the Dutchie. That is just giving you the opportunity to justify your statements.


----------



## dutchie (24 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Dutchie I notice  on this thread  that you never, ever, ever offer the smallest shred of evidence for anything you say.
> 
> "Climate change is rubbish" " Marxism is the Greatest Threat to the world" so on and so forth. These are simply your grand opinions cast as... whatever.
> 
> Asking for any evidence to back up your normal sweeping comments is of course futile. You can't, you won't and you never will.



Fair enough.


----------



## rederob (25 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> Okay Rob, as you seen to be both a practicing barrister and a climate scientist, not to mention an omnipotent and omnipresent seer, I am going to suggest to the young lady concerned to sack her activist legal team, who are clearly trying to float a turd, and seek the services of almighty, all seeing and all knowing rederob </sarc>



Rather than add your sarcasm to the issue, try to understand what has been raised by the student instead of brushing it off as "_A more ridiculous thing I have never heard_."
Most posters here know that financial instruments are required by law to disclose risk.
Added to that APRA — the Australian financial industry regulator — said in 2017 that climate change was not only a "foreseeable" risk, but also "material and actionable now". 
In that light, when the Commonwealth sells bonds what allows it to evade the laws it sets for the industry it regulates?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Rather than add your sarcasm to the issue, try to understand what has been raised by the student instead of brushing it off as "_A more ridiculous thing I have never heard_."
> Most posters here know that financial instruments are required by law to disclose risk.
> Added to that APRA — the Australian financial industry regulator — said in 2017 that climate change was not only a "foreseeable" risk, but also "material and actionable now".
> *In that light, when the Commonwealth sells bonds what allows it to evade the laws it sets for the industry it regulates?*




Governments like Australia never default on bonds, so the risk in holding bonds is essentially zero and there is no need to give information about risks to bondholders.

That's not denying that climate change is real and a risk to the economy but in terms of the court case I don't think that the lady has a leg to stand on.


----------



## rederob (25 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Governments like Australia never default on bonds, so the risk in holding bonds is essentially zero and there is no need to give information about risks to bondholders.
> 
> That's not denying that climate change is real and a risk to the economy but in terms of the court case I don't think that the lady has a leg to stand on.



Bonds are tradable instruments, so their value will vary in keeping with the fluidity of money markets.
The fact is that the bond seller does state some risks and the complainant does not regard their disclosure as adequate.
So while the holder of the bond at payment dates gets a guaranteed return, the value of the bond until redemption is variable.  The complainant would argue that interim risk to value is not adequately outlined.


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Rather than add your sarcasm to the issue, try to understand what has been raised by the student instead of brushing it off as "_A more ridiculous thing I have never heard_."
> Most posters here know that financial instruments are required by law to disclose risk.
> Added to that APRA — the Australian financial industry regulator — said in 2017 that climate change was not only a "foreseeable" risk, but also "material and actionable now".
> In that light, when the Commonwealth sells bonds what allows it to evade the laws it sets for the industry it regulates?



Sarcasm is more apt, Rob.


----------



## explod (25 July 2020)

Anyway back on topic:-

"Scientists have for the first time identified an active leak of methane gas from the sea floor in Antarctica, increasing the possibility that the planet is close to one of the "tipping points" that would put the impacts of global heating out of humans' control.

According to _The Guardian_, researchers led by Andrew Thurber at Oregon State University found the methane leak in a region known as Cinder Cones in McMurdo Sound, within the Ross Sea. The site is 30 feet below the surface of the ocean.

In addition to finding methane dissolved in the water there, the scientists found that microbes which usually consume the gas before it reaches the atmosphere had only formed in small numbers five years after they first began to study the site. 

Thurber called the findings "incredibly concerning."

"It is not good news. It took more than five years for the microbes to begin to show up and even then there was still methane rapidly escaping from the sea floor," he told _The Guardian._ "The methane cycle is absolutely something that we as a society need to be concerned about."

Scientists have warned for years that the climate crisis could lead to the "tipping point" of methane leaks in the sea floor and the thawing of permafrost regions.

"At some point in a warming world, greenhouse gas emissions from nature will go way beyond anything we can control," tweeted Australian immunologist Peter Doherty."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...kaAv1dc1SVUK3RbwdwErW4v6SsUlvAbZdqPrrJJtVkoUc


----------



## Joules MM1 (2 August 2020)

Zack Labe
@ZLabe
·
14h
*New Record* -- 2020 averaged the lowest #Arctic sea extent in the satellite-era for the month of July. It was 2,190,000 km² below the 1981-2010 average! Data from
@NSIDC
.


----------



## explod (8 August 2020)

*Canada's last fully intact Arctic ice shelf collapses*

Moira Warburton
4 Min Read


(Reuters) - The last fully intact ice shelf in the Canadian Arctic has collapsed, losing more than 40% of its area in just two days at the end of July, researchers said on Thursday.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ELnktY9XizfRvahu9Cj0jHDCV_sJJnPyRKXpSkSMC_AJg


----------



## Joules MM1 (8 August 2020)

explod said:


> *Canada's last fully intact Arctic ice shelf collapses*
> 
> Moira Warburton
> 4 Min Read



and a good read: https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/epishelf-lakes-ecosystem-facing-extinction/
here's a gif of that, @explod

unfortunately this is not topic du jour,

Iraq just had hottest days on record ....pretty soon the virus will be seen as lite relief


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2020)

A reminder that climate change hasn't gone away.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08...ough-california-as-us-wildfires-rage/12565890


----------



## Joules MM1 (17 August 2020)

World Meteorological Organization
@WMO
·
3h

WMO will verify the temperature of 130°F (54.4C) reported at Death Valley, California, on Sunday. This would be the hottest global temperature officially recorded since 1931.







Bob Henson
@bhensonweather
·
15h

The 136F from Al Azizia, Libya, has been tossed. WMO still recognizes 134F (56.7C) from Death Valley (10 July 1913) and 131F (55C) from Kebili, Tunisia (7 July 1931). https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-verifies-3rd-and-4th-hottest-temperature-recorded-earth… Some experts argue for 129.2F (54C) as the world record. See https://wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/hottest-reliably-measured-air-temperatures-on-earth-part-two.html


----------



## SirRumpole (22 August 2020)

I got a miserable 4/10 in this quiz.

See how you go.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-08-22/climate-change-quiz/12503436


----------



## basilio (22 August 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I got a miserable 4/10 in this quiz.
> 
> See how you go.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-08-22/climate-change-quiz/12503436




Interesting quiz.  The explanation for the answers was the most useful.  It certainly increased my knowledge of the issue.

Free cheat..
*When did scientists first discover that carbon dioxide was a heat-trapping molecule that could increase the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere?*

Yep, we've known about this for a long time. An often-overlooked pioneer of climate science, American scientist Eunice Foote used an air pump, some glass cylinders and some thermometers to figure out that CO2 trapped the Sun's heat  back in ......       . Institutionalised sexism prevented her getting the credit though. A few years later, Irish physicist John Tyndall published similar findings and until recently has been considered the founder of climate science.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-08-22/climate-change-quiz/12503436


----------



## basilio (22 August 2020)

Had to check out Eunice Foote after discovering she was in fact the first person to discover CO2 was a heat trapping gas.
Fascinating  person in a time that largely didn't see women as capable as men.

*Eunice Foote, John Tyndall and a question of priority*
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0066

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote


----------



## basilio (23 August 2020)

Back to what happens when  extra Greenhouse Gases are trapped in the atmosphere and increase temperatures far beyond recent levels.

*Earth has lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice in less than 30 years*
‘Stunned’ scientists say there is little doubt global heating is to blame for the loss

A total of 28 trillion tonnes of ice have disappeared from the surface of the Earth since 1994. That is stunning conclusion of UK scientists who have analysed satellite surveys of the planet’s poles, mountains and glaciers to measure how much ice coverage lost because of global heating triggered by rising greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists – based at Leeds and Edinburgh universities and University College London – describe the level of ice loss as “staggering” and warn that their analysis indicates that sea level rises, triggered by melting glaciers and ice sheets, could reach a metre by the end of the century.

“To put that in context, every centimetre of sea level rise means about a million people will be displaced from their low-lying homelands,” said Professor Andy Shepherd, director of Leeds University’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling.

The scientists also warn that the melting of ice in these quantities is now seriously reducing the planet’s ability to reflect solar radiation back into space. White ice is disappearing and the dark sea or soil exposed beneath it is absorbing more and more heat, further increasing the warming of the planet.

In addition, cold fresh water pouring from melting glaciers and ice sheets is causing major disruptions to the biological health of Arctic and Antarctic waters, while loss of glaciers in mountain ranges threatens to wipe out sources of fresh water on which local communities depend.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...8-trillion-tonnes-ice-30-years-global-warming


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2020)

Can we geo-engineer our way out of climate change ?

Interesting prospects.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08...ial-science-to-combat-climate-change/12588828


----------



## basilio (17 September 2020)

CC is not going away.  The  current mega fires in the US (we had our first lot 9 months ago..), the record temperatures, the rapidly melting ice shelves aren't turning a corner.

Tim Flannery has written an essay pulling together the causes  threats and responses to COVID 19 and CC. 


Fire, Flood and Plague – essays about 2020
*The megafires and pandemic expose the lies that frustrate action on climate change*

If there was a moment of true emergency in the fight to preserve our climate, it is now

...three catastrophes would strike Australia in quick succession: the unprecedented, climate-fuelled megafires that were extinguished in February by damaging, climate-influenced floods. Then, in March, the Covid-19 pandemic that began to spread across Australia.

These three catastrophes are proof that things that travel invisibly through the great aerial ocean that is our atmosphere are a particular danger to our complex, global civilisation. The carbon dioxide molecule that accumulates imperceptibly as we burn fossil fuels causes an increase in average global temperature, which triggered the profoundly disruptive droughts, floods and fires that plagued Australia over the past year. But the coronavirus also travels unseen through the great aerial ocean, insinuating itself in lung after lung, killing person after person, until it threatens our health system, economy and society.

*There are many differences between climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic but, from the perspective of prevention, there are also many similarities. Perhaps the most important is that both have “incubation periods” during which the problem grows, undetected, except by the experts. Throughout this period, things can seem relatively normal but, unless a sense of urgency leads to decisive action at this time, catastrophe becomes inevitable*.

The actions required to contain both a pandemic and climate change are also broadly similar, and involve three steps. The first and most urgent is to stop the threat from growing. For Covid-19, that involved introducing social distancing, closing schools and halting entire industries. For climate change it means dramatically cutting the use of fossil fuels. The second step involves ensuring that we can save as many of the stricken as possible. For Covid-19, that meant preparing emergency wards and other treatment facilities. For climate change it means instituting measures to deal with a sweeping variety of issues, including future megafires, the threat to the Great Barrier Reef, and vulnerable coasts. The third step involves finding a permanent fix. For Covid-19, that means the development of a vaccine, while for climate change it involves removing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere.









						The megafires and pandemic expose the lies that frustrate action on climate change | Tim Flannery
					

If there was a moment of true emergency in the fight to preserve our climate, it is now




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (24 September 2020)

*At what stage does the  world acknowledge that  most  coastal cities will be nonviable by the end of this century ?  *And what does that mean for "everything" ? This bleak analysis is predicated *on actually achieving the Paris climate goals*

*Melting Antarctic ice will raise sea level by 2.5 metres – even if Paris climate goals are met, study finds *
Research says melting will continue even if temperature rises are limited to 2C

Melting of the Antarctic ice sheet will cause sea level rises of about two and a half metres around the world, even if the goals of the Paris agreement are met, research has shown.

The melting is likely to take place over a long period, beyond the end of this century, but is almost certain to be irreversible, because of the way in which the ice cap is likely to melt, the new model reveals.

Even if temperatures were to fall again after rising by 2C (3.6F), the temperature limit set out in the Paris agreement, the ice would not regrow to its initial state, because of self-reinforcing mechanisms that destabilise the ice, according to the paper published in the journal Nature.








						Melting Antarctic ice will raise sea level by 2.5 metres – even if Paris climate goals are met, study finds
					

Research says melting will continue even if temperature rises are limited to 2C




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (23 October 2020)

This is a critical story.
* Alarm as Arctic sea ice not yet freezing at latest date on record *
Delayed freeze in Laptev Sea could have knock-on effects across polar region, scientists say

Jonathan Watts Global environment editor
@jonathanwatts
Thu 22 Oct 2020 06.26 EDT   Last modified on Thu 22 Oct 2020 15.19 ED


Shares
2,938




Climate change is pushing warmer Atlantic currents into the Arctic and breaking up the usual stratification between warm deep waters and the cool surface. This also makes it difficult for ice to form. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

For the first time since records began, the main nursery of Arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing in late October.

The delayed annual freeze in the Laptev Sea has been caused by freakishly protracted warmth in northern Russia and the intrusion of Atlantic waters, say climate scientists who warn of possible knock-on effects across the polar region.

Ocean temperatures in the area recently climbed to more than 5C above average, following a record breaking heatwave and the unusually early decline of last winter’s sea ice.

The trapped heat takes a long time to dissipate into the atmosphere, even at this time of the year when the sun creeps above the horizon for little more than an hour or two each day.

Graphs of sea-ice extent in the Laptev Sea, which usually show a healthy seasonal pulse, appear to have flat-lined. As a result, there is a record amount of open sea in the Arctic.








						Alarm as Arctic sea ice not yet freezing at latest date on record
					

Delayed freeze in Laptev Sea could have knock-on effects across polar region, scientists say




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (23 October 2020)

What is the impact t of China on Global Heating and,  conversely, what will be the effect of Global Heating on  China ? 
What will be the impacts of both these events on China's neighbourbours ?

Long but excellent analysis. Check out the graphs on Chinas contribution to CO2 emissions  since 2000 ( basically  being the manufacturing centre for much of the worlds industrial production..)

*China's Communist Party knows how to quell a restive population — but what about its environment?*


It's often said that China's rise will present one of the world's greatest security challenges this century.

*Key points:*

Water scarcity is one of the country's most-pressing environmental concerns
Experts say environmental threats act as a "threat multiplier" on existing tensions
They say China's carbon neutral pledge could also be seen as a play to take a leadership role
While China has promised the world a peaceful rise, its "wolf warrior diplomacy", fast-growing military, and territorial claim to most of the South China Sea despite having no legal basis, suggest otherwise.

But there's another, less understood consequence of China's rise — and that's to do with the enormous scale of its emissions.

Richard Smith, an author and US-based expert in Chinese history and economics, said China's rising emissions — constituting nearly a third of the global total — poses "the single biggest threat to life on Earth".

"What's uniquely dangerous about the Chinese case is that its emissions are … growing so fast that scientists tell us they could eventually doom the climate on their own regardless of what the rest of the world does," Mr Smith wrote in Foreign Policy magazine.









						China's running dry, and that could spell danger for the ruling Communist Party
					

China has pledged to become carbon-neutral by 2060, responding to the need to drastically bring down its overwhelming share of global carbon emissions. Experts say it's also critical for the communist party's survival.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## moXJO (23 October 2020)

basilio said:


> What is the impact t of China on Global Heating and,  conversely, what will be the effect of Global Heating on  China ?
> What will be the impacts of both these events on China's neighbourbours ?
> 
> Long but excellent analysis. Check out the graphs on Chinas contribution to CO2 emissions  since 2000 ( basically  being the manufacturing centre for much of the worlds industrial production..)
> ...



Oh... They just realised this did they?

I suppose they won't realise China has fished out all the neighbouring territories waters with their shadow fleet. Possibly creating a huge danger for food security for many of those poorer nations. Maybe a decade from now it will become an issue.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2020)

basilio said:


> What is the impact t of China on Global Heating and,  conversely, what will be the effect of Global Heating on  China ?
> What will be the impacts of both these events on China's neighbourbours ?
> 
> Long but excellent analysis.



I'll simply say that an assortment of engineers, people representing industry and so on have been making this same point for over 30 years now.

Had they been listened to rather than being shot down as not politically correct, far more would likely have been achieved on the issue globally than has been the case.


----------



## sptrawler (23 October 2020)

basilio said:


> What is the impact t of China on Global Heating and,  conversely, what will be the effect of Global Heating on  China ?
> What will be the impacts of both these events on China's neighbourbours ?



Well Bas, if they are as brilliant at not building 100 coal fired stations, as they were at stopping the corona virus, we are all saved.

But I for one will hold judgement untill I see the results, unlike others who ramp up the rhetoric, but are disappointed with the results.  😂


----------



## Joules MM1 (24 October 2020)

A historic event is ongoing in the #Arctic. Zack Labe















						Alarm as Arctic sea ice not yet freezing at latest date on record
					

Delayed freeze in Laptev Sea could have knock-on effects across polar region, scientists say




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (25 October 2020)

Joules MM1 said:


> A historic event is ongoing in the #Arctic. Zack Labe
> 
> View attachment 113651
> 
> ...





Is that  graph called flatlining  ?


----------



## Joules MM1 (25 October 2020)

basilio said:


> Is that  graph called flatlining  ?



my understanding, based on the x/y, is that each square kilometre set must have 15% observable ice with a single grid cell size*  (625 km² )  to be included in the data set, i interpret that to mean, on a zero to one scale, that each (peak) season we see around 85% of the Arctic sea as frozen and then we get the thaw rate and how long that thaw rate is active prior to the next ice-flow season, so we see how long and how deep the extent of loss of flow relative to previous seasons
i interpret that to show seasons are trending faster ice loss as well as in steeper absolute loss, that's not what i am looking for so much as the recovery rate of the following season which is taking longer to recover, a slight widening, i find this an interesting phenom that the loss-rate is not equal to the input rate, which is a good thing, if they were equal and yet the seasons of loss widened then that would not be a good thing, albeit that in toto we are not trending well, this means we do have time (as a relative interpretation) to take steps to mitigate the current rate(s) of loss to recovery

the major take away is the shifting of climate impact on various regions that have to this recent century been stable, we see deep snow storms normal in Ontario now taking place in mid-north America and we'll now see larger rainfalls in Australasia followed by more lightening-struck dry periods

i'm not use to banging the climate drum as you rarely see me posting an opinion that is mine, however, i am inclined to be concerned each time i remember 7 (seven) Australian fire chiefs, all with vast experience, gather together to be interviewed,  counter that we are not in "normal" weather patterns and that the lightening strikes, that caused so many fires, have pretty much been completely discounted by the current government, that we are likely to see the same pattern repeat
what i'm saying is, if you discount the science, you cannot discount on-the-ground observational evidence that is a result of transit, specifically when the observers have practised and understand how fires start, how to prevent them from starting and what practises to put in place that ensures that knowledge is conveyed to all the people who need to receive


* 1 The size of each grid cell is obtained from static reference files that are noted in the NRTSI product and GSFC product documentation. These files, psn25area_v3.dat and pss25area_v3.dat, are used when calculating the extent. Each grid cell is nominally 625 km² (25 km x 25 km), but the area of each cell is slightly different due to the curvature of the Earth and according to the polar stereographic projection that the source data are in. The area is given by multiplying the nominal grid cell size (625 km² ) by the square of the map scale at the center of the grid cell. Grid cell areas range from 382 km² to 664 km² for the Northern Hemisphere grid domain and 443 km² to 664 km² for the Southern Hemisphere grid domain. For information on this projection, see NSIDC's Polar Stereographic Projections and Grids web page.




__





						| National Snow and Ice Data Center
					






					nsidc.org
				






"..you have a group of 23 fire and emergency chiefs, who have varying views and backgrounds, they live in various areas,  not all in the city and they've all come together because they're vitaly concerned for the future of our planet and of Australia, our communities are increasingly under threat from extreme weather events caused by climate change ....some people want the debate gagged because they dont have any answers ......"


over in the U.S
" for the third year in-a-row, California is a tinderbox
" when i started in this business, our seasons, especially in this region, maybe run a four good months, _now_,
we start in april and go almost to christmas..."


----------



## basilio (25 October 2020)

basilio said:


> Is that  graph called flatlining  ?




Thanks  Joules for the official analysis of the mathematical underpinnings  of the ice cover graph.
Actually, I was making a dark joke about flatlining as in dead... on a  patient readout in IC.☹

The concerns raised by Australian Fire Fighters, US fire fighters (not to mention Russian, Swedish, etc ect ) simply reiforce what Cliamte Scientsits have been saying decades - the climate is getting  relentlessly hotter; the consequences  in terms of fire risk, drought, crop and environment destruction and human survival are obvious. 

Unfortunately we can't just have a National Vote to change this reality.


----------



## basilio (28 October 2020)

This isn't encouraging.
Abrupt climate change means catastopohic  climate changes within years and decades rather than centuries.

*'Sleeping giant' Arctic methane deposits starting to release, scientists find*
Exclusive: expedition discovers new source of greenhouse gas off East Siberian coast has been triggered

Scientists have found evidence that frozen methane deposits in the Arctic Ocean – known as the “sleeping giants of the carbon cycle” – have started to be released over a large area of the continental slope off the East Siberian coast, the Guardian can reveal.

High levels of the potent greenhouse gas have been detected down to a depth of 350 metres in the Laptev Sea near Russia, prompting concern among researchers that a new climate feedback loop may have been triggered that could accelerate the pace of global heating.

The slope sediments in the Arctic contain a huge quantity of frozen methane and other gases – known as hydrates. Methane has a warming effect 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years. *The United States Geological Survey has previously listed Arctic hydrate destabilisation as one of four most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change.









						Arctic methane deposits 'starting to release', scientists say
					

Exclusive: expedition says preliminary findings indicate that new source of greenhouse gas off East Siberian coast has been triggered




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Abrupt climate change - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*


----------



## Joules MM1 (3 November 2020)

Back in 2009, only 27.2% of Scotland's electricity came from renewable energy sources. 
It was 90.1% in  2019








						Could Scotland ever be 'the Saudi Arabia of renewables'?
					

Not for the first time, politicians highlight Scotland's potential to generate renewable energy.



					www.bbc.com
				









						Scottish Energy Statistics Hub
					






					scotland.shinyapps.io


----------



## moXJO (3 November 2020)

basilio said:


> This isn't encouraging.
> Abrupt climate change means catastopohic  climate changes within years and decades rather than centuries.
> 
> *'Sleeping giant' Arctic methane deposits starting to release, scientists find*
> ...



Yes its too late imo.


----------



## basilio (1 December 2020)

Where we are with Global heating.  Just keeps on getting hotter and hotter









						The data is in and Australia just had its hottest November on record
					

The BOM confirms it after crunching last month's numbers, while it was also the country's warmest spring on record for minimum and mean temperatures.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## basilio (16 December 2020)

Arctic sea ice is disappearing rapidly.  Because this ice is a key factor in reflecting the heat of the sun its loss is accelerating the heating of the Arctic and surroundings regions.
Forest fires in Siberia, Canada and Norther Europe









						Earth's 'air conditioner' is trapped in a polar heat spike — this is what it looks like
					

Dramatic changes are unfolding right now in the Arctic and the fallout is being felt well beyond the reaches of the north pole.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## basilio (28 December 2020)

Wrap up of the effects of extreme weather events  in 2020. The report highlights the human and financial costs which will flow through to the insurance and re insurance industry.
Start looking at your insurance cover.









						Climate change: Extreme weather causes huge losses in 2020
					

Hurricanes, floods and wildfires wreaked havoc, causing deaths and a huge financial impact.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## basilio (4 January 2021)

The Arctic 104 years ago and today..


----------



## basilio (5 January 2021)

Greta Turns 18 !  Off to the pub..


----------



## basilio (11 January 2021)

This new research has to be the most encouraging I have seen regarding CC for some time time. 
It seems that if the world did manage to  quickly reach net carbon neutrality ie no extra CO2 into the atmosphere,  future heating could be reduced.

Certainly gives a good push to making an all out effort tackle the problem.

*Global heating could stabilize if net zero emissions achieved, scientists say*
Climate disaster could be curtailed within a couple of decades if net zero emissions are reached, new study shows

The world may be barreling towards climate disaster but rapidly eliminating planet-heating emissions means global temperatures could stabilize within just a couple of decades, scientists say.

For many years it was assumed that further global heating would be locked in for generations even if emissions were rapidly cut. Climate models run by scientists on future temperatures were based on a certain carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. If this remained at the current high level there would be runaway climate disaster, with temperatures continuing to rise even if emissions were reduced because of a lag time before greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.

But more recent understanding of the implications of getting to net zero emissions is giving hope that the warming could be more swiftly curtailed.








						Global heating could stabilize if net zero emissions achieved, scientists say
					

If we can get emissions down to zero, planet will recover quicker than previously thought




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (12 January 2021)

India sees $55bn investment in clean coal over next decade
					

The investment will be made in clean coal facilities, including coal gasification and coal-bed methane.




					www.mining.com


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2021)

Well I guess some things never change, when there is a heat wave there are loonies that want to light fires and other loonies that want to blame anything else.








						NSW RFS volunteer charged with allegedly lighting 30 fires in state's south-west
					

The 30-year-old man is arrested in Whitton, about 40 kilometres south of Griffith, after investigations into dozens of fires which were determined to have been deliberately lit between November to January.




					www.abc.net.au
				












						Deliberately lit fire in Rockingham contained
					

Firefighters have contained an out-of-control fire in Rockingham that was deliberately lit at about 1am this morning.




					thewest.com.au
				












						Police on the hunt for suspected arsonist after Perth fires
					

Police are on the hunt for a suspected arsonist they believe deliberately lit a fire that threatened dozen...




					www.9news.com.au
				












						Arson Squad investigate 10 suspicious blazes across Perth
					






					www.9news.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (25 January 2021)

And yet another one in Adelaide.




__





						No Cookies | Daily Telegraph
					

No Cookies




					www.dailytelegraph.com.au
				



from the article:
Country Fire Service fighting huge fire threatening several townships in Adelaide Hills; Police arrest man allegedly speeding away​Police have arrested a man allegedly speeding away from the site of a fire in the Adelaide Hills. The massive bushfire continues to threaten Hills townships.









						Man arrested speeding away from fire near Cherry Gardens blaze
					

South Australian police arrest a man who was caught leaving the scene of a fire at Clarendon in the Adelaide Hills. Meanwhile, a fire in the nearby Cherry Gardens area is downgraded from emergency level.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## sptrawler (25 January 2021)

It will be interesting to see how the EU goes placing tarrifs on China, that is if they do.









						Europe vows to work against fossil-fuel investments globally
					

The European Union plans to use its diplomatic and economic muscle to accelerate global energy transition away from fossil fuels.




					www.smh.com.au
				



From the article:
EU leaders committed last month to cut the bloc’s 2030 greenhouse emissions by 55 per cent compared to 1990 levels, and affirmed their pledge to turn Europe into the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050. Alarmed that the bloc’s ever stricter environmental regulations will simply force polluting activities to relocate elsewhere in the world, they are eager to eliminate “carbon leakage” by forcing the rest of the globe to fall in line with the Paris Agreement against climate change.

*The EU’s executive arm is drafting a law, to be unveiled by June, that would start penalising imports of certain goods from countries with weak pollution rules, thereby helping to protect the competitiveness of local producers abiding by stricter standards. *This push to export climate standards got a boost last week when President Joe Biden moved to restore the US as a member of the Paris climate accord, which seeks to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius through steep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## basilio (31 January 2021)

This is a very uncomfortable read. It resonates personally on many levels. It goes to the heart of how human minds cope with seeing very dark realities. Check it out if you will.

I picked out a salient quote.

The Climate Crisis Is Worse Than You Can Imagine. Here’s What Happens If You Try.​ A climate scientist spent years trying to get people to pay attention to the disaster ahead. His wife is exhausted. His older son thinks there’s no future. And nobody but him will use the outdoor toilet he built to shrink his carbon footprint.

_.. George Marshall opened his book, “Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change,” with the parable of Jan Karski, a young Polish resistance fighter who, in 1943, met in person with Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who was both a Jew and widely regarded as one of the great minds of his generation. Karski briefed the justice on what he’d seen firsthand: the pillage of the Warsaw Ghetto, the Belzec death camp. Afterward, Frankfurter said, “I do not believe you.”

The Polish ambassador, who had arranged the meeting on the recommendation of President Franklin Roosevelt, interrupted to defend Karski’s account.

“I did not say that he is lying,” Frankfurter explained. “I said that I didn’t believe him. It’s a different thing. My mind, my heart — they are made in such a way that I cannot accept. No no no.”_









						The Climate Crisis Is Worse Than You Can Imagine. Here’s What Happens If You Try.
					

A climate scientist spent years trying to get people to pay attention to the disaster ahead. His wife is exhausted. His older son thinks there’s no future. And nobody but him will use the outdoor toilet he built to shrink his carbon footprint.




					www.propublica.org


----------



## basilio (31 January 2021)

sptrawler said:


> It will be interesting to see how the EU goes placing tarrifs on China, that is if they do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good point. I don't know if China will be the sticking point in terms of  environmental regulations. I suspect China will be very much in tune with tackling CC and will work with the legislation.. Probably Russia and the US and maybe India will be  difficult countries. ? Australia may also be in the gun.

It will be interesting to see how discussions between now and June shape these proposals.


----------



## basilio (15 February 2021)

Bill Gates has always been aware of  the cataclysmic  impact of CC and the need to move very quickly across *everything  *we do to turn the ship.
He has now written a book that  highlights the issues and perhaps the solutions. Makes very strong points on the need for green steel and cleaning up cement as well as cow farts !

Excellent overview of Bill gates as well as the book.

Bill Gates: ‘Carbon neutrality in a decade is a fairytale. Why peddle fantasies?’​After putting $100m into Covid research, the billionaire is taking on the climate crisis. And first he has some bones to pick with his fellow campaigners...

Read an exclusive extract from Gates’ new book
.... All of these aspects come together in Gates’ new book, How To Avoid A Climate Disaster, which, as he tells me, grew out of two things: his interest in the sciences and what struck him as an irresistible challenge – the fiendishly difficult problem of how to further global development while reducing emissions. For the past few decades, much of Gates’ focus has been on expanding access to electricity in the remotest parts of the world. “And yet,” he says, “the idea of adding new electricity capacity – you can’t just go build coal plants. And understanding how expensive it needs to be, and how this is going to work, had me doing a lot of reading.”









						Bill Gates: ‘Carbon neutrality in a decade is a fairytale. Why peddle fantasies?’
					

After putting $100m into Covid research, the billionaire is taking on the climate crisis. And first he has some bones to pick with his fellow campaigners...Read an exclusive extract from Gates’ new book




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 February 2021)

basilio said:


> I don't know if China will be the sticking point in terms of environmental regulations.



It really depends on what their long term intentions are regarding Antarctica.

Suffice to say mining would be made very much easier if all that pesky ice could be made to go away. Note there that it's China and Russia which have blocked moves to further protection of the Antarctic:









						Antarctica and the China test
					

While Australia’s federal politicians ponder the US-China puzzle, it may be state governments stuck with real choices.




					www.lowyinstitute.org


----------



## orr (15 February 2021)

basilio said:


> Bill Gates has always been aware........ Makes very strong points on the need fo*r green steel* and cleaning up cement as well as cow farts !
> 
> ”
> 
> ...




Serious emphsis here on *Green Steel*.... This is  on a disruptive aspect ... close; but yet tantalisiningly close...
Mr Gates has put a few million( he can afford it) into 'Boston Metal' a project working on 'Moltent Oxide Electrolysis' MOE...  The serious possiblity of *Zero* emmision Steel.  Tragicallly (for minister Angus* T*_wat'_ & others) negating Hydrogen in the process.
As the reality of cost superioity renewable energy works it way into every project of the future; And as an International Carbon impost introduces consequences to trade,  and this seating  itself into the investment actions of all involved. The  work of the type Boston Metal is involved in is of serious consequence.
DYOR.....or don't.


----------



## sptrawler (16 February 2021)

Another Bill Gates article, on the same subject.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02...issions-hardest-thing-humanitys-done/13156306


----------



## moXJO (16 February 2021)

A lot of people would have to start dying before we see much in the way of meaningful action imo.


----------



## basilio (31 March 2021)

Australia is dealing with multiple climate related disasters in very short time spans. It is not an accident. This report brings together many of the factors that will make much of Australia* virtually unlivable *if we and the rest of the world doesn't get on the collective bike and reverse our direction.









						'Delay is as dangerous as denial': scientists urge Australia to reach net zero emissions faster
					

Heatwaves to double and many properties will be uninsurable if global heating reaches 3C, Australian Academy of Science says




					www.theguardian.com
				




_Global heating of 3C would more than double the number of annual heatwaves in some parts of Australia, leave properties uninsurable due to flood and fire risk, and make many of the country’s ecosystems “unrecognisable”, according to Australia’s leading scientists._


----------



## rederob (31 March 2021)

Japan's cherry blossom 'earliest peak since 812.​


----------



## basilio (10 April 2021)

Scientists have sent a mini sub under Thwaites glacier in Antarctica.  There have been concerns about it's stability as global  heating has raised the temperature of the ocean under the glacier.
Not good news.

https://earther.gizmodo.com/first-ever-observations-from-under-antarctica-s-doomsd-1846650385

Glaciers all over Antarctica are in trouble as ice there rapidly melts. There’s no Antarctic glacier whose fate is more consequential for our future than the Thwaites Glacier, and new research shows that things aren’t looking good for


----------



## basilio (13 April 2021)

This is an amazing story of an 18 year student in the US who has been invited to join the Biden government advisory panel on CC. How did he get there ? What was his journey ?
CC is going to dramatically  affect Jeromes  entire life. "We" on the other hand are far closer to the end of our lives. He understands what is at stake if we allow global  temperatures to increase at the current rate.

‘I’m hopeful’: Jerome Foster, the 18-year-old helping to craft US climate policy​




Jerome Foster, 18, a climate change activist and virtual reality developer, poses for a portrait in Manhattan. Photograph: Elias Williams/The Guardian
The New York teenager has been included among a group of advisers to the president – a remarkable journey from protesting in front of the White House





Oliver Milman

@olliemilman
Tue 13 Apr 2021


If a week is a long time in politics, the past year has been an eternity for Jerome Foster. In the opening stanza of 2020, the 18-year-old was holding forlorn weekly protests outside the White House calling for action on the climate crisis. Now, he has been ushered into the seat of American power to help craft climate policy.









						‘I’m hopeful’: Jerome Foster, the 18-year-old helping to craft US climate policy
					

The New York teenager has been included among a group of advisers to the president – a remarkable journey from protesting in front of the White House




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (13 April 2021)

Jerome Foster Wiki




__





						Jerome Foster II - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## basilio (15 April 2021)

Wonder how countries around the Equator will survive ? Water too hot for the fish. Land too hot for humans and the rest of the ecosystems.
(Oops.  That  scenario will include Northern Australia...)









						Marine species increasingly can’t live at equator due to global heating
					

Study suggests it is already too warm in tropics for some species to survive




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (2 May 2021)

Good to see Victoria committing to a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030, when you consider 75% of Australia's total emissions are created by NSW, Queensland and Victoria, if Queensland and NSW follow suit that will be a big reduction in Australia's emissions.









						Victoria makes pledge to halve carbon emissions by 2030
					

All government operations – from schools to hospitals – will be powered by renewable energy within the next four years.




					www.theage.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (5 May 2021)

Global warming uncovering yet more history.  








						Melting glacial ice in Italian Alps reveals World War I bunker
					

Glacial melt near the famous Stelvio Pass in northern Italy reveals a cave shelter used by Austro-Hungarian soldiers, complete with weapons, lamps, eating utensils and corpses.




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
Now rising temperatures are shedding new light on their daily lives, according to Stefano Morosini, a historian and coordinator of heritage projects at Stelvio national park.

"The barracks is a time capsule of the White War that helps us to understand the extreme, starving conditions that the soldiers experienced," he told The Guardian.

"The knowledge we're able to gather today from the relics is a positive consequence of the negative fact of climate change."


----------



## basilio (11 May 2021)

Updating the impact of Global Warming on melting of the Antarctic ice cap.

In a nutshell.
​
 
Overshooting 2C risks rapid and unstoppable sea level rise from Antarctica​


In 2015, governments from across the world committed to the Paris Agreement and its goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C or 2C. Yet, the emissions pledges that those governments have since proposed put the world on course for as much as 3C of warming.

Such a mismatch between ambition and action could have huge ramifications for the world, not least for global sea level rise, which is already accelerating.

In a new modelling study, published in Nature, we show what the difference between meeting the Paris goals and overshooting them could mean for the melting ice of Antarctica.

At 1.5C or 2C, we find that Antarctic ice melt continues at similar levels as today – albeit a contribution that would continue for centuries.

However, at 3C, we find significant risks of rapid, irreversible sea level rise before 2100. Our model incorporates glaciological processes observed over the past several decades, including the impact of ice shelf loss on outlet glaciers and subsequent marine-based “ice cliff” collapse.

We also show that our model is able to accurately reproduce sea level changes in Earth’s ancient past, which increases confidence that they can simulate long-term impacts beyond 2100. Significantly, our model demonstrates threshold behaviour once warming passes 2C, revealing the risks of overshooting the Paris goal and the apparent limits of carbon removal to halt these processes once they have started.









						Overshooting 2C risks rapid and unstoppable sea level rise from Antarctica
					

This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by:



					skepticalscience.com


----------



## basilio (21 May 2021)

Why 10's of thousands of young people marched across Australia today.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 May 2021)

basilio said:


> Greta Turns 18 !  Off to the pub..
> 
> View attachment 117769



I want a flat Mars society Tshirt!


----------



## sptrawler (22 May 2021)

basilio said:


> Why 10's of thousands of young people marched across Australia today.
> 
> View attachment 124643



I bet they have all got a mobile phone in their pockets and do online gaming into the wee hours.


----------



## basilio (23 May 2021)

sptrawler said:


> I bet they have all got a mobile phone in their pockets and do online gaming into the wee hours.




And I don't believe any of them live in caves either...


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2021)

basilio said:


> And I don't believe any of them live in caves either...



It would certainly fix the global warming problem if we did. 
Even if we just got rid of all the a/c's it would help, we managed for a long time without them, now everyone has one.


----------



## basilio (23 May 2021)

sptrawler said:


> It would certainly fix the global warming problem if we did.



Hi Sp

*Please,* please pass me toke on whatever it is your smoking. It must be really amazing stuff


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2021)

basilio said:


> Hi Sp
> 
> *Please,* please pass me toke on whatever it is your smoking. It must be really amazing stuff



Times are a changing Bas a lot of this stuff will be taken out of peoples hands. 😂 








						Europe takes on cheap flights and landlords in race to net zero emissions
					

Trains instead of flights, fossil fuel ad bans and charging landlords for tenant’s heating emissions will be legislated in parts of Europe.




					www.smh.com.au
				



From the article:
Trains instead of flights, fossil fuel ad bans and *charging landlords for their tenant’s heating emissions* – these are not pie-in-the-sky but newly endorsed policies being implemented across Europe as governments prepare to make good on their net zero targets.

Last month France passed a law banning domestic flights of less than two-and-a-half hours where train routes also exist. The ban, which won’t apply to connecting international flights, is actually a watered-down version of what President Emmanuel Macron’s Citizens Climate Convention originally recommended. It will apply to eight routes inside France.
European countries are enacting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 40 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and the European Union agreed to a new 55 per cent reduction target in December.

Austria, which has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2040, last year banned flights of three hours where train travel is already possible. Further, it wants to make cheap flights a thing of the past, imposing a €30 ($47) tax on flights less than 300 kilometres.

The German government recently prepared legislation forcing landlords to pay half of a new carbon tax, also paid by tenants who live in buildings heated by oil and gas.


----------



## basilio (23 May 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Times are a changing Bas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Visionary and  practical and will certainly be important. It stands in stark contrast to our current Federal Government policies which  don't get close to recognising what is required  of Australia to meet it's  essential tasks in the field. 

*Nah. They just gave $600m to mates in fossil fuel industry to build a gas powered powered generator that no credible person in the power industry believe has any economic or environmental credibility.*

And that issue was a core one for the students who protested across Australia on Friday.


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2021)

basilio said:


> *Nah. They just gave $600m to mates in fossil fuel industry to build a gas powered powered generator that no credible person in the power industry believe has any economic or environmental credibility.*
> 
> And that issue was a core one for the students who protested across Australia on Friday.



It just shows how easily people are conned into believing whatever is fed to them and what little understanding they have of the power system.
The fact that the Eastern States need a gas fired plant is obvious, the only ones who don't agree are those with vested interests.


----------



## basilio (23 May 2021)

sptrawler said:


> It just shows how easily people are conned into believing whatever is fed to them and what little understanding they have of the power system.
> The fact that the Eastern States need a gas fired plant is obvious, the only ones who don't agree are those with vested interests.



Rubbish.  



			https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/energy-economic-experts-slam-600m-kurri-kurri-gasfired-power-plant/news-story/5aa591790ac
		


But Andrew Stock, a senior energy executive with over 40 years experience, said the construction of a new gas power station would not lower electricity prices for homes and businesses as promised by the government. He claimed it would only raise them.

“Gas is expensive and gas peakers that rarely run need to drive up prices to get a return … Federal interference in the electricity market also discourages private sector investment,” he said.

“Any potential shortfall created by the closure of Liddell Power Station (in 2023) would have been filled by the NSW state government and energy industry’s announced plans to build renewable energy zones and big batteries across the state.

“Renewables are the cheaper, smarter choice to meet future energy demand compared to gas, which is expensive, polluting and worsens climate change. This decision is an all-round poor move for Australian taxpayers.”


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2021)

@basilio, you believe whatever you like, time will tell.  The guy is from the climate council, what do you think he is going to say?
Jeez i see Trump is falling off your radar. 😂
Bas, if the Government builds a gas fired station, once there is enough renewable hydrogen generating plant, the gas turbines can be run on Hydrogen, so it actually becomes clean backup/ storage.
Meanwhile, while we are waiting for the renewables, there is dispatchable power for firming capacity.
Plus it will bring forward the closing of more coal generators, which I would have thought you would be happy with, but lets not let reality get in the way of a good scare campaign.


----------



## macca (23 May 2021)

Meanwhile China happily increases its pollution all the way through to at least 2030... nothing to see here folks


----------



## rederob (23 May 2021)

macca said:


> Meanwhile China happily increases its pollution all the way through to at least 2030... nothing to see here folks




*China seems to be leading from a long way back!*







*Or a world view?*





*Or even at the gross level since the Industrial Revolution:*




*Getting more recent data for the world was not possible, and clearly China will have increased its footprint since the above were available. Nevertheless, a nation with around 20% of global population and the greatest manufacturing capacity by a long margin is not number one on any of the above measures.
Europe and the USA combined have around half of China's population but since the Industrial Revolution have more than tripled China's CO2 output.*


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2021)

The thing is China has probably emitted most of their output in the last 30 years, as opposed to the EU, U.S etc over the last 200 years, but it doesn't change the fact that their total is far less. 
It will be interesting to see the totals in 20 years time.


----------



## basilio (26 May 2021)

This is what is happening as oceans become warmer and warmer due to global heating.  Worth checking out the rest of the story

Turkey struck by ‘sea snot’ because of global heating​Increasing blanket of mucus-like substance in water threatens coral and fishing industry





An aerial view of sea snot in Istanbul. Photograph: Anadolu agency/Getty Images

Seascape: the state of our oceans is supported by
About this content
Selin Uğurtaş in Istanbul
Tue 25 May 2021 19.36 AEST
Last modified on Tue 25 May 2021 23.29 AEST


When seen from above, it looks like a brush of beige swirled across the dark blue waters of the Sea of Marmara. Up close, it resembles a creamy, gelatinous blanket of quicksand. Now scientists are warning that the substance, known as sea snot, is on the rise as a result of global heating.
t *The gloopy, mucus-like substance had not been recorded in Turkish waters before 2007. It is created as a result of prolonged warm temperatures and calm weather and in areas with abundant nutrients in the water.*

The phytoplankton responsible grow out of control when nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are widely available in seawater. These nutrients have long been plentiful in the Sea of Marmara, which receives the wastewater of nearly 20 million people and is fed directly from the nutrient-rich Black Sea.

In ordinary amounts, these tiny, floating sea plants are responsible for breathing oxygen into the oceans, but their overpopulation creates the opposite effect. Under conditions of stress, they exude a mucus-like matter that can grow to cover many square miles of the sea in the right conditions.

In most cases, the substance itself is not harmful. “What we see is basically a combination of protein, carbohydrates and fat,” said Dr Neslihan Özdelice, a marine biologist at Istanbul University. But the sticky substance attracts viruses and bacteria, including _E coli_, and can in effect turn into a blanket that suffocates the marine life below.





Sea snot near the Maltepe, Kadiköy and Adalar districts of Istanbul. Photograph: Anadolu agency/Getty Images









						Turkey struck by ‘sea snot’ because of global heating
					

Increasing blanket of mucus-like substance in water threatens coral and fishing industry




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (31 May 2021)

An old drum that  has been bought out for another beating.

Could we make a huge difference to chasing global heating reduction by just consuming less?  Could we also take the strain off collapsing environmental systems with a bit of  Make, Do and Mend  thinking ? How about improving our social connections and skill sets ?

Thoughtful  discussion on the latest book around this topic,
_
How might a lower-consuming society look? Everything is reoriented because people, brands and governments are no longer striving for economic growth. Individuals are more self-sufficient, growing food, mending things and embracing wabi-sabi, the Japanese concept of imperfect aesthetics (think patched-up pockets or chipped ceramics). Brands produce fewer but better-quality goods, while governments ban planned obsolescence (the practice of producing items to only function for a set period of time), stick “durability” labels on items so shoppers can be assured of longevity, and introduce tax subsidies so it’s cheaper to repair something than to bin it and buy a new version._









						Overconsumption and the environment: should we all stop shopping?
					

Over-consumption is at the root of the planet’s environmental crisis. One solution, proposed by author JB MacKinnon, is that we should simply buy less. But would that really work?




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (31 May 2021)

basilio said:


> An old drum that  has been bought out for another beating.
> 
> Could we make a huge difference to chasing global heating reduction by just consuming less?  Could we also take the strain off collapsing environmental systems with a bit of  Make, Do and Mend  thinking ? How about improving our social connections and skill sets ?
> 
> ...



Kind of what I've been saying to you for a long time Bas, the quickest way to shut down coal and reduce emissions, is to get people to reduce the amount of power they use.
It's great having all these people marching in the street, telling everyone to save the world, yet we are one of the biggest consumers per head of electricity in the World.
We have one of the largest average house sizes in the World, we have one of the highest vehicle ownerships in the World, most houses have two T.V's a fridge a freezer a beer fridge.
Yet we march in the streets telling everyone to clean up the electricity production, so we can indulge ourselves while feeling we are doing our bit, oh how hypocritical we can be. 😂


----------



## rederob (1 June 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Kind of what I've been saying to you for a long time Bas, the quickest way to shut down coal and reduce emissions, is to get people to reduce the amount of power they use.



That's not true at all as it does not change the generation base.
Also, if that's all the government wanted to achieve It would be quicker if they increased the price of electricity, just as putting up cigarette prices reduced smoking.
Far more practical and unavoidable is to move off coal/gas to renewables *and facilitated it, *rather than continue its laissez faire stance on energy.
You keep forgetting that it's government policies that drive commercial power generation decisions, and the inept Morrison government keeps laying out money for the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## sptrawler (1 June 2021)

rederob said:


> That's not true at all as it does not change the generation base.
> Also, if that's all the government wanted to achieve It would be quicker if they increased the price of electricity, just as putting up cigarette prices reduced smoking.
> Far more practical and unavoidable is to move off coal/gas to renewables *and facilitated it, *rather than continue its laissez faire stance on energy.
> You keep forgetting that it's government policies that drive commercial power generation decisions, and the inept Morrison government keeps laying out money for the fossil fuel industry.



Your wrong yet again, Rob, if the load is reduced, the ability and amount of renewables and storage is increased as a percentage of that load.
Also as the load is decreased, the viability of fossil fueled generation is decreased, as income produced is decreased but the holding costs remains constant i.e wages, fuel storage, maintenance.
It isn't government policy that drives commercial generation, it is the size of the commercial load that drives commercial fossil fueled generation, if there is no load there is no market because the plant isn't required to operate.
But you keep telling everyone how it is, and keep bashing the political tambourine, eventually everyone will tire of your nonsense.


----------



## rederob (1 June 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Your wrong yet again, Rob, if the load is reduced, the ability and amount of renewables and storage is increased as a percentage of that load.
> Also as the load is decreased, the viability of fossil fueled generation is decreased, as income produced is decreased but the holding costs remains constant i.e wages, fuel storage, maintenance.
> It isn't government policy that drives commercial generation, it is the size of the commercial load that drives commercial fossil fueled generation, if there is no load there is no market because the plant isn't required to operate.
> But you keep telling everyone how it is, and keep bashing the political tambourine, eventually everyone will tire of your nonsense.



Unless the fossil fuel generation *footprint *is reduced then CO2 emissions are not likely to change meaningfully, so your logic misses on this point.  For example China is significantly inceasing its total share of renewables generation, but it's not reducing its CO2 footprint.  
Another point is that the increasing take up of rooftop solar allows millions of Australian housholds to maintain their energy use while simultaneously reducing their CO2 footprint *and *their power bills.  Aside from that per capita (and household) electricity use has actually been declining for over a decade as the energy efficiency of consumer products increases.
What you have instead explained is how commercial operators tap into the available supplier market, and I know you are right as cheaper renewables are going to be purchased for distribution whenever possible.
My point about commercial power generation related to capacity investment decisions - sorry if not clear.  If you were right then the government would not be building Snowy2.0 nor the gas power plant at Kurri Kurri.
Morrison's ineptitude on climate change is at an all time high because he has no credible policies to drive it.


----------



## sptrawler (1 June 2021)

rederob said:


> Unless the fossil fuel generation *footprint *is reduced then CO2 emissions are not likely to change meaningfully, so your logic misses on this point.  For example China is significantly inceasing its total share of renewables generation, but it's not reducing its CO2 footprint.
> Another point is that the increasing take up of rooftop solar allows millions of Australian housholds to maintain their energy use while simultaneously reducing their CO2 footprint *and *their power bills.  Aside from that per capita (and household) electricity use has actually been declining for over a decade as the energy efficiency of consumer products increases.
> What you have instead explained is how commercial operators tap into the available supplier market, and I know you are right as cheaper renewables are going to be purchased for distribution whenever possible.
> My point about commercial power generation related to capacity investment decisions - sorry if not clear.  If you were right then the government would not be building Snowy2.0 nor the gas power plant at Kurri Kurri.
> Morrison's ineptitude on climate change is at an all time high because he has no credible policies to drive it.



You obviously have no understanding of how an electrical grid works, the generation *footprint*, is reducing, as smurf has posted  up on several occasions.
Liddel is a 2,000MW coal station that is being closed, Kurri Kurri is going to be a 700MW gas fired station, that will reduce CO2 emissions just by capacity deferential alone there will be a further reduction due to the fact it is gas fired as opposed to coal fired.
Snowy2.0 is a hydro station, so fairly clean.
Of course the government needs  to build Snowy 2.0 and other firming capacity, as the coal generation is closed and renewables take over the major generating capability.
You may be unaware, but renewables are intermittent generators, therefore until storage is sufficient, projects like Snowy2.0 and Kurri Kurri will be required.


----------



## rederob (2 June 2021)

sptrawler said:


> You obviously have no understanding of how an electrical grid works, the generation *footprint*, is reducing, as smurf has posted  up on several occasions.
> Liddel is a 2,000MW coal station that is being closed, Kurri Kurri is going to be a 700MW gas fired station, that will reduce CO2 emissions just by capacity deferential alone there will be a further reduction due to the fact it is gas fired as opposed to coal fired.
> Snowy2.0 is a hydro station, so fairly clean.
> Of course the government needs  to build Snowy 2.0 and other firming capacity, as the coal generation is closed and renewables take over the major generating capability.
> You may be unaware, but renewables are intermittent generators, therefore until storage is sufficient, projects like Snowy2.0 and Kurri Kurri will be required.



I am pleased you mentioned the grid.
It's role is to move electrons as efficiently as possible.
But it's not, and underinvestment is stymying renewables take up.  You can read about that in the many AEMO papers over recent years.
The grid also needs an improved and properly planned network of interconnectors, along the lines ofwhat has been put in place in Europe, to better balance solar and wind differentials.
Your claim that "the generation *footprint*, is reducing," is not true for the NEM.  




The fossil fuel mix has decreased steadily since 2009 as more renewables capacity is being added, and its cheaper offtake cuts into fossil fuel generation.
Your claim that Snowy2.0 was needed is only true because of the failure of the COALition to provide an investment framework that was going to be commercially viable.  That situation is true to this day, and again you need only read the dozens of submissions from generators to AEMO that continure to make this point.
What I am most aware of is the failure of the present government to facilitate or incentivise energy storage so that the likes of Kurri Kurri are not paid for by taxpayers.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2021)

Snowy 2 will always be needed, as will many, many more pumped hydro facilities, if renewables are to be the only source of generation.

Pumped hydro, hydrogen and or nuclear are the only current forms of bulk storage currently available, that can handle *extended* periods of low output from intermittent renewables.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2021)

Something to get your teeth into @rederob .  








						Outcry at Australia's coal plant closures misses the point: change is coming | Adam Morton
					

Trying to heavy owners won’t hold back the renewables tide. It’s time to plan, and the blueprint exists




					www.theguardian.com
				



From the article:
If ever there is a case where the headline doesn’t tell the full story it is the news that Victoria’s Yallourn power generator – one of Australia’s oldest and dirtiest coal plants – will shut earlier than planned.

The basic facts are clear: the owner, EnergyAustralia, had previously said the Latrobe Valley generator would close in 2032, and now it will be gone by 2028.

Despite the seven-year-notice period, much of the initial reaction to the announcement focused on fears of electricity price hikes and blackouts at a distant future date.

To some extent, it masked what had really happened. In reality, EnergyAustralia had made a deal with the Victorian government to keep the plant open longer than it almost certainly otherwise would have been.


----------



## rederob (2 June 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Snowy 2 will always be needed, as will many, many more pumped hydro facilities, if renewables are to be the only source of generation.
> 
> Pumped hydro, hydrogen and or nuclear are the only current forms of bulk storage currently available, that can handle *extended* periods of low output from intermittent renewables.



You are very good at completely missing the point.
Snowy2.0 only became necessary when there was no investment in large generation projects because of policy failures.
Europe is expanding its grid to accommodate increasing shares of renewables, including international DC connectivity, and has nothing the scale of Snowy 2.0.
The USA has no Snowy2.0 in the pipeline either as it expands into renewables, as they increasingly require new projects to to have significant battery backup and are also smart enough to harvest curtailed energy. 
With a decent UHVDC spine Australia could tap into massive solar/wind projects and get its nascent hydrogen plans off the ground while at the same time reducing battery backup needs.  I think China has the largest and longest at over 3000km delivering 12000MW, so that's what's possible in today's world.
As to your above link, it confirms everything I have been saying.  
Without a policy setting to give certainty to new commercial investment governments are having to step in.  It's farcical!


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2021)

rederob said:


> You are very good at completely missing the point.
> Snowy2.0 only became necessary when there was no investment in large generation projects because of policy failures.
> *Europe is expanding its grid to accommodate increasing shares of renewables*,



So are we, don't be ridiculous Rob, I posted a link two days ago that the S.A to NSW interconnector has been given the go ahead.
This will alleviate a major bottleneck in the NW Victoria/ SW NSW renewable hub.








						Electricity interconnector tipped to drive down prices in NSW and SA approved by regulator
					

A $2 billion electricity transmission line expected to deliver long-term cheaper power in SA and NSW by allowing more generation from renewables is given the green light by the national regulator.




					www.abc.net.au
				




You really are flogging a dead horse Rob, maybe time to take another tack, this one isn't working well for you.









						Australia is the runaway global leader in building new renewable energy
					

Australia is installing renewable energy at more than ten times the global average. This is excellent news, but raises serious questions about integrating this electricity into our grids.




					theconversation.com
				



From the article:
In Australia, renewable energy is growing at a per capita rate ten times faster than the world average. Between 2018 and 2020, Australia will install more than 16 gigawatts of wind and solar, an average rate of 220 watts per person per year.

This is nearly three times faster than the next fastest country, Germany. Australia is demonstrating to the world how rapidly an industrialised country with a fossil-fuel-dominated electricity system can transition towards low-carbon, renewable power generation.







Renewable energy capacity installations per capita. International capacity data for 2018 from the International Renewable Energy Agency. Australian data from the Clean Energy Regulator., Author provided

When the Clean Energy Regulator accredited Tasmania’s 148.5 megawatt (MW) Cattle Hill Wind Farm in August, Australia met its Renewable Energy Target well ahead of schedule.


----------



## rederob (2 June 2021)

sptrawler said:


> So are we, don't be ridiculous Rob, I posted a link two days ago that the S.A to NSW interconnector has been given the go ahead.
> This will alleviate a major bottleneck in the NW Victoria/ SW NSW renewable hub.
> 
> 
> ...



Apart from being the wrong thread, you again missed my points.
The interconnector you linked to does not solve the national problems of a grid not properly configured to renewable uptake.
How about you point out the coalition's policies that are leading to commercial investment decisions which are so good they had to invest in Snowy2.0 and Kurri Kurri!
Or, rather than pointing out the obvious about our renewables uptake show us where Morrison's mob is committed to facilitating it adequately.
The only dead horse here is buried with the coalitions inability to commit to policies that counter climate change.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2021)

Rob you are the one that keeps bringing up Europe, the U.S and the U.K, I was just posting a comparison of the renewable growth.

I'll post it again, obviously it didn't take the first time, Australia is installing renewables 10 times faster than the world average.

There is no reason for government incentives and or policies to increase the renewable installations, it is already being installed faster than the infrastructure can keep up with.

As you and Bas keep saying renewables are half the capital cost to install and a fraction of the cost to run, so there is a backlog of projects wanting to raid the base load of coal generators.

As you know but refuse to admit, the private sector are reluctant to install at call generation and the banks are reluctant to finance it, so it will be the government who has to fund firming capacity, which will be required until there is sufficient renewables to not require at call generation.

As for Snowy2, the private sector wouldn't even dream of a project of that cost, complexity and environmental issues, but again you are well aware of that and are scratching round for content.

Add to the massive amount of renewables being installed on the East Coast, the* 100GW* of renewables being installed in W.A by 2030 and Australia is mitigating its carbon footprint quite successfully without taxpayer incentives and or Federal Government policies .

I think the taxpayer has enough to fund repaying last years Jobkeeper and jobseeker payments, without burdening them with subsidising renewables, which already have a price advantage anyway, so will continue to thrive as old generators become more and more uncompetitive.

I'll add more clarification from the article.
https://theconversation.com/austral...eader-in-building-new-renewable-energy-123694
From the article:
_In Australia, renewable energy is growing at a per capita rate ten times faster than the world average. Between 2018 and 2020, Australia will install more than 16 gigawatts of wind and solar, an average rate of 220 watts per person per year.

This is nearly three times faster than the next fastest country, Germany. Australia is demonstrating to the world how rapidly an industrialised country with a fossil-fuel-dominated electricity system can transition towards low-carbon, renewable power generation.






Renewable energy capacity installations per capita. International capacity data for 2018 from the International Renewable Energy Agency. Australian data from the Clean Energy Regulator., Author provided

When the Clean Energy Regulator accredited Tasmania’s 148.5 megawatt (MW) Cattle Hill Wind Farm in August, Australia met its Renewable Energy Target well ahead of schedule._
_Record renewable energy installation rates_​_While other analyses have pointed out that investment dollars in renewable energy fell in 2019, actual generation capacity has risen. Reductions in building costs may be contributing, as less investment will buy you more capacity.

Last year was a record year for renewable energy installations, with 5.1 gigawatts (GW) accredited in 2018, far exceeding the previous record of 2.2GW in 2017.

The increase was driven by the dramatic rise of large-scale solar farms, which comprised half of the new-build capacity accredited in 2018. There was a tenfold increase in solar farm construction from 2017.

We have projected the remaining builds for 2019 and those for 2020, based on data from the Clean Energy Regulator for public firm announcements for projects.

A project is considered firm if it has a power purchase agreement (PPA, a contract to sell the energy generated), has reached financial close, or is under construction. We assume six months for financial close and start of construction after a long-term supply contract is signed, and 12 or 18 months for solar farm or wind farm construction, respectively.

This year is on track to be another record year, with 6.5GW projected to be complete by the end of 2019_.


----------



## rederob (3 June 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Rob you are the one that keeps bringing up Europe, the U.S and the U.K, I was just posting a comparison of the renewable growth.
> 
> I'll post it again, obviously it didn't take the first time, Australia is installing renewables 10 times faster than the world average.
> 
> ...



Wrong thread!
Maybe  @Joe Blow can move a few of these across.
Renewable uptake is not the problem, it's integrating it.
As I stated earlier, your point was that if we reduced electricity use it would lead to lower CO2 emissions, but it's not necessarily true because* by adding rooftop solar we can use more electricity while reducing CO2 emissions*.
I keep saying you miss my points, so I will make them again.
The grid needs significant infrastructure investment to accommodate existing renewables, eg for distributed energy projects, and for new projects.  Its not happening fast enough and sometimes not at all, and even AEMO's latest call for submissions on its _*2021 Inputs, Assumptions and Scenarios Report* _shows a lack of understanding of the pace of developments.  
You are correct about why the federal government is funding firming capacity.  The private sector cannot ask its shareholders to fork out billions for new capacity when government policy is lacking.  Every company has expressed a willingness to invest if there was some certainty.   That's not my view, it's stated in many submissions to AEMO, and was even strongly supported by the NSW Energy Minister a year or so ago after yet another meeting where nothing was decided.  
What is relevant to this thread is that without a "price on carbon" commercial investment decisions on non-renewable capacity are kamikaze missions.
Furthermore, your point on Snowy2.0 flies completely in the face of general government procurement policies.  That is, detail what you want and call for tenders!  It's exactly the same principle that is regularly being applied to multi billion dollar toll road construction projects.
By and large you and I agree on a lot of what is occurring.
However in regard to federal policy, I don't have to look far to find industry players with grave concerns about the direction and state of play.

On topic, our climate is significantly impacted by* la nina* (what we are in now) and *el nino* cycles.  If we get a few consecutive summers of _el nino_ then the electricity supply problems we experienced a few summers ago could pale into insignificance.  Snowy2.0 will not be available in time, but distributed energy networks tapping into battery storage could be.


----------



## basilio (4 June 2021)

IMV the most depressing part of watching the Federal Government refusal to move quickly to an integrated renewable energy future is the reality of how quickly global heating is running out of control.

Back around 2006 climate scientists identified multiple environmental  tipping points where increases in temperature created results which accelerated warming. Forget about extra CO2 making the planet warmer . The fire is now completely out of control.

The scientist are back in the news with the  latest research on these tipping points.* Now it turns out that reaching just one of these  points can trigger a number of others.  *For example the mass melting of Greenland ice  with the resultant rush of fresh water into the oceans can stop Gulf Stream. And on it goes.

Climate tipping points could topple like dominoes, warn scientists​Analysis shows significant risk of cascading events even at 2C of heating, with severe long-term effects






A burning area of rainforest reserve in Pará state, Brazil. Much of the Amazon is close to a tipping point at which it becomes savannah, researchers have warned. Photograph: Carl de Souza/AFP/Getty Images

Damian Carrington Environment editor

@dpcarrington
Thu 3 Jun 2021 17.34 BST
Last modified on Thu 3 Jun 2021 21.29 BST


Ice sheets and ocean currents at risk of climate tipping points can destabilise each other as the world heats up, leading to a domino effect with severe consequences for humanity, according to a risk analysis.

Tipping points occur when global heating pushes temperatures beyond a critical threshold, leading to accelerated and irreversible impacts. Some large ice sheets in Antarctica are thought to already have passed their tipping points, meaning large sea-level rises in coming centuries.

The new research examined the interactions between ice sheets in West Antarctica, Greenland, the warm Atlantic Gulf Stream and the Amazon rainforest. *The scientists carried out 3m computer simulations and found domino effects in a third of them, even when temperature rises were below 2C, the upper limit of the Paris agreement.*

The study showed that the interactions between these climate systems can lower the critical temperature thresholds at which each tipping point is passed. It found that ice sheets are potential starting points for tipping cascades, with the Atlantic currents acting as a transmitter and eventually affecting the Amazon.









						Climate tipping points could topple like dominoes, warn scientists
					

Analysis shows significant risk of cascading events even at 2C of heating, with severe long-term effects




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (4 June 2021)

basilio said:


> IMV the most depressing part of watching the Federal Government refusal to move quickly to an integrated renewable energy future is the reality of how quickly global heating is running out of control.



IMV the most depressing thing is, even if Australia shut down completely tomorrow and everyone xlucked off and left the place empty, it wouldn't make any difference to the global warming outcome.
I don't know what you are smoking Bas, but as you say, give us a toke. 🤣

Quote:
*China* approved the construction of a further 36.9 GW of *coal*-fired capacity *last year*, three times more than a *year* earlier, bringing the total under construction to 88.1 GW. It now *has* 247 GW of *coal power* under development, enough to supply the whole of Germany.2 Feb 2021


----------



## basilio (4 June 2021)

sptrawler said:


> IMV the most depressing thing is, even if Australia shut down completely tomorrow and everyone xlucked off and left the place empty, it wouldn't make any difference to the global warming outcome.
> I don't know what you are smoking Bas, but as you say, give us a toke. 🤣
> 
> Quote:
> *China* approved the construction of a further 36.9 GW of *coal*-fired capacity *last year*, three times more than a *year* earlier, bringing the total under construction to 88.1 GW. It now *has* 247 GW of *coal power* under development, enough to supply the whole of Germany.2 Feb 2021











						China's new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than 3 times rest of world's - study
					

China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.




					www.reuters.com
				




So are you saying we do nothing ? Ignore it perhaps ? Resign our children and grand children to a world  of 2040 in chaos ?

I don't try to  dwell on the consequences of doing nothing - far too depressing. But I can't reach the stage of pretending there is no point.

Picking up the China quote is intriguing.  In point of fact China is also moving incredibly fast with renewable energy. The CCP is well aware of the reality of global warming as well the huge air pollution problems they face. And when one reads the bigger story we can see the pressures put on local authorities to keep the lights on.

If you are interested in going beyond a one sentence statement this source gives far more detail of China's impact and the changes they are implementing. But as you rightly point out every country needs to make tackling CC a priority if we are not to become toast.









						How is China Managing its Greenhouse Gas Emissions? | ChinaPower Project
					

As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China faces domestic and international pressure to address environmental concerns while maintaining economic growth.




					chinapower.csis.org
				












						World must rewild on massive scale to heal nature and climate, says UN
					

The ‘decade on ecosystem restoration’ launches with a call for ‘imagination’ and action on never-before-seen scale




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Private finance won’t decarbonise our economies – but the ‘big green state’ can | Daniela Gabor
					

While the private sector wants to keep control of the green transition, what’s needed is massive public investment, says economics professor Daniela Gabor




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (5 June 2021)

basilio said:


> China's new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than 3 times rest of world's - study
> 
> 
> China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.
> ...



Not at all, as I have posted we are putting in renewables faster than anywhere else and if the 100GW of renewable hydrogen is installed in W.A we will well and truly be leading the pack.
What I'm saying is we shouldn't be mis informing our children and scaring them to death, they have enough mental anguish these days, without the adults running around like chooks with their heads chopped of.
That doesn't help anyone.


----------



## Joules MM1 (26 June 2021)

link to @Zlabe 






Climate (Atmospheric) Scientist | Postdoc at @CSUAtmosSci
 | PhD - @uciess, @CornellEAS


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2021)

Record temperatures in the US.









						US cities set up 'cooling centres' as historic heatwave bakes Pacific north-west
					

Daytime temperatures are breaking all-time high records in places where many residents don't have air conditioning.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## Joules MM1 (28 June 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Record temperatures in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Pacific Northwest bakes under once-in-a-millennium heat dome
					

The heat is being caused by a combination of a significant atmospheric blocking pattern on top of a human-caused climate changed world.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




um, not fun .....spesh for the elderly on the standard american diet


----------



## basilio (30 June 2021)

Back again. Two years ago the most destructive fires of all time devastated the US and Canada on the back of record temperatures.









						Historic heatwave, extreme drought and wildfires plague North American west
					

US Pacific north-west and Canada see soaring temperatures and drought fuels flames as crisis illustrates climate breakdown




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (30 June 2021)

This probably sums up the situation with many people owning high rise apartments on beach frontages - and not just in Miami.


_A high-profile group of Noosa residents is currently fighting the local council's plan to prepare for sea-level rise, saying this climate action will hurt property prices and insurance costs.

"You've got short-term versus a long-term interest," Dr Mallon said._



> _"The long-term self-interest says I should protect my property, but the short-term says these warnings on my sales certificate will devalue my property."_












						Which Aussie electorates want climate action — and which ones are most at risk? The answer might surprise you
					

You might expect areas with a high climate risk to want more action on climate policy, but that's not always the case. We compared the results from the Australia Talks National Survey to risk assessment data for each electorate.




					www.abc.net.au
				












						Noosa group launches climate change plan fight, brings in lobbyists linked to Adani
					

A newly-formed action group in Noosa has enlisted a high-powered lobby group linked to coal giant Adani as it launches a fight over the council's climate change impact plan for beaches.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2021)

basilio said:


> This probably sums up the situation with many people owning high rise apartments on beach frontages - and not just in Miami.
> 
> 
> _*A high-profile group of Noosa residents is currently fighting the local council's plan to prepare for sea-level rise, saying this climate action will hurt property prices and insurance costs.*
> ...




The cat's out of the bag on that one I'm afraid. Anyone with a brain is going to be careful about buying property on the beach front especially after news items of houses disappearing down cliffs.









						NSW Central Coast houses partially collapse after beach erosion caused by swells
					

Two houses partially collapse and 66 more believed to be at risk as police ask some residents to evacuate




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (30 June 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> The cat's out of the bag on that one I'm afraid. Anyone with a brain is going to be careful about buying property on the beach front especially after news items of building disappearing down cliffs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




One would think so.. But I'm not so sure.

I think the real  economic crisis is with the high rise apartments blocks off the Australia coast .  Noosa, Surfers Paradise  and so on. I'd be concerned about

1) The scores of highrises built in the early 80's .  What is their condition now ?
2) The effect of sea water seepage into the foundations of these structures.  Has anyone looked ?
3) The reality that these huge investments are driven by developers and Real Estate agents who also hold strong sway on local Councils.

And these blocks are still being built and sold .  Plenty of high cost beach side  developments to be had.


----------



## basilio (2 July 2021)

Small Canadian town at 50C latitude reaches 121 F .  WTF ?? 

How did a small town in Canada become one of the hottest places on Earth?​Eric Holthaus

The unprecedented heatwave in the Pacific north-west risks becoming the new normal if we don’t act now





‘People rest at the Oregon Convention Center cooling station in Oregon, Portland on June 28, 2021, as a heatwave moves over much of the United States’ Photograph: Kathryn Elsesser/AFP/Getty Images
Wed 30 Jun 2021 20.20 AEST
Last modified on Thu 1 Jul 2021 00.57 AEST

697
On Sunday, the small mountain town of Lytton, British Columbia, became one of the hottest places in the world. Then, on Monday, Lytton got even hotter – 47.9C (118F) – hotter than it’s ever been in Las Vegas, 1,300 miles to the south. And by Tuesday, 49.6C (121F).

Lytton is at 50 deg N latitude – about the same as London. This part of the world should never get this hot. Seattle’s new all-time record of 108F, also set Monday, is hotter than it’s ever been in Miami. In Portland, the new record of 116F would beat the warmest day ever recorded in Houston by nearly 10 degrees.

This heat wave was a perfect storm long in the making. After centuries of fossil fuel burning and decades of warnings from scientists, it’s time to say it: we are in a climate emergency.









						How did a small town in Canada become one of the hottest places on Earth? | Eric Holthaus
					

The unprecedented heatwave in the Pacific north-west risks becoming the new normal if we don’t act now




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (3 July 2021)

Well we may not have to worry about Lytton posting any more astronomical  heatwave figures.
A short time after these record temperatures the whole township was wiped out by a wildfire fanned by the record heat.

‘Lytton is gone’: wildfire tears through village after record-breaking heat​Officials had little time to issue evacuation orders while dry conditions make suppressing wildfires in Canada impossible

00:45

Canada heatwave: resident films escape from wildfire as flames engulf Lytton village – video 

Leyland Cecco in Toronto
Fri 2 Jul 2021 04.24 AEST
Last modified on Fri 2 Jul 2021 23.00 AEST


After three days of unrelenting heat, the people in the British Columbia village of Lytton were hoping for a modest respite.
Temperatures which had shattered longstanding national records – at one point reaching a blistering 49.6C (121.28F) – eased slightly on Wednesday, raising hopes that the worst was over.

But that same day, in the late afternoon, a wildfire tore through the settlement 153km (95 miles) north-east of Vancouver. The fire was in the town and consuming buildings so quickly that residents weren’t given advance notice to evacuate. Many were already leaving by the time the order came from the mayor at 6pm.









						‘Lytton is gone’: wildfire tears through village after record-breaking heat
					

Officials had little time to issue evacuation orders while dry conditions make suppressing wildfires in Canada impossible




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (21 July 2021)

Twenty/Thirty  years ago Climate Change scientists were forecasting that increases in global temperatures  and in particular even larger increases in temperatures at higher latitudes would result in forest fires where few had previously occured.

Siberia again is experiencing this consequence of global heating. The addition of human chemicals to the mix is another externality of progress.

‘Airpocalypse’ hits Siberian city as heatwave sparks forest fires​Monitoring suggests toxic smoke in Yakutsk is one of world’s worst ever air pollution events

‘Everything is on fire’: Siberia hit by unprecedented burning
by Jonathan Watts Global environment editor

Wed 21 Jul 2021 03.02 AEST
Last modified on Wed 21 Jul 2021 11.00 AEST

A heatwave in one of the world’s coldest regions has sparked forest fires and threatened the Siberian city of Yakutsk with an “airpocalypse” of thick toxic smoke, atmospheric monitoring services have reported.

High levels of particulate matter and possibly also chemicals including ozone, benzene and hydrogen cyanide are thought likely to make this one of the world’s worst ever air pollution events.

Local authorities have warned the 320,000 residents to stay indoors to avoid choking fumes from the blazes, which are on course to break last year’s record.









						‘Airpocalypse’ hits Siberian city as heatwave sparks forest fires
					

Monitoring suggests toxic smoke in Yakutsk is one of world’s worst ever air pollution events




					www.theguardian.com
				








__





						Is Global Warming Harmful to Health? on JSTOR
					

Paul R. Epstein, Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?, Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 2 (AUGUST 2000), pp. 50-57




					www.jstor.org


----------



## basilio (21 July 2021)

The complete destruction of the current  ecosystem in the Norther Latitudes is well underway. Where  does it end ???
We could take a human focused approach and look for similar situations in areas facing extreme  conditions and the effect this is having.
Perhaps floods in Europe, and now China? Fires in the US and Siberia..

Top US scientist on melting glaciers: ‘I’ve gone from being an ecologist to a coroner’​Diana Six, an entomologist studying beetles near Glacier national park in Montana, says the crisis has fundamentally changed her profession




Clouds and rain are seen on Lake McDonald as Glacier national park opens to visitors in June 2020.  Photograph: Kent Meireis/Zuma Wire/Rex/Shutterstock

Supported by
About this content
Jyoti Madhusoodanan
Wed 21 Jul 2021 18.00 AEST
Last modified on Wed 21 Jul 2021 18.52 AEST

Diana Six’s love of the outdoors began before she could form words, run, or collect the bugs and fungi that were precious to her as a child. A tough home life eventually led her to drop out of school and live on the streets. But biology classes in community college helped Six discover her calling in studying various forms of life. “They took me right back to how I was as a kid,” she says.



Read more

Now an entomologist at the University of Montana, she has spent the last 30 years researching how bark beetles are decimating pine forests. But a constant, haunting depression has taken over her life. A recent trip to Glacier national park spurred her to vent some of this emotion in a tweet that went viral and resonated with many: “Glacier National Park. 97F in June. Little snow left. 75F degree water. Glaciers disappearing. That is what we hear. But the worst is what most never see.”

To Six, the climate crisis isn’t just decimating glaciers and life on Earth. It’s taking her identity with it. She recently spoke to the Guardian about her changing role on the land she loves.

“I don’t think people realize that climate change is not just a loss of ice. It’s all the stuff that’s dependent on it. The ice is really just the canary in the coalmine. To have 97, 98 degrees in Glacier national park for days on end is insane. This is not just some fluke.

“There are many years where the snow is gone so early that you just don’t see it in the mountains. And water getting that warm is absolutely devastating to fish and algae.

“Life doesn’t just deal with this. When I went up Glacier with my students a few weeks ago, the flowers were curling up. At some of the lower elevations, glacier lilies were shriveled, lupins didn’t even open. The flowers should extend for another three weeks and they’re already gone. Any insects or birds that depend upon them, like bees or hummingbirds are in trouble, their food is gone. Bird populations have just baked.

*“There have been total losses of a lot of baby birds this year. You see these ospreys and eagles sitting on top of the trees in their nests and those young, they just can’t take the heat. Year after year of that and you lose your birds.*



> People seem to think of extinctions as some silent, painless statistic. It’s not




*“People seem to think of extinctions as some silent, painless statistic. It’s not. You look at birds that can no longer find fish because they’ve moved too far off shore. They’re emaciated, they’re starving to death. We are at the point that there’s nothing untouched.*








						Top US scientist on melting glaciers: ‘I’ve gone from being an ecologist to a coroner’
					

Diana Six, an entomologist studying beetles near Glacier national park in Montana, says the crisis has fundamentally changed her profession




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## rederob (10 August 2021)

*Not too late*?


----------



## basilio (10 August 2021)

rederob said:


> *Not too late*?




Thoughts and prayers Redrob..


----------



## rederob (10 August 2021)

basilio said:


> Thoughts and prayers Redrob..



Despite everything we know, our current government is still running an economic argument rather than one focused on a sustainable future.
Our children and theirs will be the ones who will suffer a world that could have been very different but for greed, indifference and sheer ignorance.


----------



## IFocus (10 August 2021)

Nero fiddles while Rome burns.... to late for prays Basillo


----------



## basilio (10 August 2021)

rederob said:


> Despite everything we know, our current government is still running an economic argument rather than one focused on a sustainable future.
> Our children and theirs will be the ones who will suffer a world that could have been very different but for greed, indifference and sheer ignorance.




Not sure I agree with this Redrob

1) *CC is here and now.* Everyone is being affected either immediately or in the near future. Do we imagine that next summer Australia won't face the fires terrorising the Northern Hemisphere ?

2) The direction we are taking with global warming* threatens the existence of our children and future generations.  *It is that serious. 

My "thoughts and prayers" quip were a nod to the vacuous lines offered in sympathy for the foreseeable and inevitable disasters we are seeing around the world.


----------



## explod (10 August 2021)

Absolutely agree Bas, it's why I say "just party".

Very sad for my Grandchildren. I'm fine on the way out.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2021)




----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2021)

basilio said:


> View attachment 128802



Unfortunately the picture says it all, the emissions in the background and the spray paint in the foreground, that not only creates emissions but will need emission production to remove it.
I know they are well intended, but it really lacks forethought, it tends to project an image of pure vandalism unfortunately.


----------



## rederob (10 August 2021)

basilio said:


> Not sure I agree with this Redrob
> 
> 1) *CC is here and now.* Everyone is being affected either immediately or in the near future. Do we imagine that next summer Australia won't face the fires terrorising the Northern Hemisphere ?
> 
> ...



Around 15 years ago at ASF I was one of a small number at this site explaining the problems of CC and advocating an understanding of the science. Way back then I used the word "*catastrophic*" in relation to what was ahead.
Despite what you and I believe to be true there remains a lot of people who are still saying "it's just weather". 
Comparatively few of us are *currently "suffering" *the everyday effects of climate change as they are mostly transient... like bushfires and floods that skeptics wave away.  Attribution remains problematic irrespective of the trend having been obvious for decades.
That said, I agree with all your points.
But as @explod points out, we're relatively fine on the way out, but not those coming after us.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Unfortunately the picture says it all, the emissions in the background and the spray paint in the foreground, that not only creates emissions but will need emission production to remove it.
> I know they are well intended, but it really lacks forethought, it tends to project an image of pure vandalism unfortunately.




That observation is  really disappointing..

We are talking about the most critical catastrophic issue facing humanity.  The current consequences like  uncontrolled forest fires  are already spewing billions of tonnes of extra CO2 into the atmosphere.

The current causes of CC like destroying the Amazon,  the use of fossil fuel everywhere causes this catastrophe,

And yet.. You chose to criticize the  "emissions and environmental damage " of a burning pram and a spray painted call to action as somehow unacceptable ?

If you were a died in the wool climate change denier who criticized  activists for not living in caves (look at  your CC contribution !!?) I might understand.  But your not aren't you ?

Where is the sense of understanding just how bad the situation is and how essential it is to move a Government that to date is simply sabotaging  Australia's responsibilities to reducing out CC impact .


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2021)

basilio said:


> That observation is  really disappointing..
> 
> We are talking about the most critical catastrophic issue facing humanity.  The current consequences like  uncontrolled forest fires  are already spewing billions of tonnes of extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



It is what it is, they should have gone for a better, more thought out look.
What other observation could one make? I'm just stating the obvious, don't shoot the messenger.
Like I said they are probably well intended, but it isn't a good look, same as protest marches that turn to looting sprees.
I think the young people have to put some thought into how they get their message across.
Maybe if they used social media, to name and shame appliances with a low efficiency rating, placards with messages that actually enlighten people etc.
I'm not criticising what they are saying, I'm criticising how they choose to say it, but as usual any criticism is unacceptable. Unless it is coming from, or directed at certain quarters.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> It is what it is, they should have gone for a better, more thought out look.
> What other observation could one make? I'm just stating the obvious, don't shoot the messenger.
> Like I said they are probably well intended, but it isn't a good look, same as protest marches that turn to looting sprees.
> I think the young people have to put some thought into how they get their message across.
> ...




Nope SP. I'm saying that the situation is so dire the protest is, in view, exceptionally pointed and appropriate.

And seriously . Do you believe that naming and shaming low efficiency appliances is a better idea ? 

What about the issue itself ?  Does that deserve recognition as  absolutely desperate? Or as you put it "should we shoot the messenger" for... what exactly ?


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2021)

basilio said:


> Nope SP. I'm saying that the situation is so dire the protest is, in view, exceptionally pointed and appropriate.
> 
> And seriously . Do you believe that naming and shaming low efficiency appliances is a better idea ?
> 
> What about the issue itself ?  Does that deserve recognition as  absolutely desperate? Or as you put it "should we shoot the messenger" for... what exactly ?



Anything you agree with, you find any behaviour acceptable, be it CC, politics or any other subject you are passionate about. So I fully understand your take on it, I've given you mine, simple, move on.  
As for the "issue" itself, I have no doubt my carbon footprint would be smaller than most.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2021)

W.A to legislate net zero emissions, now all we need is everyone else to do it, then all will be good. 
It does sound a bit like feeding the chooks to me, but it will stop the media nagging him. I wonder if Morrison and the other State leaders will follow McGowan's lead?
That would nullify the Greens and kick the can down the road.








						Solution to climate change more complex than 'close down the gas industry', WA Premier says
					

The WA government says it is considering legislating its commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,  but is shying away from stopping all new oil, coal or gas projects in the wake of a new damning climate report.




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
The WA government says it is considering legislating its commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

But Premier Mark McGowan has not committed to stopping new oil, coal or gas exploration or infrastructure in the wake of a new report which has found the Earth is heating quicker than expected and may be just 10 years away from heating up by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Mr McGowan said his government had already committed to the 2050 target.

"We can look at [legislating] that. That's one of the considerations that we're examining it," he said.

*"That would obviously bind future governments, but this is the way the world is going.*"

But when Mr McGowan was asked if he was prepared for the Woodside Scarborough gas project off the state's north-west to be shelved, he said it was complex.

"I realise that a lot of people just say, 'Just stop everything,'" he told ABC Radio Perth.

"If we stop gas in Western Australia, well, basically we shut down a lot of our electricity system, we shut down Alcoa, we shut down a lot of the businesses here.

"It's more complex. You've got to have complex solutions.

He said Woodside was "moving a long way in the direction of removing emissions".

But given Chevron failed to meet the emissions targets for its Gorgon LNG project off the Pilbara coast, it was suggested to the Premier these emissions targets were important.

"So, you want me to close down the gas industry?" he asked.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2021)

Morrisons reply.








						Other world leaders have called a UN report on climate change a 'wake-up call', but Australia's PM isn't going to budge
					

Scott Morrison again refuses to commit to a target of net zero emissions by 2050, as an international "code red" warning on climate change is issued by global leaders.




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
"I won't be signing a blank cheque on behalf of Australians to targets without plans," Mr Morrison said.

"Blank cheque commitments you always end up paying for, and you always end up paying in higher taxes."

Mr Morrison said he would provide an update on what the government expected to achieve in emissions reductions by 2030 ahead of a major international climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland later this year.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2021)

Absolutely crystal clear isn't it ?

* Climate Conspiracy Theorists Say It Is Suspicious That Every Single Research Paper Says The EXACT Same Thing   * 






A group of climate change conspiracy theorists has uncovered a set of strange patterns and repeated terminology in research papers which they say is highly suspicious.

“If you look back at the research papers from the 1980s and 90s, and then compare it to the papers in the 2000s and more recently, what you’ll notice is a very clear pattern,” climate sceptic Oliver Willonsbury said.                                                                               

*“They are saying basically the same thing over and over and over again. It’s a pattern. If you’re not looking for it, you won’t notice it. But for those of us adept at identifying patterns and understanding symbology this is pretty clear evidence of a well-coordinated conspiracy”.*

Willonsbury pointed to a report in the 1990s that warned of ‘temperature increases’ and then compared it to a report from last year which used the same terminology. “See there – ‘temperature increases’. You’ll see that term used again and again. Sometimes it will be ‘temperature rises’ or ‘increased temperatures’, but it’s basically the same thing. ‘Man-made’ is another term that we’ve seen used across all reports. This is clearly some sort of sophisticated code or messaging”.

He said the repeated terminology was clear evidence that the reports were linked in some way. “Is this a coincidence? I don’t believe in coincidences. I think the fact that all of these so-called scientists are independently coming up with these same words, these same findings, it’s a message. It is very suspicious. And it stretches back for decades”.









						Climate Conspiracy Theorists Say It Is Suspicious That Every Single Research Paper Says The EXACT Same Thing
					

"The same terminology, the same words, again and again. It's a pattern"




					www.theshovel.com.au


----------



## rederob (10 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Morrisons reply.
> "I won't be signing a blank cheque on behalf of Australians to targets without plans."



All these years in government and still Morrison has *no plans*.
That sums him up.


sptrawler said:


> "Blank cheque commitments you always end up paying for, and you always end up paying in higher taxes."



Apparently he keeps forgetting about his largesse to cover covid.  Hundreds of billions of dollars and what did he buy?
Votes?
And today he had a fantastic opportunity to say what government was doing to combat climate change, but could only tell us that the private sector is doing the heavy lifting.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2021)

I think that the narrative has to focus on facts and not fantasy, it is in everyone's best interest to achieve net zero, but it has to be done in a transparent and open way. Not just saying net zero by 2050 and then kicking the can down the road.
This article in today's paper actually had some very pertinent points, I've been selective, to condense the issue I'm making.
But I think there is a plan, time will tell.
Between now and the election, I have a feeling there will be some very interesting announcements.  
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...ate-burden-morrison-says-20210810-p58hi6.html
From the article:
Mr Morrison promised stronger action after the United Nations released an exhaustive scientific study that warned of “code red for humanity” from dangerous climate change, but he stopped short of unveiling new measures to cut emissions.
“I will not be asking people in the regions of this country to carry the burden for the country alone,” Mr Morrison said.

“I will be ensuring that we have a plan that addresses their critical needs, that addresses their anxieties, and seeks to bring the whole country with us on this very important task that we have together.”
“We will make that very clear about what Australia is achieving and what we intend to achieve. And we will make further statements about that between now and that summit,” he said in Canberra on Tuesday morning.

While United States President Joe Biden has set a net zero target for 2050 and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson has a 78 per cent target for 2035, Mr Morrison argued other countries had not achieved their previous promises and China was responsible for big increases in emissions.

He also argued for greater transparency from all countries at the Glasgow summit on the grounds that others did not match Australia in producing quarterly reports on emissions from every sector of the economy.

“Our emissions have fallen by 20 per cent since 2005. We are the only country to our knowledge that engages in the transparency of reporting our emissions reductions,” he said.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2021)

rederob said:


> Apparently he keeps forgetting about his largesse to cover covid.  Hundreds of billions of dollars and what did he buy?
> Votes?



Funnily enough, I would say despite the hundreds of billions spent trying to protect people from the financial impact of covid and the recession, he has lost vote.

But as I said in my last post, it will be interesting what both parties have to say, in the lead up to the election.
Should be a great contest IMO.


----------



## IFocus (10 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> “Our emissions have fallen by 20 per cent since 2005. We are the only country to our knowledge that engages in the transparency of reporting our emissions reductions,” he said.





Apparently if you take out the stopping of land clearing the number isn't down by 20% by up by 7%.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2021)

IFocus said:


> Apparently if you take out the stopping of land clearing the number isn't down by 20% by up by 7%.



That's interesting when you think about, the car manufacturing, the coal generating plant, petrol refineries etc being closed and the renewables that have been installed both roof top and large scale.
I wonder what the main contributor is, that has increased that much, to offset those reductions.


----------



## basilio (11 August 2021)

In one month , just one month alone, there have been a series of fire and flood catastrophes around the world that were  accelerated by global heating.

The 4 minute video clip in this story pulls them together.
The IPCC report is clear: nothing short of transforming society will avert catastrophe ​Patrick Vallance


Achieving net zero will require action from everyone – and a renewed emphasis on science and innovation

Patrick Vallance is the UK government chief scientific adviser






A wildfire in Sakha, Russia, on 8 August 2021.  Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Mon 9 Aug 2021 21.43 AEST
Last modified on Tue 10 Aug 2021 07.36 AEST

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...g-society-avert-catastrophe-net-zero#comments
2,094
The release today of the first part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment report makes for stark reading. It reaffirms that anthropogenic climate change is real, present and lasting: it is now unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land to an unprecedented degree, with effects almost certain to worsen through the coming decades.

The report also dispels any notion that the effects of the climate crisis are abstract or distant. Extreme events are being felt across the world, from wildfires in Australia, Sweden and north-west America to heatwaves in Siberia and Canada and the devastating drought in South Africa. Evidence has grown since the last assessment report that human activity has exacerbated extreme weather events. Without urgent action, such events will continue to get worse. Moreover, sea levels are projected to rise over this century. Rises of as much as 2m cannot be ruled out, leaving low-lying lands and coastal communities extremely vulnerable.









						The IPCC report is clear: nothing short of transforming society will avert catastrophe | Patrick Vallance
					

Achieving net zero will require action from everyone – and a renewed emphasis on science and innovation, says Patrick Vallance, the UK government chief scientific adviser




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2021)

Best we get onto China ASAP.








						China's new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world's: study
					

China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.




					www.reuters.com
				



From the article:
*SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.

The country won praise last year after President Xi Jinping pledged to make the country “carbon neutral” by 2060. But regulators have since come under fire for failing to properly control the coal power sector, a major source of climate-warming greenhouse gas.

Including decommissions, China’s coal-fired fleet capacity rose by a net 29.8 GW in 2020, even as the rest of the world made cuts of 17.2 GW, according to research released on Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor (GEM), a U.S. think tank, and the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

“The runaway expansion of coal-fired power is driven by electricity companies’ and local governments’ interest in maximising investment spending, more than a real need for new capacity,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, CREA lead analyst.*


The country’s National Energy Administration (NEA) didn’t immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment.

*China approved the construction of a further 36.9 GW of coal-fired capacity last year, three times more than a year earlier, bringing the total under construction to 88.1 GW. It now has 247 GW of coal power under development, enough to supply the whole of Germany*.


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2021)

The west is leading the charge, it appears to be that the Glasgow climate talks could be where plans are laid on the table, at the moment there appears to be a lot of talk and not much detail.








						Call to end coal renewed as world leaders address UN climate report
					

“We know what must be done to limit global warming - consign coal to history and shift to clean energy sources,” said British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.




					www.smh.com.au
				



From the article:
Calls to abandon coal have been renewed as world leaders respond to the new United Nations climate report that warns the world remains on track for devastating global warming this century.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whose government will host the November COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, described the report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “sobering reading” and said he hoped it spurred governments to greater action before the meeting.
“We know what must be done to limit global warming - consign coal to history and shift to clean energy sources, protect nature and provide climate finance for countries on the frontline,” he said.

Nonetheless, Britain’s Labour Party criticised Mr Johnson’s government saying its target of reducing the country’s carbon emissions by 68 per cent of 1990 levels by 2030 was not ambitious enough.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the report reaffirmed his view that the federal government’s approach to drive down emissions by supporting clean energy technology development was a suitable policy option for Australia and the world.
He did not say if Australia would update its ambition to reduce carbon emissions by 26 to 28 per cent of 2005 levels before the Glasgow talks, but said that having already reduced emissions by 20 per cent Australia had already demonstrated that it was part of the solution.

“Australia’s record of reducing emissions stands above those who are claiming to achieve bigger things in the future, but haven’t achieved it to date,” he said.


----------



## IFocus (11 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> That's interesting when you think about, the car manufacturing, the coal generating plant, petrol refineries etc being closed and the renewables that have been installed both roof top and large scale.
> I wonder what the main contributor is, that has increased that much, to offset those reductions.





Haven't got it at hand but Labours carbon tax ironically did most of the other heavy lifting that Morrison keeps claiming how we are ahead of everyone else saying he wont use tax as a method.

We will be OK as Barnaby is going to build a nuclear power station.


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2021)

IFocus said:


> Haven't got it at hand but Labours carbon tax ironically did most of the other heavy lifting that Morrison keeps claiming how we are ahead of everyone else saying he wont use tax as a method.
> 
> We will be OK as Barnaby is going to build a nuclear power station.



Yes, I need to look into it further, but just in W.A,  there seems to have been a lot of closures of heavy plant and a lot of new renewable plant been put in, so it would be interesting to find out where they get their figures from.
In W.A recently, we have closed down 2x 200 and 2x 120 and 4 x 60 MW steam turbines that could burn coal, also there are 2 x  200MW coal fired units to be closed in the next couple of years and I haven't seen a huge amount of industry being built in W.A.
Add to that the 222MW wind and the 132MW solar farm out near Merredin, the 100MW wind and solar emu plains farm at Badingarra, plus the 1.6GW of rooftop solar and I really struggle to see how we haven't changed our carbon footprint.

With regard nuclear, if we can't get enough solar/wind generation and long term storage, to supply a reliable grid, nuclear will have to be considered.
So it really will be self resolving, if it can be done with renewables and suitable storage it will be, if it can't, it can't, simple really.  
You can't run a first world society, without a reliable electricity supply.


----------



## Sean K (11 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> With regard nuclear, if we can't get enough solar/wind generation and long term storage, to supply a reliable grid, nuclear will have to be considered.




Seems to be the only solution as other technology isn't mature enough to replace 24/7 coal and gas.


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2021)

kennas said:


> Seems to be the only solution as other technology isn't mature enough to replace 24/7 coal and gas.



It is possible with renewables, but you need a hell of a lot of it, rule of thumb that I've heard is.
To replace at call generation with intermittent renewables, requires twice as much renewable generation as installed at call generation and three times as much storage as installed at call generation.
So the two things that spring to mind from that equation are, a lot of renewable generation is going to be used to recharge storage and  the rest will be supplying the load, they wont be owned by the same company. So one will be paid on generation only, the other will have to pay to be charged, then charge the retailer when discharging.
Well what happens if they aren't required, everything is charged and the wind is blowing the sun shining. So at the moment everyone wants to build renewable generation, because it is cheap to build and run when compared to coal/gas, no one wants to build long term storage, it is going to be interesting when the coal and gas is shut down and the renewables compete with each other. There would be a lot of idle capacity.
Secondly it will take a long time to build sufficient storage, batteries are one thing, but long term storage that can run for several days, will be pumped hydro dams and in the case of the east Coast big dams. They will take a long time and a lot of money to build, not to mention the environmental and cultural issues. 

My guess is the point will be reached where renewable energy reaches saturation point, at that point wherever it is, some decisions will have to be made as to what technology fills the firming capacity role.


----------



## IFocus (11 August 2021)

kennas said:


> Seems to be the only solution as other technology isn't mature enough to replace 24/7 coal and gas.




If you go nuclear weapons then nuclear power becomes viable cost wise (sort of) still massive lead time plus to avoid sovereign  risk require technology for fuel processing.

If you just go nuclear power then processing fuel / technology / engineering / lead times are still massive then there's not in my back yard problem.

Renewables its all a known engineering wise, available, cheaper (including building dams etc) with sorter lead times no sovereign  risk with technology issues.


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2021)

IFocus said:


> If you go nuclear weapons then nuclear power becomes viable cost wise (sort of) still massive lead time plus to avoid sovereign  risk require technology for fuel processing.
> 
> If you just go nuclear power then processing fuel / technology / engineering / lead times are still massive then there's not in my back yard problem.
> 
> Renewables its all a known engineering wise, available, cheaper (including building dams etc) with sorter lead times no sovereign  risk with technology issues.



Very true IFocus, as I said IMO it will become self resolving, at the moment renewables are a mile ahead of second place on all metrics.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2021)

rederob said:


> Europe is expanding its grid to accommodate increasing shares of renewables, including international DC connectivity, and has nothing the scale of Snowy 2.0.
> The USA has no Snowy2.0 in the pipeline either as it expands into renewables, as they increasingly require new projects to to have significant battery backup and are also smart enough to harvest curtailed energy.



Comes down to what the objective is.

Neither Europe nor the USA are presently planning to go fully renewable. They're planning to go more renewable but they're not doing it so that it scales to 100%.

Hence the massive new investment in natural gas supply to Europe, the ramping up of gas in the US and so on. Nord Stream 2, with the capacity to supply an additional 55 billion cubic metres of gas annually, isn't being built without confidence that the future involves more gas not less.

Where the likes of Snowy 2.0 comes in is if, hypothetically, we wanted to go 100% renewable.

Here's a full year's worth of wind and solar generation for Victoria:






Look closely at the winter months and note that, assuming a shift from fossil fuels to electricity for heating, that's the time when consumption will be highest.

Doing that without bulk storage in some form, storage that can be discharged on multiple consecutive days without recharging, and some serious interstate transmission capacity is hugely problematic. Not impossible but it would take massive overbuilding to get those very low days' production up to match demand, noting that demand is set to rise not fall as the direct use of fossil fuels shifts to electricity.

What happened there at the beginning of July isn't a freak occurrence, there's been at least one equivalent scenario each year for as long as we've had significant wind and solar in the grid so it's likely to keep happening. For that matter look closely at June this year, or late April 2021, October 2020 or August 2020 and it's much the same. Multiple consecutive days of very poor wind and solar yield.

The EU and USA solution to that problem is to burn natural gas. That being Russian natural gas in the EU's case hence the politics with the US around it.

Those advocating Snowy 2.0 and similar projects are essentially advocating the use of stored renewable energy to fill those gaps rather than using gas.

Personally I'm firmly in the latter camp that going fully renewable is what we ought to be doing but I'm also well aware it won't actually happen, at least not within my lifetime. In practice it looks like we'll build as much bulk storage as the political process can deliver and fill the rest with open cycle gas turbines and perhaps a few large internal combustion plants running on a mix of local natural gas, imported LNG and diesel.

That's what the private players with $ billions are backing and realistically they're not likely to blow their money, gas isn't going away anytime soon.

My own view for the record could be summarised as:

Do not build new fossil fuel power generating capacity.

Electrify everything in an orderly manner. Eg I'm not suggesting we ban petrol cars but let's get new ones to be electric ASAP, thus bringing an orderly demise of petrol. Same concept with everything where technology permits the adoption of an electrically powered solution.

Don't put renewable energy infrastructure in places where it's going to harm endangered species or destroy unique environments etc. The principle being to avoid impacts of significance that can't be reversed at a later time.

If the land involved is generic and of no unique value and/or if the impact is readily reversible then quite simply we have to accept that some environmental impact from building renewable energy infrastructure is unavoidable, we can't say no to everything, and just get on and build it for the greater good. If society a century from now needs to dismantle some by then obsolete infrastructure and plant some common trees or grasses on the land in order to return it to natural condition well that's a pretty minor problem for us to be handing them versus cooking the planet.

Acknowledged that others will have different priorities but my own view is firmly that the need to reduce emissions is more important than any other impact if it's reversible. Only if the other impact is irreversible, for example nuclear waste or impacts on endangered species, is there anything to debate in my personal view.


----------



## rederob (12 August 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Comes down to what the objective is.
> 
> Neither Europe nor the USA are presently planning to go fully renewable. They're planning to go more renewable but they're not doing it so that it scales to 100%.
> 
> ...



Our renewables market is immature and planning remains fragmented as State agendas override any sense of a national context.
We don't have an east coast grid structure capable of balancing State supply variability if renewables increased markedly, and what I see ahead remains piecemeal.
I share your summary position, however, believe that transition can be very different.  For example, our present gas pipeline infrastructure could easily mix in and later be converted to green hydrogen. But I will leave it at that here as it's not the right thread.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> It is what it is, they should have gone for a better, more thought out look.
> What other observation could one make? I'm just stating the obvious, don't shoot the messenger.
> Like I said they are probably well intended, but it isn't a good look, same as protest marches that turn to looting sprees.
> I think the young people have to put some thought into how they get their message across.
> ...



Here you are SP. The polite CC protester who Scomo listens to.
Check out her story and share your thoughts.

‘I’m listening to her’: meet Scott Morrison’s favourite climate change protester​Frances, who stands near Parliament House in a Pokémon onesie with placards, says prime minister must ‘do whatever it takes’ to make a difference




Climate protestor Frances waves to passing traffic at the entrance to Parliament House. She says she always waves at Scott Morrison: ‘He waves, I think, but I can’t always tell because of the dark window.’ Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

Daniel Hurst

@danielhurstbne
Thu 12 Aug 2021 03.30 AEST




Meet Frances. She’s a Canberra-based IT worker, a mother of two, and is on her way to becoming the new poster child for the climate action movement.

It seems Frances now has the ear of Scott Morrison after she was singled out by the prime minister this week as a positive example of peaceful protest.

The praise came after he denounced Extinction Rebellion activists who vandalised Parliament House on Tuesday.
Morrison was referring to the “foolishness” of numerous activists who spray painted “Climate Duty of Care” on the walls of the Parliament House and his Canberra residence – the Lodge – and superglued themselves to the ground, in the wake of a major new scientific report that underlined the urgency of the climate crisis. Police arrested eight people.



Scott Morrison walks back ‘end the weekend’ rhetoric on electric vehicles
Read more
By contrast, it was Frances’ calm, peaceful manner that caught Morrison’s eye.

“That is not the way we go forward,” Morrison said, referring to the spray painting activists, before offering up the story of Frances – “a woman that I wave to almost every morning when I come into this building, as I drive up”.

“She’s there almost every morning and she makes this point every day, and she gives me a wave and she gives me a smile,” Morrison said. “I’ll tell you what, I’m listening to her.”









						‘I’m listening to her’: meet Scott Morrison’s favourite climate change protester
					

Frances, who stands near Parliament House in a Pokemon outfit with placards, says prime minister must ‘do whatever it takes’ to make a difference




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2021)

@basilio my guess is people are going to be in for a shock, I may be wrong but reading all the information I can on what Australia is doing, I think we are a lot further down the track than people are being told or realise.
Time will tell.
With regard the elderly lady in the photo, good on her, she certainly is getting a better response, than the girl burning a pram IMO. Or the old bloke the other day, spray painting graffiti, that tax payers are going to have to pay for the removal.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> @basilio my guess is people are going to be in for a shock, I may be wrong but reading all the information I can on what Australia is doing, I think we are a lot further down the track than people are being told or realise.
> Time will tell.



Interesting observation.  Do you want to share the analysis/information that leads you to that idea ?


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2021)

basilio said:


> Interesting observation.  Do you want to share the analysis/information that leads you to that idea ?



I've done that endlessly, I did one yesterday, I have been explaining why trails with BEV's have to be done etc, but alas to no avail.
Half the problem when dealing with fanatics, is they don't want to hear anything, the real fun is in being fanatical.
Like I've said I think Albo will need to be well versed in whatever plan he has, because he will be questioned, whereas I'm sure the Govt will roll out a plan before the upcoming election.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2021)

An interesting article on clothing, the part that caught my attention other than the mountain of clothes in Africa, was the statistics on clothing.
Meanwhile people march and glue themselves to the floor, well worth a read.









						'Dead white man's clothes': The dirty secret behind the world's fashion addiction
					

For decades, the West's unwanted fashion has made its way to used-clothing markets in Africa. Now it's fuelling an environmental catastrophe.




					www.abc.net.au
				




*Since 2000, global production of clothing has doubled. 
We’re buying 60 per cent more clothes now than we did 15 years ago. 
But we’re only keeping them for half as long. 

A major survey in the UK six years ago found one in three young women considered garments “old” if they had been worn just twice. 
An estimated 85 per cent of all textiles go to the dump every year, according to the World Economic Forum, enough to fill Sydney Harbour annually. *

Globally, that’s the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles being burned or going into landfill every second.
These problems have only accelerated with the advent of so-called “fast fashion” — cheap, low-quality clothes produced quickly to respond to changing trends. Where brands once had two fashion seasons a year, many now produce 52 micro-seasons, flooding the market with new styles.

H&M, Zara and Boohoo are among those brands rolling out new fashion lines within days. Boohoo, for example, has more than 36,000 products available at any one time. Three years ago, the company was castigated in the British Parliament for selling five-pound items of such low quality that charity shops were unwilling to resell them. 

With factories incentivised to maintain around-the-clock operations, the world’s major fashion houses factor into their budgets huge waste margins. In 2018, Burberry attracted a storm of criticism when it revealed it had destroyed $50 million of stock. The same year, H&M reported an unsold global inventory worth more than $5 billion.
Equally, she believes consumers are “somewhat complicit”. “We have decided that convenience is a human right and we think that when we go shopping we should always be able to find exactly what we want,” she said. “We should find it in our size and the colour that we want. That also contributes to this overproduction.” 

*Australia, with clothing retail sales in 2020 of about $22 billion, may not have the economic scale of the US or the UK, where combined the industry turned over $468 billion in the same period. But on a per capita basis, Australia is the highest consumer of textiles anywhere in the world outside of the US.

When these clothes fall out of favour with their owners, the vast majority of them end up in landfill. Only 7 per cent of clothes sold in Australia are classified as recycled. But it’s a dubious classification — watching the Kantamanto Market clean-up at days’ end gives its lie*.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> My own view for the record could be summarised as:
> 
> Do not build new fossil fuel power generating capacity.
> 
> ...




Nice one Smurf. Anytime in the next 10 years sounds right


----------



## basilio (12 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> An interesting article on clothing, the part that caught my attention other than the mountain of clothes in Africa, was the statistics on clothing.
> Meanwhile people march and glue themselves to the floor, well worth a read.
> 
> 
> ...




Powerful story and well worth highlighting.
Basically points out that the issues of reducing our footprint covers a multitude of areas - all of which need to be addressed if we are going to have a sustainable future.

The direct move to renewable energy is critical and essential.  *But it isn't sufficient. *


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2021)

basilio said:


> Powerful story and well worth highlighting.
> Basically points out that the issues of reducing our footprint covers a multitude of areas - all of which need to be addressed if we are going to have a sustainable future.
> 
> The direct move to renewable energy is critical and essential.  *But it isn't sufficient. *



That is the issue, we can reduce our personal footprint hugely, which in turn reduces our emissions.
For example, a friend of mine who I used to work with (he is 85, wife 83), is a very outspoken climate change supporter. He has one daughter and two grandchildren, that live about 400k's away.
Well he had a nice 3x2, but decided it was too cramped when the kids came to visit, which is about 3 times a year. So he knocks a perfectly good house over and builds a 3 story McMansion, I mean it looks like and office block and has enough undercroft parking for 8 cars, plus a lift.
Now when we are out for lunch, he goes on and on about global warming and what should be done about it, I bite my tongue they are lovely people.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> @basilio my guess is people are going to be in for a shock, I may be wrong but reading all the information I can on what Australia is doing, I think we are a lot further down the track than people are being told or realise.
> Time will tell.
> With regard the elderly lady in the photo, good on her, she certainly is getting a better response, than the girl burning a pram IMO. Or the old bloke the other day, spray painting graffiti, that tax payers are going to have to pay for the removal.




Did you read the rest of the story SP ? Cause if you did..


----------



## basilio (12 August 2021)

This analysis gives an excellent picture of what we need to do  collectively if we are going to minimise the effects of global heating.

The IPCC report is a massive alert that the time for climate action is nearly gone, but crucially not gone yet​Greg Jericho







Australia cannot afford another election campaign that views the science of climate change as something we can ignore




An aerial view of cattle on a dry paddock in drought-hit Quirindi in NSW, in 2018. The IPCC report noted that with a 2C rise, extreme temperature events would increase in occurrence. Photograph: Glenn Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images
Thu 12 Aug 2021 13.09 AEST
Last modified on Thu 12 Aug 2021 13.24 AEST

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...arly-gone-but-crucially-not-gone-yet#comments
21
The latest IPCC report released on Monday essentially lets the world know just how big a hole it has gotten itself into. The good thing is it also lets us all know how we can get out. The problem of course is that when you are in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging.

Lest there still be any misunderstanding – whether it be through ignorance or due to listening to those in the media and politics who seek to mislead – the climate right now is warmer than it has been in modern human history.

The latest IPCC report makes is clear that annual temperatures now are warmer than they were during “the warmest multi-century period in at least the last 100,000 years”. That period stretches back to a time when homo sapiens were still able to bump into neanderthals and wonder who would go extinct first.
If we look at the common era of the past 2020 years, the temperature now is almost 1 degree warmer than it ever has been in that duration:





*Click here if you cannot view the graph*
And I’m sorry to say, the cause isn’t sunspots, or movements of the planet or wiggles in the space-time continuum.
Nope, the reason the world is warmer now is people:

*Click here if you cannot view the graph*


----------



## basilio (12 August 2021)

Excellent story on the directions we need to take to obtain future metals.

Where and how will we get the metals to feed our future technology needs?​ABC Science
 /
By environment reporter Nick Kilvert
Posted 8h ago8 hours ago, updated 5h ago5 hours ago




 The US has ramped up investment in wind energy to meet its emissions goals.(
Supplied: Blue Economy CRC
)
Sh

If you had a tonne of ore from a gold mine, and a tonne of iPhones, which is likely to contain more gold? What about silver?

You've probably guessed the reason for the question is that the answer is surprising. And yes, in both cases, it's the devices that are a richer source of the precious metals.

In fact, the metals for all Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic medals came from recycled e-waste.
Over two years, the organisers gathered enough gold, silver and bronze from small electronic devices to make the almost 5,000 medals awarded to the athletes.

And it's not just our computers and phones.

Everything from electric cars to wind turbines and solar panels — things we need to transition the world to net-zero emissions — require an array of metals, like silver, palladium, platinum, copper, aluminium and rare-earths, such as neodymium.
So where will we get them from? Will we have enough? And what role can recycling and reuse play in ensuring we can supply our technology needs into the future?









						Rare metals needed to fuel our high-tech future are in our hands right now
					

Transitioning the world to clean energy is going to require a huge amount of different types of  metals. But do we have enough, where will we get them from, and what impact will that have on the environment?




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2021)

basilio said:


> Did you read the rest of the story SP ? Cause if you did..



Yes I did, apologies if I've taken awhile responding, grandad duties.
The issue of climate change is huge and every intelligent person knows it, to think that politicians don't, is arrogance on people's part IMO.
The reality is, if an unstructured, unplanned charge to zero emissions causes a breakdown in society or mass failures in any of our systems, be they dealing with effluent, water, electricity, hospitals or any other essential service, our society will descend into anarchy very quickly.
People using social disobedience, to push an agenda that is already acknowledged, do nothing to further the cause IMO.
They IMO are using a cause as an excuse to behave badly, I would expect when this issue runs it's course, the very same people will be chaining themselves to bulldozers, that are trying to build the dams for pumped storage.
Just my opinion.


----------



## rederob (12 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> The reality is, if an unstructured, unplanned charge to zero emissions causes a breakdown in society or mass failures in any of our systems, be they dealing with effluent, water, electricity, hospitals or any other essential service, our society will descend into anarchy very quickly.



Your comment ignores *REALITY*.
The writing has been on the wall for a *very long time*.
Bipartisan agreement years back put a price on carbon and our CO2 levels dropped appreciably.  Our economy and services ran like clockwork, and our society was not impacted. 
We are over 18 months into a pandemic and our economy is still ok, with our stock market at record highs.  Lockdowns have not broken the fabric of society and all our essential services are running fine.  Your idea has zero foundation.
Morrison poured $hundreds of billions into a pandemic response and SFA into addressing climate change.


sptrawler said:


> People using social disobedience, to push an agenda that is already acknowledged, do nothing to further the cause IMO.



As @basilio's link pointed out, they say they hear our concerns but continue to pay lip service.  What has to happen for them to act?


sptrawler said:


> They IMO are using a cause as an excuse to behave badly, I would expect when this issue runs it's course, the very same people will be chaining themselves to bulldozers, that are trying to build the dams for pumped storage.



I think you have that back to front.  Government has behaved appallingly, yet they claim to understand what is happening.  It is reprehensible that they do nothing, and are hypocrites of the highest order.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2021)

As I always say, time will tell.
It was only 10 years ago Australia was producing solar panels, now we have the very same people who let them shut down the manufacturing, complaining we should be making them here.
The same people bemoaned the closing of the car industry, yet put the wheels in motion that brought about its demise.
Life is full of pessimists, yet life goes on, then the pessimists find the next issue to be pessimistic about.
One day the pessimists will be right, that is the law of averages.
I on the other hand am optimistic that Canberra is actually aware of the issues and is addressing it in an orderly manner, I'm not that worried that they aren't on the media every day giving yet another pointless announcement, just so they can keep speech writers and journalists  employed. 🤣
There is only one or two that don't accept reality IMO, but have endless amount of energy to try and convince all and sundry, that they alone know the "truth", on almost all issues.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> An interesting article on clothing, the part that caught my attention other than the mountain of clothes in Africa, was the statistics on clothing.



That is one area where the power really is in the hands of consumers.

Just don't buy clothing that falls apart after being worn twice and don't throw away perfectly good stuff.

That doesn't need government to legislate, it doesn't need something to be invented and it doesn't need extensive infrastructure built. The power's firmly in the hands of consumers to reject this stuff.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> That is one area where the power really is in the hands of consumers.
> 
> Just don't buy clothing that falls apart after being worn twice and don't throw away perfectly good stuff.
> 
> That doesn't need government to legislate, it doesn't need something to be invented and it doesn't need extensive infrastructure built. The power's firmly in the hands of consumers to reject this stuff.



The sad part it doesnt fit the rhetoric, the whole issue is the Govmnts fault, those who are doing the complaining dont want to change their consumerism habits, they just want the Govnmt to make it carbon neutral.lol
Absolute Fwits.
If I was the Govmnt, Id say fine we will shut down all coal generation by 2030.
So now we want firm commitment of 40Gw of renewables by 2025 and 60Gw of storage by 2027.
Then let the media run with it, trying to reason with them isnt working, so give them what they want, a dose of reality.
Easy really.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Comes down to what the objective is.
> 
> Neither Europe nor the USA are presently planning to go fully renewable. They're planning to go more renewable but they're not doing it so that it scales to 100%.
> 
> ...



I liked your post smurf as we seem to be  always on the same page, and I agree with you.
But I know my other half would freak if she thought it was ok to to cover thousands of square klm to facilitate humans indulging themselves, at the cost of habitat of creatures that will die, so we can indulge.lol
Walking the knife edge is difficult, everyone wants a clean country, everyone wants their luxuries, everyone wants their mobile phone, everyone wants their 65" tv, everyone wants to be able to turn a light on at the flick of a switch.
They just want it to be clean, cheap and not cause any dramas.lol
IMO just do it, if it puts the price of electricity up to $4/kwhr so be it, suck it up princess.
Smurf you and I are smart enough to get off grid.lol Or at least become cost neutral.
The other thing would be businesses wouldnt be able to afford their electricity, big business would move to low energy cost countries, but we could sit back with a satisfied look on our faces.lol


----------



## sptrawler (13 August 2021)

I think it is time for me to to sign off, till after the election. Sayonara


----------



## rederob (13 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> As I always say, time will tell.



That boat well and truly sailed with the 2013 IPCC Report, while the four before it outlining what was likely to happen.
So 8 years later you think we don't already know?


sptrawler said:


> It was only 10 years ago Australia was producing solar panels, now we have the very same people who let them shut down the manufacturing, complaining we should be making them here.



Not relevant.


sptrawler said:


> The same people bemoaned the closing of the car industry, yet put the wheels in motion that brought about its demise.



Not relevant.


sptrawler said:


> Life is full of pessimists, yet life goes on, then the pessimists find the next issue to be pessimistic about.



Perhaps you need a *reality *check because the bush fires and catastrophic flooding in the northern hemisphere taking place over recent months make it obvious that our planet's climate is out of whack.


sptrawler said:


> One day the pessimists will be right, that is the law of averages.



Sorry, you keep missing the boat.


sptrawler said:


> I on the other hand am optimistic that Canberra is actually aware of the issues and is addressing it in an orderly manner,



You can show us how they are doing this, can you?


sptrawler said:


> There is only one or two that don't accept reality IMO, but have endless amount of energy to try and convince all and sundry, that they alone know the "truth", on almost all issues.



Are you hiding in a bunker?

There is a moot question about who is responsible.  Those who did nothing or those who enabled them?


----------



## rederob (13 August 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> That is one area where the power really is in the hands of consumers.
> 
> Just don't buy clothing that falls apart after being worn twice and don't throw away perfectly good stuff.
> 
> That doesn't need government to legislate, it doesn't need something to be invented and it doesn't need extensive infrastructure built. The power's firmly in the hands of consumers to reject this stuff.



That line of argument does not work in a consumer driven world and never has.
Moreover, there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving to charity clothes that can be recycled into rags, or perfectly good clothes that can end up in op shops.  
That said, we no longer drop of at charity bins as some were associated with scams.  Our local op shop sorts what's dropped off and dumps what's no good (and it goes direct to *our *nearest landfill).


----------



## IFocus (13 August 2021)

This surprisingly pretty much nails it SP look away   





__





						The Project Exclusives - Network Ten
					

ten play




					10play.com.au


----------



## rederob (13 August 2021)

IFocus said:


> This surprisingly pretty much nails it SP look away
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Morrison wants to blame developing nations for the problem because they are increasing CO2 emissions.
He forgets that if Australia had China's population then our CO2 emissions would be more than twice that of China.  The concept of equality eludes him.
Blaming China has been de riguer of late, but when you look at the data it turns out that China has been a stand-out in relation to continued comparative improvement of global performance on emissions.
This chart maps energy intensity (total energy consumption per unit of GDP) changes over the past 30 years for Australia, USA, UK and China:




An important subset to consider is the energy intensity of production.  Although China has increasingly become the factory for the rest of the world, its per capita consumption of energy is comparatively low.  In the USA for example the most recent data I could find showed less than 20% of its energy went into manufacturing, construction and mining related industries, compared to over 57% in China. If we compared China and Australia at that time, our per capita CO2 emissions were over twice that of China although China was devoting twice as much energy to production.


----------



## basilio (13 August 2021)

This is a game breaker. If the Gulf Stream fails the worlds climate will just go haywire within a few years.









						Climate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse
					

A shutdown would have devastating global impacts and must not be allowed to happen, researchers say




					www.theguardian.com
				











						The Gulf Stream is at risk of collapse. If it does, the global results would be catastrophic
					

You've heard of the invisible hand of the market, the supposedly unseen force that drives an economy. Well, meet the unseen hand of the weather: the Gulf Stream. The powerful current that runs through the Atlantic Ocean helps to regulate…




					www.mic.com


----------



## basilio (16 August 2021)

Excellent overview of the  main points of the IPCC Sixth assessment . As usual very measured.


----------



## Joules MM1 (17 August 2021)

largest water dam that supplies fresh water to 25MM people declares "official water shortage"

..after 22 year drought, huh?








						U.S. declares first Western reservoir water shortage, triggering cuts
					

U.S. officials for the first time on Monday declared an official water shortage for the massive Lake Mead reservoir, triggering supply cuts to parts of the drought-stricken Southwest, as 10 Western governors appealed for federal drought disaster aid.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 August 2021)

July was the hottest month on Earth since record-keeping began 141 years ago, and June was the hottest month on record in the continental U.S., according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This was the third time in less than a decade, and the latest date in the year on record, that the National Science Foundation’s Summit Station had above-freezing temperatures and wet snow.

There is no previous record of rainfall at this location, which reaches 3,216 meters (10,551 feet) in elevation, said the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the first to report the findings.

Scientists said the temperatures increased starting at 5 a.m. local time on Aug. 14 when warm air and moisture came from the south. Rain was observed for the next several hours.

The Summit Station, which was first established in 1989 as a drill site, is the only high-altitude and high-latitude inland year‐round observation station in the Arctic. According to the station's website, it sits at the top of the Greenland ice sheet and is over 400 kilometers from the nearest point of land. https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/rainfall-greenlands-ice-sheet-summit-first-time-record


----------



## sptrawler (23 August 2021)

The W.A Government dipping their toe into wave energy again, hopefully something comes of this one.








						WA commits $1.5m to wave energy study off south coast
					

The possibility of harnessing the power of WA's rugged coastline for wave energy will be explored in the latest chapter of energy investment off Albany.




					www.abc.net.au
				




The last venture









						Taxpayers wave goodbye to $2.6 million as troubled WA energy project scrapped
					

The WA Government cancels a $16 million deal with Carnegie Clean Energy for a wave farm off the state's south coast amid growing uncertainty about the company's future, but denies it has broken a key election promise.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## Investoradam (27 August 2021)

basilio said:


> Excellent story on the directions we need to take to obtain future metals.
> 
> Where and how will we get the metals to feed our future technology needs?​ABC Science
> /
> ...



The abc peddling the propaganda for the large corporations. I mean nothing speaks clean aboutdigging endless toxic products out of the ground to make something to ineffective at a wind mill.


----------



## basilio (27 August 2021)

Investoradam said:


> The abc peddling the propaganda for the large corporations. I mean nothing speaks clean aboutdigging endless toxic products out of the ground to make something to ineffective at a wind mill.




Really ? You seriously  still believe windmills are ineffective  or whatever ? 

The story was of course much bigger than just windmills which I don't think got more than a passing mention. The essential question is that if we are going to achieve a carbon free future to somehow stop global heating from cooking everyone there will be massive  engineering works required as well as technologies that will require many special metals. So the question is how do we obtain these without too much extra trashing of the environment.

FMG is a company that seems to taking this problem and turning it into an opportunity.  Might be worth checking out their FFI projects.


----------



## basilio (1 September 2021)

Even as I spruik the wares of Twiggy and FMG to re engineer the world and save us from global heating.... there is some harder realities to face.

George Monbiot, as usual, offers a  reality check on concreting our way to  a  sustainable climate.

We can’t build our way out of the environmental crisis​George Monbiot







New infrastructure projects are all the rage, post-pandemic. But who benefits from a rising tide of concrete?




‘The nominal costs of HS2 have risen from £37.5bn in 2009 to somewhere between £72bn and £110bn today.’ HS2 construction in Buckinghamshire, January 2021. Photograph: Maureen McLean/REX/Shutterstock
Wed 1 Sep 2021 06.00 BST


Dig for victory: this, repurposed from the second world war, could be the slogan of our times. All over the world, governments are using the pandemic and the environmental crisis to justify a new splurge of infrastructure spending. In the US, Joe Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure framework “will make our economy more sustainable, resilient, and just”. In the UK, Boris Johnson’s build back better programme will “unite and level up the country”, under the banner of “green growth”. China’s belt and road project will bring the world together in hyper-connected harmony and prosperity.

Sure, we need some new infrastructure. If people are to drive less, we need new public transport links and safe cycling routes. We need better water treatment plants and recycling centres, new wind and solar plants, and the power lines required to connect them to the grid. But we can no more build our way out of the environmental crisis than we can consume our way out of it.

*Why? Because new building is subject to the eight golden rules of infrastructure procurement.*









						We can’t build our way out of the environmental crisis | George Monbiot
					

New infrastructure projects are all the rage, post-pandemic. But who benefits from a rising tide of concrete, asks Guardian columnist George Monbiot




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (1 September 2021)

Backing up Georges comment it is already clear that the Biden infrastructure bill has been well gamed by the usual suspects.









						Biden Made Big Compromises on Climate -- and Movements That Backed Him Are Livid
					

The climate crisis rages on as Biden prioritizes bipartisanship on an infrastructure bill that guts climate action.




					truthout.org


----------



## noirua (1 September 2021)

This summer was meant to be brilliant - why did it end up being such a let-down?
					

What happened to our hot vaxxed summer?




					metro.co.uk
				



There is no doubt in my mind that the poor weather this summer in the UK is due to Global Cooling.









						Global cooling - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*Global cooling* was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]





__





						Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?
					

Earth has warmed in the past due to changes in the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and naturally occurring increases in greenhouse gases. Our ability to understand and explain past changes is one reason we are confident that recent changes are due to humans.




					www.climate.gov
				



So it appears all the information put out about Global Warming is a myth. The planet Earth has gone through cold and warm periods in the past. So in due course the worm will turn and all the efforts to change the pattern of events will have been a complete waste of time.

So we can all sit back and just wait for the changing pattern some time in the future.


----------



## basilio (2 September 2021)

xx


----------



## basilio (2 September 2021)

noirua said:


> So it appears all the information put out about Global Warming is a myth. The planet Earth has gone through cold and warm periods in the past. So in due course the worm will turn and all the efforts to change the pattern of events will have been a complete waste of time.
> 
> So we can all sit back and just wait for the changing pattern some time in the future.



Well that is fantastic news Noirua !!  In these days of  despair and despondency it's great to have some good cheer.

I think that if we want keep up the good news we need to tidy up a few pesky global weather records and perhaps start painting some mountains that have inadvertently lost their snow cover.

And while we are at maybe reconstruct our scientific community so it properly reflects such a sunny disposition.


----------



## sptrawler (6 September 2021)

Looks like News corp is going to lead the "green" charge, now we might get some action.  








						Murdoch newspapers, TV to champion net zero emissions
					

News Corp’s local outlets are set to begin a company-wide campaign promoting the benefits of a carbon-neutral economy.




					www.smh.com.au


----------



## basilio (6 September 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Looks like News corp is going to lead the "green" charge, now we might get some action.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ha Ha Ha ! It's not April 1st. Last time I checked Hades didn't have a cool change.

And suddenly, miraculously even,  (almost) all the News  Corp stable will simultaneously run a 14 day intensive  campaign in support of a carbon neutral world by 2050. 

Wonders will never cease.  I'll have to have a chat with George Monbiot  and suggest he  writes a special story for them explaining just why this is so important.


----------



## sptrawler (6 September 2021)

basilio said:


> Ha Ha Ha ! It's not April 1st. Last time I checked Hades didn't have a cool change.
> 
> And suddenly, miraculously even,  (almost) all the News  Corp stable will simultaneously run a 14 day intensive  campaign in support of a carbon neutral world by 2050.
> 
> Wonders will never cease.  I'll have to have a chat with George Monbiot  and suggest he  writes a special story for them explaining just why this is so important.



News Corp, is the most popular and lucrative news, so to keep their circulation up they will follow the herd trend. So to me it would indicate that generally people are moving toward the narrative of climate change, therefore news corp is moving with them, it's just business IMO.
That's why the other media outlets struggle financially, they focus on minority groups, which is probably why they are struggling with circulation.


----------



## basilio (6 September 2021)

sptrawler said:


> News Corp, is the most popular and lucrative news, so to keep their circulation up they will follow the herd trend. So to me it would indicate that generally people are moving toward the narrative of climate change, therefore news corp is moving with them, it's just business IMO.
> That's why the other media outlets struggle financially, they focus on minority groups, which is probably why they are struggling with circulation.




Indeed it is SP.  This is just a business move. It has absolutely nothing to do with  addressing what needs to happens if we are to have any viable businesses in 2050.  In fact what we will see from News Corp is the latest morph of climate denial to climate delay and a boosterism of special pro business projects.  Thats why I tongue in check suggested George Monbiot could write a decent story on just what has to be done and where this could happen.

What will the NZ 2050 story look like ?

_It will be a centrist, pro-business approach to climate action. It will make a show of dismissing the “hysterics” of climate activists, while urging governments, including Australia’s, to set distant, meaningless and non-binding climate targets. It won’t allow any room for emissions reductions in line with the 1.5C goals or the Paris agreement; no short-term meaningful targets or actions such as those highlighted in the IEA’s recent ‘net zero’ report. It won’t argue for a coal phase-out by 2030, or the end of all new coal, gas and oil mines in Australia, or a ban on combustion engine sales by 2030-2035; all vital actions if Australia is to align with any net zero target.

It’ll champion controversial technologies like CCS and fossil hydrogen. It’ll highlight personal responsibility: tree planting, recycling and electric vehicle purchases. It will not propose or argue in favour of any new policies; at least none that might reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

How can we know all this before we’ve seen the actual campaign? It’s easy – let me explain._









						News Corp hasn’t seen the light on climate – they’re just updating their tactics
					

Is News Corp really seeing the light on climate? More likely it’s pivoting to a modern style of greenwashing and delay, just like Morrison.




					reneweconomy.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (6 September 2021)

Which is why I take any thing the media say, with a pinch of salt, the media is driven by personal agenda at the journalist level, editorial agenda at the publishing level and by money at the corporate level.
Non are driven by an underlying obligation to give, fair, honest and unbiased reporting IMO. That is why, it is a dying medium, ask any young person what they think of the media, they all think it is rubbish.  
The only people who follow the media narrative today, are old fossils who still think the media, is obligated to give honest content.🤣


----------



## Investoradam (12 September 2021)

basilio said:


> Excellent story on the directions we need to take to obtain future metals.
> 
> Where and how will we get the metals to feed our future technology needs?​ABC Science
> /
> ...



Let’s dig up more of the earth with those toxic materials and call it green!
Solar panels and wind turbines cannot be recycled neither can batteries! 
yet it’s clean and green! And nuclear is evil!


----------



## IFocus (13 September 2021)

Investoradam said:


> Let’s dig up more of the earth with those toxic materials and call it green!
> Solar panels and wind turbines cannot be recycled neither can batteries!
> yet it’s clean and green! And nuclear is evil!




Actually the technology for recycling 80% of a battery is currently being built in Germany in partnership with an Australian company costs are around $2K a battery for $7K plus  (excuse my memory costs maybe a little different) returns hugely commercially viable.

Costs, technology ( processing  sovereign risk) and not in my back yard are the problems with nuclear power but if you go nuclear weapons then nuclear power makes perfect sense.


----------



## basilio (13 September 2021)

100% recycling of Solar Panels is now operational in Victoria. Everything is reused.

Australia’s first solar panel recycling plant swings into action​

Sophie Vorrath 7 May 2021 0
Share
Tweet
0Share






One of Australia’s first solar PV recycling facilities is up and running in Melbourne’s north, with video footage posted on LinkedIn on Wednesday showing the panel-crushing plant in action.

The plant, which was completed last September in Thomastown by Melbourne based co-operative Lotus Energy, claims to recycle 100% of end-of-life solar PV modules and all associated materials recovered – inverters, cables, optimisers, mounting structures – using no chemicals.

Lotus Energy confirmed this week’s operational milestone with RenewEconomy on Thursday, with more details on the plant’s capabilities and the company’s plans to come.

Lotus Energy also claims the title of Australia’s first dedicated solar panel recycling facility, although it is likely to be followed closely by Reclaim PV Recycling, which in February locked in plans to develop its first processing facility in the industrial Adelaide suburb of Lonsdale, in South Australia.









						Australia’s first solar panel recycling plant swings into action
					

Video footage posted on LinkedIn this week shows Lotus Energy’s Melbourne solar panel recycling plant in action – is it Australia’s first?




					reneweconomy.com.au


----------



## basilio (13 September 2021)

Dealing with Wind Turbines is also on the cards.
Frankly the mechanisms for dealing with renewable energy sources is far more advanced than decommissioning Nuclear Power stations. It can be done but the costs and ongoing risks are quite problematic. And unfortunately the companies that made the money from teh operations are normally not hanging around to clean them up.









						Explainer: What happens to old wind turbines?
					

The wind power industry is making gains in its quest for full recyclability, but there is still much to do.




					reneweconomy.com.au
				












						Decommissioning nuclear reactors is a long-term and costly process
					






					www.eia.gov


----------



## basilio (13 September 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Which is why I take any thing the media say, with a pinch of salt, the media is driven by personal agenda at the journalist level, editorial agenda at the publishing level and by money at the corporate level.
> Non are driven by an underlying obligation to give, fair, honest and unbiased reporting IMO




Very true of much/most of the commercial media. News Com, Fox News  are particular  examples of Corporate and political led media organisations that have a very strong focus on ensuring their political/business masters get value.

The Guardian offers a different agenda and that certainly takes it into conflict with many business and political organizations. It began as a voice for the powerless.

_*Since 1821 the mission of the Guardian has been to use clarity and imagination to build hope.*

Guardian Media Group is a global news organisation that delivers fearless, investigative journalism - giving a voice to the powerless and holding power to account.

Our independent ownership structure means we are entirely free from political and commercial influence. Only our values determine the stories we choose to cover – relentlessly and courageously.
*
Our organisation *

The Guardian is owned by Guardian Media Group, which has only one shareholder - the Scott Trust.

The Scott Trust, named after our longest serving editor, CP Scott, exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.

Today more than half of our revenue comes directly from our readers, helping to support Guardian journalism and keep it open for everyone_









						A mission for journalism in a time of crisis
					

In a turbulent era, the media must define its values and principles, writes Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner




					www.theguardian.com
				







__





						About us | The Guardian
					





					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (13 September 2021)

basilio said:


> Very true of much/most of the commercial media. News Com, Fox News  are particular  examples of Corporate and political led media organisations that have a very strong focus on ensuring their political/business masters get value.
> 
> The Guardian offers a different agenda and that certainly takes it into conflict with many business and political organizations. It began as a voice for the powerless.
> 
> ...



They summed it up perfectly,
_*Only our values determine the stories we choose to cover – relentlessly and courageously.*_

As long as their values are aligned with the readers values, the reader will be happy, it is no different to any of the others.
You're happy with the Guardian, that's fine, some others will be happy with 9 groups news, others will be happy with News corps presentations.
Everyone to their own, it is just I feel they are all the same, driven by personal and or financial motives, not by an underlying obligation to give fair and unbiased reporting.
This is where the ABC is falling down in it's obligations, they are funded by all taxpayers, not just the left leaning ones.


----------



## basilio (13 September 2021)

SP you contention earlier was that Media organisations are driven by Business and political interests. I agreed and in fact commercial media follows that process very strongly.

The Guardian is significantly different because it* doesn't  *allow itself to be guided by clear commercial and political interests. 

In theory, by the way,  News organisations  say that their news desk is independently run. In theory the news desk doesn't kowtow to pressure from advertisers or media owners who want certain stories published, others ignored or particular themes to be explored.

Historically that principle had some truth. But in 2021 you would be had pressed to see an organisation  News Corp even paying lip service to such an idea.


----------



## sptrawler (13 September 2021)

basilio said:


> SP you contention earlier was that Media organisations are driven by Business and political interests. I agreed and in fact commercial media follows that process very strongly.
> 
> The Guardian is significantly different because it* doesn't  *allow itself to be guided by clear commercial and political interests.
> 
> ...



I'm only saying they are all driven by their bias, the Guardian is driven by its political, social and business interests, otherwise it would go broke.
Their bias will be reflective in their editorial content, if they feel that a political party isn't doing enough to further the agenda that they feel is right, they will give them a negative biased presentation.
Also you will find that the Guardian probably receives funds from left leaning commercial entities, the same as Greenpeace does, I'm not saying it is wrong.
I'm saying that the truth, lies somewhere between what all the media outlets present, because none just present the facts IMO.
If you take a pragmatic view of it, Newscorp is probably more a reflection of the views of the majority, the reason for making that assumption is they rely on selling content and they do it well.
If the circulation falls they will change their editorial content to attract the sales, whereas some other media just keep churning out the same rhetoric, which is fine but becomes niche.
Newscorp actually a week or so ago, said they were going to actively push climate change, which would indicate their polling is showing a major shift of public opinion toward the climate change side.
Therefore they adapt, that's business, that's what they do. It doesn't mean they are a crap newspaper, it just means they give a different side of an argument, if you read all the sides, then it is possible to work out what sits best with your reasoning.


----------



## basilio (14 September 2021)

Australia burying ‘head in the sand’ on security risks of climate change, former defence official says​Warning comes as Climate Council report finds Australia will not have ‘lasting national security’ without addressing climate crisis

Australia has its “head in the sand” regarding the national security implications of climate change and should follow the US in spelling out the risks, a former senior Australian defence official says.

Australia’s “strategic weakness” on climate policy is also making it harder for the country to be seen as a preferred partner with Pacific Island countries, according to Cheryl Durrant, the defence department’s former head of preparedness.

The comments coincide with the release of a new report by the Climate Council that argues Australia has “fallen well behind the US, UK, Japan, New Zealand and other peers in analysis of climate and security risks”.




‘Not on the same page’: Australia set to face US pressure on climate as ministers head to Washington

Read more
The US president, Joe Biden, has ordered a review of the security implications of climate change. His defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, has said climate change is “making the world more unsafe and we need to act”.

...The Climate Council report urges the Australian government to launch a national climate and security threat assessment – an idea first recommended by a Senate inquiry in 2018.

Sherri Goodman, a former US deputy undersecretary of defense specialising in environmental security, welcomed the report, saying Australia “further risks being left behind the clean energy transition”.

Goodman told Guardian Australia climate change acted “as a threat multiplier, exacerbating risks for Australia and its allies, from extreme heat and wildfire at home, to devastating typhoons and extreme weather events across the Pacific”.









						Australia burying ‘head in the sand’ on security risks of climate change, former defence official says
					

Warning comes as Climate Council report finds Australia will not have ‘lasting national security’ without addressing climate crisis




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (14 September 2021)

Does News Corp cover the climate crisis in the way The Guardian does ?

*In fact there are reporters who highlight the implications of rising temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions. *The problem is that these stories are overshadowed by a constant stream of opinion pieces by Andrew Bolt. Greg Sheridan, Miranda Divine and others who deride the risks and relentlessly run the line that CC is a " hoax, overrated, someone else's problem, or a left wing conspiracy theory" And on top of that "any action by Australia to reduce its emissions will just destroy our way of life."

I can and have quoted some excellent examples of News Corp reporting on CC.  But in the overall picture I would be amazed if News Corp readers actually believed there was serious problem given the overall message.









						Dire warning for Australia: ‘A billion people displaced’
					

A group of high ranking former defence and security officials has said Australia is sleepwalking into a bevy of potentially “devastating” national security threats.




					www.news.com.au
				












						Impacts we’ll be living with for thousands of years
					

If you think climate change is a futuristic concept then you may be in for a shock.




					www.news.com.au


----------



## basilio (14 September 2021)

This analysis details the overwhelming impact of a few climate denial opinion writers on News Corp presentation of CC issues.

Turns Out News Corp Kept Lying About Climate Change, Even After Last Summer’s Fires​
by Jim Malo  17 December 2020







Want more Junkee in your life? Sign up to our newsletter, and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook so you always know where to find us.

A new report shows that over the last 12 months — following the Black Summer bushfires — nearly half of all climate coverage in four News Corp publications cast doubt on or completely rejected climate science.
Professor Wendy Bacon, who conducted the research handed down in the _Lies, Debates, and Silences: How News Corp produces climate scepticism in Australia_ report, said it showed a clear strategy from News Corp leadership.

“I would call it an editorial policy,” she said. “Recently, Rupert Murdoch said there were no denialists there. That is simply not true.

“Media companies control their own agenda, there’s nothing accidental about it. Considerable resources are spent on spreading misinformation about climate change.”
Related



 A Year On From The Bushfires, Have We Actually Achieved Anything On Climate Policy?

Professor Bacon’s analysis, commissioned by GetUp!, covered 8,612 pieces published by News Corp. Most of these articles were published in _The Australian_, though the newspaper had the lowest percentage of negative coverage at 38 percent.
_*The Daily Telegraph*_* was the worst, with 58 percent of its pieces on climate change being negative.

This was partially skewed by the high frequency of opinion and commentary pieces. About 62 percent weren’t based on research or fact.

The other two surveyed papers were the Courier Mail and Herald Sun. Others owned by News Corp were excluded but still were likely to include climate denying material due to the syndication of columnists like Andrew Bolt, who was responsible for a large chuck of climate denial in the four surveyed papers.

He himself wrote 12 percent of articles surveyed. In the Herald Sun, his home paper, he made up 32 percent.

The top five columnists at News Corp wrote 44 percent of all opinion articles. All five were Sky News After Dark contributors too.*

Professor Bacon said this showed there was an editorial direction.

“One thing I’d say, when you look at the top 10 opinion writers they all either reject climate science or are extremely negative about any action, with Bolt being very dominant,” she said. “Think about what resources are being spent on those opinion writers.
“That would be millions a year for all those people. It’s an editorial policy. You choose your journalists and opinion writers.”
Of the 55 percent of articles that accepted the science, Professor Bacon said most were poorly done.

They rarely included the perspectives of scientists, mentioned the impacts of climate change or failed to dispel misunderstandings about the phenomenon.

*Another issue was the selection of sources. The most commonly used voice on climate change were politicians, as 47 per cent of all sources. Scientists made up just 6 percent of sources.

When it came to industry sources, fossil fuel, financial, and mining types made up 56 percent of voices. Renewable energy sources were just 5 percent.*
Again, Professor Bacon said this showed that editorial decisions were driving the denial, and the News Corp papers were not acting as a “passive receptacle for people’s views”.
“A journalist understands the strategies,” she said. “You know how to construct the stories.”
The full report can be found here.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2021)

Greg Mullins was Australias longest serving fire chief. His experience in fighting fires across Australia is second to none. His observations of how fundamentally climate change has affected fire fighting are sobering/terrifying. This reinforces how critical tacking global warming is for our future.

‘The world is burning’: how Australia’s longest-serving fire chief became a climate champion​Greg Mullins says after the ‘black summer’ bushfires it is time for politicians to act on global heating

Get our free news app; get our morning email briefing





‘We need to take action on emissions, and Australia’s not living up to its international responsibilities.’ Greg Mullins in 1979, aged 20, in his NSW Fire Brigades uniform





Calla Wahlquist

@callapilla
Sun 26 Sep 2021 13.30 EDT
Last modified on Sun 26 Sep 2021 13.32 EDT

The year 2019 was Australia’s hottest and driest on record. By 2040, those conditions – temperatures 1.5C above normal, contributing to the worst bushfire season the east coast has ever seen – will be average. By 2060, on current projections, it would be considered “exceptionally cool”.
The 2019-20 fire season, dubbed “black summer”, will become the norm.

It’s a grim future that has turned Greg Mullins, the longest-serving fire commissioner in Australia, into a climate campaigner.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-australia-must-take-climate-change-seriously
In 50 years of firefighting I had never seen fires like I did last summer. Australia must take climate change seriously
Greg Mullins

Read more
“It’s gonna be a very, very dangerous place to live – not Australia, planet Earth,” Mullins says. “I’m deeply worried about my grandsons and what they’re inheriting from us.”

That worry is at the heart of a new book, Firestorm, written after that terrible summer of bushfires and the resulting royal commission. The book is dedicated to Mullins’ grandsons, Eamon and Oli, and their future safety.









						‘The world is burning’: how Australia’s longest-serving fire chief became a climate champion
					

Greg Mullins says after the ‘black summer’ bushfires it is time for politicians to act on global heating




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

A great article, shows what can be done, I did wonder why the retired couple couldn't manage with one car. But otherwise a great article, reducing people's carbon footprint, is the key IMO.








						Rewiring Australian households could save up to $6,000 a year
					

As Glasgow looms over the federal government's climate change goals, new research could help both major parties embrace more aggressive emissions reduction targets.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## basilio (5 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> A great article, shows what can be done, I did wonder why the retired couple couldn't manage with one car. But otherwise a great article, reducing people's carbon footprint, is the key IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is a good story. As you would recognize the way to make the big difference  that is required is moving practically everyone to an all electric house powered by renewable energy over fairly short time.  Probably 10-20 years.

Saul Griffiths is a very smart, very effective live wire. An Aussie to boot.  Just watched a webinar with him discussing the launch of Electrify everything " in Australia.

It's ambitious but essential. And it will be well worth the investment. But as usual needs to be done well.









						Rewiring Australia - The Australia Institute
					

Led by Saul Griffith, inventor, engineer and entrepreneur, Rewiring Australia builds on the success of the Rewiring America movement to collectively illustrate the positive outcomes for Australia and the world in mobilising rapid decarbonisation and ‘electrifying everything’. Please join Saul in...




					australiainstitute.org.au


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 October 2021)

basilio said:


> Saul Griffiths is a very smart, very effective live wire. An Aussie to boot.  Just watched a webinar with him discussing the launch of Electrify everything " in Australia.



Trouble with all this is the politics.

We've known right from the start that the answer would involve replacing fossil fuels at the point of use with electricity and changing how we generate that electricity. That was always the case, there was never a time when climate change was a mainstream issue and that wasn't known.

Renewables generate electricity. Wind, solar, tidal, wave, hydro, geothermal and so on - they all generate electricity as their output.

Nuclear generates electricity as its practical output (well, unless we distribute the heat to end users - could be done to some extent).

If carbon capture and storage was ever going to work then it was going to be at power stations not in your kitchen or lounge room. Not that it really works at power stations either (technically it's possible just prohibitively expensive) but it was never going to be a thing done in your kitchen at home with a pot of rice in the middle, that was always obvious.

That being so, the solution requires electricity at the point of use. Nothing new there.

Suffice to say it frustrates me greatly that it's taken a third of a century, an entire generation, to get even modest acceptance of that basic reality. Those who pointed it out years or even decades ago were shot down in flames at the time, quite brutally in fact.....  

The future is electric and always has been. Electricity at the point of use, and that means we'll be using a lot more electricity overall, but produced by very different methods to the past.


----------



## basilio (6 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Trouble with all this is the politics.
> 
> We've known right from the start that the answer would involve replacing fossil fuels at the point of use with electricity and changing how we generate that electricity. That was always the case, there was never a time when climate change was a mainstream issue and that wasn't known.
> 
> ...



Absolutely right.  And frankly while I applaud Sauls research and smarts in proposing his "Electrify Everything" story I can see formidable implementation issues.  I reckon he is quite smart enough to realise this but is approaching it all with a "Can do" attitude and "let's solve the problems"

In the Webinar he made it clear this required excellent policies in place and care with carrying out the process to ensure a  good result across the board.

As far as frustration with recognising reality ? Yeah - but unfortunately we havn't even reached the level of a sincere  broad agreement that CC is real and disastrous and must be tackled  effectively and immediately.  When Energy Ministers like Angus Taylor propose supporting carbon capture programs for fossil fuel industries  as a policy measure  we are in trouble.


----------



## rederob (6 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Trouble with all this is the politics.
> 
> We've known right from the start that the answer would involve replacing fossil fuels at the point of use with electricity and changing how we generate that electricity. That was always the case, there was never a time when climate change was a mainstream issue and that wasn't known.
> 
> ...



Electricity at point of use might be part of the solution today, but it was never the problem to begin with.
The problem has been, and continues to be, electricity at *source*.
If the source is fossil fuels then at use it makes no difference.

Politics is certainly an issue, but the larger problem is policy uncertainty for our electricity generators.  Billion dollar investments are needed to replace the large-scale coal generators that have gone offline or will soon be going offline.  Filling the void in the interim is a myriad of small scale (mostly) wind and solar projects.  None of these are required to have "backup".   And while point of use electricity at home sounds good for those with solar PV, especially if homes have battery backup, it's a very time consuming and expensive (not tot mention impossible outcome for households that cannot install solar) option compared to installing backup at electricity source.


----------



## Investoradam (8 October 2021)

basilio said:


> Greg Mullins was Australias longest serving fire chief. His experience in fighting fires across Australia is second to none. His observations of how fundamentally climate change has affected fire fighting are sobering/terrifying. This reinforces how critical tacking global warming is for our future.
> 
> ‘The world is burning’: how Australia’s longest-serving fire chief became a climate champion​Greg Mullins says after the ‘black summer’ bushfires it is time for politicians to act on global heating
> 
> ...




Greg Mullins is part of the Tim Flannery spruiker stable! A known liar and a fraud that gullible fools who believe the climate change crap! 
the man who stated sea levels will rise and then buys a beach front apartment in manly 









						TIM FLANNERY – Professor of Dud Predictions and Climate Falsehoods - Rite-ON!
					

TIM FLANNERY, former Climate Commissioner of Australia earned $180,000 per year to make dud predictions. He was rightly sacked by Abbott in 2013




					www.riteon.org.au


----------



## rederob (9 October 2021)

Investoradam said:


> Greg Mullins is part of the Tim Flannery spruiker stable!



You have a vivid imagination!


Investoradam said:


> A known liar and a fraud that gullible fools who believe the climate change crap!



You are lucky that Mullins isn't an ASF member as that's outright libel and defamatory.


Investoradam said:


> the man who stated sea levels will rise and then buys a beach front apartment in manly



Well, sea levels are rising, so he got that right.  But his property at Coba Point on Berowra Creek is about 20 kilometres from any beach, so that was another fabrication.


----------



## basilio (9 October 2021)

Investoradam said:


> Greg Mullins is part of the Tim Flannery spruiker stable! A known liar and a fraud that gullible fools who believe the climate change crap!
> the man who stated sea levels will rise and then buys a beach front apartment in manly
> 
> 
> ...




Greg Mullins  experience as 40 year fire fighter tells him  how  bushfires are dramatically and dangerously  changing as a result of increasing temperatures caused by Global Heating   Perhaps the best way to resolve your concerns Investordam is to park yourself close to the next big fire we have on a  45C degree day and see for yourself ?  

On your way..


----------



## basilio (9 October 2021)

The Business Council of Australia is backing calls for a critical shift in Government policy re. emissions cuts.

Business Council shifts climate position to back 50% emissions cut by 2030​Big business says accelerating emissions cuts would leave Australians better off by an average of $5,000 per person each year by 2050




The Business Council of Australia has urged an emissions cut of between 46% and 50% on 2005 levels within the decade. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

Australian Associated Press
Sat 9 Oct 2021 11.12 AEDT
First published on Sat 9 Oct 2021 08.48 AEDT

Big business has thrown its weight behind a 50% emissions reduction by 2030 to avoid a “costly and damaging” game of climate catch-up.
The Business Council of Australia believes a cut of between 46% and 50% on 2005 levels within the decade is pragmatic, ambitious and will drive investment.

“The purpose of our work is to move forward, not engage in an endless debate about issues the nation and the world has moved past,” BCA president Tim Reed said.




*The council said modelling showed accelerating emissions cuts would leave Australians better off by an average of $5,000 per person each year by 2050.*

Australia in 2015 committed to an emissions reduction of between 26% and 28% below 2005 levels by 2030.









						Business Council shifts climate position to back 50% emissions cut by 2030
					

Big business says accelerating emissions cuts would leave Australians better off by an average of $5,000 per person each year by 2050




					www.theguardian.com
				











						Achieving net-zero with more jobs and stronger regions
					

Business Council of Australia




					www.bca.com.au


----------



## basilio (10 October 2021)

basilio said:


> Greg Mullins was Australias longest serving fire chief. His experience in fighting fires across Australia is second to none. His observations of how fundamentally climate change has affected fire fighting are sobering/terrifying. This reinforces how critical tacking global warming is for our future.
> 
> ‘The world is burning’: how Australia’s longest-serving fire chief became a climate champion​Greg Mullins says after the ‘black summer’ bushfires it is time for politicians to act on global heating
> 
> ...




Greg Mullins highlighted his experience as 50 year fire fighter in discussing the new extreme bushfire dangers facing Australia with the steep rise in fire thunderstorms.

There is another story which gives a first hand account of  how the new firestorms being created  have taken risks to catastrophic levels. Challenging reading but this is where we are.









						‘Is anyone coming?’: when one town faced its first fire thunderstorm
					

Firestorms used to be a rare phenomenon, but in December 2019 the tiny town of Nerriga faced one of what would be many of the Black Summer season




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (14 October 2021)

Big BIG  storms across Sydney.  Golf ball size hailstones everywhere.  Apparantly a fair bit more to come yet.

Be interesting to see the insurance bill for damage to cars and buildings.









						Ceiling collapses at Sydney shopping centre as storm dumps hailstones the size of golf balls
					

A severe thunderstorm in Sydney and coastal NSW brings thunder, lightning, heavy rain and hail, following a severe weather warning that included possible tornado activity was issued late this afternoon.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## sptrawler (14 October 2021)

basilio said:


> Big BIG  storms across Sydney.  Golf ball size hailstones everywhere.  Apparantly a fair bit more to come yet.
> 
> Be interesting to see the insurance bill for damage to cars and buildings.
> 
> ...



Well Bas get the blanket and the socks out, instead of putting the heater on, our predecessors managed.


----------



## basilio (16 October 2021)

More demands from Industry for the government to move far more purposefully of CC.
The short story is unrestrained  CC consequences are looking very grim and the cost/opportunities for carbon reduction are far more encouraging.

Innes Willox is CEO of the peak Australian Industry Group

Both bad climate policy and no policy will see Australia lose jobs and investment overseas​Innes Willox


Australia’s economic security depends on the government acting now to set clear and ambitious climate goals




“Low, zero and negative-emissions technologies hold the key to achieving deep emissions reductions alongside greater prosperity.” Photograph: Jessica Hromas/The Guardian
Sat 16 Oct 2021 06.00 AEDT


Agreement within the federal government on strong climate ambitions and a sensible strategy for achieving them will set Australia up for greater economic success this decade.

The case for action has been strengthening rapidly. The costs of action to reduce emissions are turning out to be lower than expected. The costs and risks of climate change itself are becoming increasingly clear and serious. And as Australia’s most important trading partners set their own economies on a course to net zero emissions via deep 2030 reductions, their demand for minerals, energy and other goods will shift. We can make the most of their energy transition – and join it ourselves – or we can be run over by a hydrogen-powered truck as others rush to supply our region’s needs.








						Both bad climate policy and no policy will see Australia lose jobs and investment overseas | Innes Willox
					

Australia’s economic security depends on the government acting now to set clear and ambitious climate goals




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (19 October 2021)

Overseas has got a few problems of its own.








						Column: Europe's rising energy prices will force factory closures: Kemp
					

Europe's increasingly expensive gas and electricity prices are sending a strong signal to manufacturers to consider temporary plant closures and to home and office owners to turn down thermostats to conserve fuel this winter.




					www.reuters.com
				












						Biggest US coal miner surges as global energy crisis boosts demand
					

Peabody's sales exceeded $900 million, the highest in seven quarters.




					www.mining.com
				












						Suddenly we are in the middle of a global energy crisis. What happened?
					

ANALYSIS: As the world adjusts to living with COVID-19, there is an energy crisis affecting the global supply of oil, gas and coal - and Australia is not immune to the growing uncertainty.




					www.sbs.com.au


----------



## basilio (19 October 2021)

Here is one way of seeing how the Earth is warming. Quite clever.





__





						Global Mean Monthly Temperature 1851-2020 Full Size
					





					www.visualcapitalist.com


----------



## Logique2 (20 October 2021)

The only thing unstoppable in this thread is climate Shill poster Basilio (Baloney Basilio). 

You're all such sharp stock investors om ASF - yet you can't see through a transparent climate Shill like Bas.

Honestly. Bas, go up to Mussellbrook, NSW (Hunter Valley coal mining) and tell them how you're going to save the world..

To SpTrawler..,you need to wake up mate.

Carbon (CO2) grows trees Bas, it's plant food

..Logique2


----------



## Country Lad (20 October 2021)

Logique2 said:


> The only thing unstoppable in this thread is climate Shill poster Basilio (Baloney Basilio).
> 
> You're all such sharp stock investors om ASF - yet you can't see through a transparent climate Shill like Bas.
> 
> ...




Is that you Barnaby?


----------



## Logique2 (20 October 2021)

Country Lad said:


> Is that you Barnaby?



And in which rural area do live?  Let's see, "Country Lad". 
Hint: Haberfield isn't the 'Country'


----------



## sptrawler (20 October 2021)

Logique2 said:


> .
> 
> To SpTrawler..,you need to wake up mate.
> 
> ...



Oh thankyou, at last the oracle has arrived, I knew it would happen I am woke, alleluya we are saved. 

But I do love people who lead with their lip, it usually indicates they need a speed bump installed between their brain and their mouth. 

I look forward to the banter.


----------



## basilio (20 October 2021)

Well Climate Change is just doing what the Science Nerds always said -  Creating some pretty  extreme weather events.

Right now there are some very impressive super cell thunder storms with Record Breaking hailstones smashing the living xhit out  property up and down the East Coast. I wonder how many cars have been written off in the past few days ?

But of course they won't cause any damage to Logique 2 because he/she/it/troll is on a totally different planet to us Eh ? 









						‘Like snow’: freak hail storms batter Australia’s east coast
					

Coffs Harbour cops a hammering as shopping centre ceiling collapses; Australia records its largest ever hailstone




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (21 October 2021)

Some heavy hitters in business are supporting  green investments to combat CC.  The sell is based on major new industries in rural Australia.

Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes sells economic benefits of green investment with $1.5b pledge​ABC Illawarra
 / By Justin Huntsdale
Posted 3h ago3 hours ago





 Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes will spread his investment across a number of industries.(Reuters: Daniel Munoz)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article


From his home in the New South Wales Southern Highlands, Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes has his eyes firmly focused on the future of regional Australia.
Key points:​
Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes and his wife will invest $1.5b in an effort to help fight climate change
He says regional areas stand to benefit greatly from green investments that will create jobs and boost the economy
Mr Cannon-Brookes says private industry and individuals need to share the responsibility with the government

The chief executive of the technology giant not only sees enormous potential of environmental investments — he thinks he knows the best way to sell them.
"The decarbonisation of the planet is the biggest economic opportunity for Australia over the next 20 years," he told ABC Radio Sydney's Breakfast program.
"Things like the creation of jobs, improvement in the standard of living and growth of our economy — but we have to make changes to take advantage of that, otherwise it will be taken advantage of by other nations and economies.









						Australia's third-richest person to invest $1.5b in fight against climate change
					

Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes says he's putting up the huge sum in a bid to help dramatically reduce carbon emissions by 2030.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## basilio (28 October 2021)

The New York Times  produced a film featuring the thoughts of Greta Thunberg on dealing with the the climate change crisis.
All she is doing is highlighting the research of CC scientists.


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2021)

Interesting article on Putin's hold over Europe's energy decissions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/world/europe/putin-russia-natural-gas-europe.html
From the article:
The televised exchange underlined the dominant position that Mr. Putin, for now, still commands as the leader of a country supplying more than 40 percent of the European Union’s natural gas imports. Russia has previously used its role as a critical energy source to pressure individual countries such as Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine. Now, the tensions are about something more existential: the future of Russia’s most important economic bond with Europe and of a key geopolitical lever for the Kremlin.

“We decided: ‘We’ll let them freeze a good bit this winter and then they’ll become more talkative, and won’t insist on quickly abandoning gas,’” said Mikhail I. Krutikhin, an energy analyst at the consultancy RusEnergy. “The stakes are very high.”

That sort of tough talk breeds deep mistrust in Europe, where critics see Russia as deliberately withholding extra natural gas from the market to try to pressure Germany and Brussels to quickly certify Nord Stream 2, the undersea pipeline that will transport huge amounts of gas to Western Europe.

The decision by the Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom not to fill its European storage facilities has contributed to the high prices, according to Trevor Sikorski, head of global gas at Energy Aspects, a research firm based in London.

“The Russians can’t just wash their hands and say it has nothing to do with them,” Mr. Sikorski said. “It obviously has a lot to do with them.”

The European Commission is looking into the claim that Russia is manipulating the flow of gas to push up prices but has reached no conclusion. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, whose government has backed Nord Stream 2 and called it a business deal, not a geopolitical strategy, dismissed charges that Russia is partly to blame for the rise in European gas prices.

“To my knowledge, there are no orders where Russia has said we won’t deliver it to you,” Ms. Merkel told reporters on Wednesday. “Russia can only deliver gas on the basis of contractual obligations.”
Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, said in an interview on Thursday in Brussels that Russia had a history of using energy “as a political weapon,” but added, “Whether that’s what’s happening here now is something I’ll leave to others.”

But he said that the United States had “a real concern” that energy supply was not keeping up with recovering demand. He said he had discussed the issue on Thursday with E.U. officials and that the United States would “like to be aligned with Europe” in securing more supplies.  The U.S. has opposed Nord Stream 2 on the grounds that it would increase European dependence on Russian gas, but in August it dropped its threat to block the pipeline.

“We have a fundamental interest in seeing global energy supplies, in both gas and oil, at sufficient levels to support global economic recovery and not stall it out,” Mr. Sullivan said. “We’d like to see energy suppliers take measures to ensure that that is the case.”

Russia has been fulfilling its contractual obligations to European clients, analysts and officials say, but has resisted delivering significantly more even as demand increasingly outpaced supply. That has exacerbated an energy crisis fueled by a variety of factors, including the increase in demand as the world comes out of the pandemic, a cold end to last winter that left storage tanks low, higher demand from China and low wind speeds in Europe that reduced renewable energy production.
Gazprom’s defenders point out that the company is not required to deliver gas beyond what it pledged in its contracts and that European officials have themselves to blame if they failed to plan properly.

“Do we have an obligation to deliver additional new volumes of gas? No we don’t,” Sergei Pikin, a Russian energy analyst, said. “Where should Europeans be getting new volumes of gas from? Nord Stream 2.”

Aleksandr Novak, a deputy prime minister, made the link to the gas pipeline explicit in his televised video conference with Mr. Putin on Wednesday. Certification and approval of Nord Stream 2 by the E.U. “as fast as possible” would give “a positive signal” that could “cool down the current situation,” Mr. Novak told the president.

With Nord Stream 2 operating, Russia’s hold on Europe’s energy market would tighten even further — giving Mr. Putin more opportunities to influence European politics. And it would reduce Russia’s reliance on Ukraine as a transit country for gas exports to Western Europe, potentially weakening a regional foe.

Mr. Putin insisted that Russia was not at fault for Europe’s predicament. But he did not shy away from one of his favorite modes of criticism.


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2021)

At least the media narrative is starting to move from fairies at the bottom of the garden waving a wand, to a more realistic view of how this is all going to be achieved, which has to raise the level of the debate IMO.
At least now we move from the wish list, to the reality.
IMO it is a good article, whether you believe in climate change, don't believe, or don't care. It covers the issues that are going to affect you.








						Big business 'sniffs' the green dollar at COP26
					

Climate change conferences were once the domain of scientists and bureaucrats. Now, they are increasingly attended by big business delegations eyeing off the "green dollar".




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
_Climate change conferences, such as today's COP26, were once the domain of scientists and bureaucrats.

Now, they are increasingly attended by big business delegations eyeing off the "green dollar" — former climate negotiator for Australia, Richie Merzian, calls it a "trade show" for climate change.

It's a sign that climate change is as much an economic challenge as it is a scientific one.

In fact, one of the four goals of Glasgow is "mobilising finance"; $90 trillion is needed for infrastructure to assist the economy to decarbonise by 2030, according to the World Bank.

One of Australia's biggest investors in renewables, Mike Cannon-Brookes, said "$90 trillion is probably an understatement"_.

_"And if you're a major fossil fuel producer, the majority of your emissions are when your goods are burnt.

"We're seeing a rise of greenwashing. We're seeing more junk credits being put on the market and purchased up by big polluters. We're seeing a lot more marketing, and not a lot of action. And that's the real risk." 

In Australia, one in five carbon credits generated here could very well be hot air, according to new research by the Australian Conservation Foundation._




​


----------



## sptrawler (2 November 2021)

India to set net zero target by 2070.








						Modi says it will take India until 2070 to hit net zero emissions and asks for $1 trillion
					

The world's third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter has pledged net zero emissions by 2070, decades beyond what scientists say is needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
He noted that though India represented 17 per cent of the world's population, it was "responsible for only 5 per cent of global emissions". 

"India has increased its non-fossil fuel energy by 25 per cent, and this now represents 40 per cent of our energy mix," he told leaders.

"More people travel on the Indian railways every year than the entire population of the world. This huge railway system has committed to attain net zero by 2030. This initiative alone will reduce carbon emissions by 60 million tonnes annually."

The Council on Energy, Environment and Water *(*CEEW*),* a think-tank based in Delhi, previously released a report suggesting 2070 to 2080 was a realistic time frame for India, with dependence on coal and other fossil fuels expected to peak in 2040.

Dr Pai said an Indian person's energy consumption was 8 per cent of that of a person in the US, but that was set to triple in future.

Apart from climate finance, barriers to India meeting the target include its young fleet of coal power plants and the need to ramp up renewables on such a large scale to cater for its 1.4 billion people.

Mr Modi said India expects wealthy countries to give $US1 trillion ($1.33 trillion) in climate finance, far more than the $US100 billion ($132 billion) promised but not yet delivered.


----------



## wayneL (2 November 2021)

COP26 has highlighted the most grotesque, the most obvious, the most brazen hypocrisies in the history of the planet.

That is all.


----------



## basilio (3 November 2021)

James Lovelock offers an independent scien


Beware: Gaia may destroy humans before we destroy the Earth​James Lovelock

Covid-19 may well have been one attempt by the Earth to protect itself. Gaia will try harder next time with something even nastier





‘I am not hopeful of a positive outcome at Cop26, knowing who is participating. I was not invited to Glasgow, though that is hardly a surprise.’ Photograph: Magdalena Bujak/Alamy
Tue 2 Nov 2021 23.00 AEDT
Last modified on Wed 3 Nov 2021 04.08 AEDT
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...are-gaia-theory-climate-crisis-earth#comments
937
I don’t know if it is too late for humanity to avert a climate catastrophe, but I am sure there is no chance if we continue to treat global heating and the destruction of nature as separate problems.

That is the wrongheaded approach of the United Nations, which is about to stage one big global conference for the climate in Glasgow, having just finished a different big global conference for biodiversity in Kunming.

This division is as much of a mistake as the error made by universities when they teach chemistry in a different class from biology and physics. It is impossible to understand these subjects in isolation because they are interconnected. The same is true of living organisms that greatly influence the global environment. The composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and the temperature of the surface is actively maintained and regulated by the biosphere, by life, by what the ancient Greeks used to call Gaia.

Almost 60 years ago, I suggested our planet self-regulated like a living organism. I called this the Gaia theory, and was later joined by biologist Lynn Margulis, who also espoused this idea. Both of us were roundly criticised by scientists in academia. I was an outsider, an independent scientist, and the mainstream view then was the neo-Darwinist one that life adapts to the environment, not that the relationship also works in the other direction, as we argued. In the years since, we have seen just how much life – especially human life – can affect the environment. Two genocidal acts – suffocation by greenhouse gases and the clearance of the rainforests – have caused changes on a scale not seen in millions of years.









						Beware: Gaia may destroy humans, before we destroy the Earth | James Lovelock
					

Covid-19 may well have been one attempt by the Earth to protect itself. Gaia will try harder next time with something even nastier




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (3 November 2021)

It looks as though the World is heading toward a global carbon tax, which IMO is the best way forward in reducing emissions and stopping global warming.
Now all we need is an independent global body assembled to oversee it.








						The EU has cottoned on to imperfect carbon workarounds introduced by countries such as Australia and things are about to change
					

A carbon tariff is a carbon tax applied to exports from countries like Australia that don't have one. And Europe is planning to impose one, whether our politicians like it or not, writes Peter Martin.




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
We are about to face carbon tariffs​The European Union has cottoned on to the imperfect workarounds introduced by countries such as Australia, and is about to tackle things from the other direction.

Instead of treating foreign and local producers the same by letting them both off the hook, it's going to place both on the hook.

It's about to make sure producers in higher-emitting countries such as China (and Australia) can't undercut producers who pay carbon prices.





Unless foreign producers pay a carbon price like the one in Europe, the EU will impose a carbon price on their goods as they come in — a so-called Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or "carbon tariff".

Canada is also exploring the idea, as part of "levelling the playing field". So is US President Joe Biden, who wants to stop polluting countries "undermining our workers and manufacturers".

Their arguments line up with those heard in Australia in the lead-up to our carbon price: that unless there's some sort of adjustment, a local carbon tax will push local employers towards "pollution havens" where emissions are untaxed.


----------



## basilio (5 November 2021)

The ABC has a droll but very interesting analysis of just how easy it could be to make huge inroads into our carbon emissions.
And all the solutions are clever win/win deals that will make us far more  cost effective and productive. 
Have to say it is one of the most encouraging stories I have read.









						How dung beetles, a tiny molecule and a giant extension cord could help solve our climate mess
					

Here's how Australia could become a renewable superpower by 2030. Sounds too good to be true? You tell us.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## bellenuit (6 November 2021)

Some home truths for the current generation by Bill Maher


----------



## wayneL (6 November 2021)

bellenuit said:


> Some home truths for the current generation by Bill Maher




Speaking of the cognitive dissonance Bill mentioned, it's such a shame he didn't point point out the conspicuous consumption (that he again mentioned) of the COP26 attendees.

Or perhaps his own massive carbon footprint?

What a monumental hypocrite.


----------



## sptrawler (8 November 2021)

Doesn't sound as though the U.K push to ban ICE cars, is getting much traction, with the big auto manufacturing countries..








						US won’t sign up to British push to ban new petrol cars by 2035
					

The Biden administration fears backlash over any pledge to phase out fuel-guzzlers as the President struggles to get his climate bill through Congress.




					www.smh.com.au
				



From the article:
*Glasgow:* The United States is refusing to sign up to plans led by the UK for a global deal to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars during talks at the Cop26 climate summit.

Germany, Europe’s largest car manufacturer, cannot sign up to the agreement while it is still stuck in coalition talks, which could take weeks.

The UK wants all countries to commit to ending the sale of new polluting cars by 2035 for richer countries and 2040 for developing countries, in a major announcement expected in Glasgow on Wednesday. But it has been in last-minute talks with the Biden administration team which is resisting the commitment because of concerns of domestic political backlash as President Joe Biden struggles to get his climate agenda through Congress.

Senior Democrat politicians including former president Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are expected to fly to Glasgow for the second week of talks, amid growing frustration at US inaction at the summit.

China is also expected to reject the agreement, partly because Beijing is reluctant to sign a UK-led agreement while relations between the two countries remain at a low point.
The EU’s own deadlines on phasing out petrol and diesel cars are locked in negotiations among member states over its decarbonisation package, although individual states can join.
The absence of key players underscores the difficulty in achieving the UK’s aim at the conference to “keep alive” the ambitions of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5C.

In the US, Biden has only this year set a deadline for half of all car sales to be electric by 2030 and reversed moves by Donald Trump to loosen pollution standards.
The President has been locked for weeks in a struggle with Congress to secure funding for his climate plans, with an infrastructure deal that includes billions for clean energy only passing on Saturday morning AEDT.
The majority of climate change funding is still stuck in a second bill, which has been blocked by centrist Democrats who are concerned over costs.
Loading

Only about 2 per cent of cars sold a year in the US are pure electric, compared to around 7 per cent in the UK and 10 per cent in Europe.
Meanwhile, workers in the rust-belt states where car manufacturing is based are wary of moving too fast, with the auto workers union recently warning against “unrealistic mandates”.

Fears of a backlash among coal mining communities in the wake of the shock Democrat defeat in the Virginia governor race were highlighted as one of the reasons Biden declined to sign up to last week’s deal, which the UK touted as heralding “the end of coal”.

A COP spokesman said: “As Cop26 President, the UK continues to push the G20 and other countries to make the big policy decisions required to keep the 1.5C target alive, like ending coal power, accelerating the roll-out of electric vehicles and tackling deforestation plans.
“We’re looking forward to a productive second week to make further progress for a positive outcome for the planet.”


----------



## rederob (8 November 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Doesn't sound as though the U.K push to ban ICE cars, is getting much traction, with the big auto manufacturing countries..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was looking at EV penetration in various markets over the weekend, and pricing trends.
Norway at 90%, Australia with less than one percent, and China with 20% of total sales in September, shows there are massively different market trajectories.
However, with China now dominating production and sales of EVs, and their segments ranging from AUD$10k upwards into the luxury car category, it is difficult to see how any non-China based company could compete on price given that most EV specs are superior for vehicles of comparable size.
As I read it, few if any vehicle manufacturers will be producing ICE vehicles after 2025 as they simply will not match comparable EV offerings.  So I cannot see why anyone would bother to legislate the demise of ICE vehicles when the trend is so obvious.
Battery materials was going to be a constraint, but cheaper LiFePO4 batteries, without the constraint of nickel or cobalt availability, might be able to plug any shortfall given the nimble nature of Chinese manufacturing.
And although this is a bit off-topic, here's the tip off the iceberg:


----------



## sptrawler (8 November 2021)

I was a bit surprised only 2% of cars sold in the U.S are electric, 7% in the U.K and only 10% in Europe when you consider Norway is in Europe. I would be surprised if we don't overtake the U.S in E.V uptake very soon, Australia is quite fast to accept new technology.
I think the range anxiety is still a bit of an issue, I was talking to a mate who has a Tesla, he wishes he had stumped up the extra for the bigger battery. He lives 200klm from the city, can't make it there and back on a charge and he finds it a nuisance. I don't think it would be an issue for city dwellers.


----------



## bellenuit (8 November 2021)

sptrawler said:


> I was a bit surprised only 2% of cars sold in the U.S are electric, 7% in the U.K and only 10% in Europe when you consider Norway is in Europe.




But Norway has only 5.4 million people compared to Europe's 747 million. What is of interest though is the take up of electric bikes in Europe.  It is far in excess of the take up of EVs. I don't have the figures to hand.


----------



## sptrawler (8 November 2021)

bellenuit said:


> But Norway has only 5.4 million people compared to Europe's 747 million. What is of interest though is the take up of electric bikes in Europe.  It is far in excess of the take up of EVs. I don't have the figures to hand.



Yes I find the electric scooters are more versatile then the electric bikes, it would be interesting, as you say to know the uptake figures on alternative transport in Europe.
It is also interesting in Norway, that E.V's don't attract GST which in Norway is 25%, also E.V's have no road taxes.
It would be interesting if Australia followed suit, maybe do a complete overhaul of the taxes and up GST from10% to 25%, then remove it from climate friendly products such as E.V's, solar installations, high efficiency HWS etc. That would probably have no negative affect on the tax base, but would give incentive to buy "green" products.


----------



## Wedgy (12 November 2021)

Australia is being portrayed as the worse country in the world with implementing reductions to CO2 emissions, which is probably true, but is it fair? The greenies like to use CO2 per capita to show how bad Australia is, ignoring that Australia is a resource rich country supplying the world, mining and agriculture being major contributors to Australia's CO2 emissions. But perhaps a better guide would be CO2 per square KM, if you think of each country's surface area as a bar heater, heating the planet with CO2. Then the following table is interesting and paints a different picture with Australia not so bad after all:


Nation or Territory
CO2 emissions per km2
(tonnes of CO2)Total fossil CO2 emissions
(million tonnes of CO2)1.    Singapore89764.564.82.    Bahrain44689.634.53.    Hong Kong38978.843.04.    Qatar11180.3129.85.    Trinidad and Tobago7933.240.76.    Taiwan7502.1271.57.    South Korea6148.1616.18.    Kuwait5858.2104.49.    Netherlands3859.2164.010.  Belgium3279.5100.111.  Israel3204.366.612.  Japan3189.41205.113.  United Arab Emirates2796.5231.814.  Germany2239.0799.415.  Lebanon1879.519.516.  Brunei Darussalam1772.410.217.  United Kingdom1571.4384.718.  Czech Republic1368.1107.919.  Italy1180.0355.520.  Poland1044.5326.621.  China1025.29838.822.  Switzerland970.640.123.  Austria833.969.924.  Denmark801.734.625.  Malaysia772.0254.626.  India750.32466.827.  Slovakia724.535.428.  Slovenia720.614.629.  France651.3356.330.  Bangladesh611.588.131.  Viet Nam603.3198.832.  Portugal593.854.933.  Greece576.076.034.  Turkey573.8447.935.  Ireland565.439.736.  Spain557.5281.437.  USA547.15269.538.  Hungary541.250.339.  Bosnia and Herzegovina521.226.640.  Serbia510.345.141.  North Korea481.358.042.  Iraq444.9194.543.  Bulgaria442.449.144.  Azerbaijan441.238.245.  Estonia438.019.846.  Dominican Republic436.521.347.  Philippines425.4127.648.  Iran408.0672.349.  South Africa374.1456.350.  Sri Lanka352.723.151.  Ukraine351.4212.152.  Thailand350.1330.853.  Romania336.880.054.  Cuba329.336.555.  Saudi Arabia323.9635.056.  Oman306.865.257.  Croatia303.917.258.  Belarus295.661.459.  Indonesia253.6486.860.  Mexico248.6490.361.  Pakistan247.3198.862.  Jordan231.421.463.  Uzbekistan221.399.064.  Egypt218.3218.765.  Lithuania205.413.466.  Guatemala191.720.967.  Venezuela175.0159.668.  Tunisia172.028.169.  Georgia157.111.070.  Syria150.727.971.  Turkmenistan148.972.772.  Morocco140.562.773.  Norway138.344.874.  Ecuador136.838.875.  Finland135.946.076.  New Zealand134.036.077.  Panama128.610.178.  Nigeria116.2107.379.  Chile111.884.680.  Kazakhstan107.7292.681.  Russian Federation99.11692.882.  Honduras95.210.783.  Sweden92.241.584.  Argentina73.8204.385.  Colombia71.381.286.  Ghana70.016.887.  Algeria63.2150.688.  Canada57.4572.889.  Brazil55.9476.190.  Australia53.7413.191.  Kyrgyzstan52.610.492.  Peru50.464.8The Whole World242.736153.3
Note: Those nations or territories with less than 50 tonnes of fossil CO2 emissions per square kilometer and those with a total of less than 10 million tonnes of fossil CO2 emissions are not included.


----------



## rederob (12 November 2021)

Wedgy said:


> Australia is being portrayed as the worse country in the world with implementing reductions to CO2 emissions, which is probably true, but is it fair? The greenies like to use CO2 per capita to show how bad Australia is, ignoring that Australia is a resource rich country supplying the world, mining and agriculture being major contributors to Australia's CO2 emissions. But perhaps a better guide would be CO2 per square KM, if you think of each country's surface area as a bar heater, heating the planet with CO2. Then the following table is interesting and paints a different picture with Australia not so bad after all:
> 
> 
> Nation or TerritoryCO2 emissions per km2
> ...



I hope you are not serious.

If you are, then I think a better metric is CO2 per kangaroo.
Failing that, CO2 per panda.
Or CO2 per bald eagle.
They are a bit unfair, however, so we should use a ubiquitous metric which, of course, is CO2 per honest politician.


----------



## sptrawler (12 November 2021)

rederob said:


> They are a bit unfair, however, so we should use a ubiquitous metric which, of course, is CO2 per honest politician.



Or indeed CO2, per unbiased and objective contributor.


----------



## Wedgy (13 November 2021)

I Actually think CO2 per unit of GDP is probably the best guide, Australia would not be the worse better than China, Russia. Equal to US but behind most countries.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2021)

Wedgy said:


> I Actually think CO2 per unit of GDP is probably the best guide, Australia would not be the worse better than China, Russia. Equal to US but behind most countries.



To get an agreement on carbon pricing, some transparent and accurate methodology, will have to be arrived at IMO. it will be interesting to see what they come up with.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2021)

Ten years is a long time in global warming, the science is in somewhat, things are changing whether anyone can accurately predict what will happen, is another issue .
I guess it does prove it is o.k to be completely off the mark, if you are a scientist, but if you are a politician well god help you if you make a slip up. 
No one disagrees with global warming, but only some are allowed the luxury, of claiming to have all the answers, without the resulting public shaming if they are proven slightly off the mark.

The post isn't about global warming, but about the amount of rope some people are given, when they are in synch with the narrative.





__





						Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp
					





					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
First Published: 11/02/2007

_SALLY SARA: Well, making good use of water is one of the subjects of this week's interview. Professor Tim Flannery has warned climate change will impact on Australia to the point where Sydney can expect to receive 60 per cent less rainfall than it does at present. If that's the case, what about the bush? What can Australian farmers expect as weather patterns alter? I spoke with Professor Tim Flannery about climate change, water and the intriguing subject of carbon trading. Professor Flannery, congratulations firstly on being named as Australian of the Year.

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: Thank you very much.

SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation_.


November 2021:








						Forbes residents told to prepare for flooding as deluge swells river to more than 10 metres
					

Rain keeps pouring and floods worsen for parts of New South Wales, threatening similar levels to the disastrous 2016 floods.




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
_A major flood warning is in place for the Central West New South Wales community of Forbes, threatening similar levels to the disastrous 2016 floods_.

"We're keeping a very close eye on the Lachlan River."

The Lachlan River runs through part of the town so floods are not unusual for the area.

The last major flood in Forbes was in 2016 when properties were inundated.






Overflowing Wyangala Dam, near Cowra, has turned the Lachlan River into a wild stretch of whitewater.(Supplied: John Batcheldor)
It experienced similar conditions in 2012 and back in the '90s.


----------



## rederob (15 November 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Ten years is a long time in global warming, the science is in somewhat, things are changing whether anyone can accurately predict what will happen, is another issue .
> I guess it does prove it is o.k to be completely off the mark, if you are a scientist, but if you are a politician well god help you if you make a slip up.
> No one disagrees with global warming, but only some are allowed the luxury, of claiming to have all the answers, without the resulting public shaming if they are proven slightly off the mark.
> 
> ...



La Niña cycles are part of our climate landscape on the eastern seaboard, as is also the case for El Niño.
All you have done is cherrypick a comment that climate change deniers have trotted out on a regular basis since 2007.  It's a pathetic smear that lacks context as even though Flannery said what he did, it was in relation to a *climate trend* which is backed by over a century worth of data and the ongoing climatic influence of CO2.
In your own WA, here's that trend:




On the east coast we see this (note how the 2016 La Niña anomaly sticks out like a sore thumb):




In 2007 Flannery gave a 10 minute interview to the WWF where he explained in a lot more detail what he thought about climate and related matters.  Although this was 14 years ago he pretty well nailed most issues and even was on the money in discussing new energy potential.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2021)

Wedgy said:


> I Actually think CO2 per unit of GDP is probably the best guide, Australia would not be the worse better than China, Russia. Equal to US but behind most countries.



I think we get a lot of hassle for selling coal, when the focus should be on the countries that burn it.

After all, we don't blame Europe, the US or Japan for the emissions from those countries vehicles that we import.


----------



## sptrawler (15 November 2021)

rederob said:


> La Niña cycles are part of our climate landscape on the eastern seaboard, as is also the case for El Niño.
> All you have done is cherrypick a comment that climate change deniers have trotted out on a regular basis since 2007.  It's a pathetic smear that lacks context as even though Flannery said what he did, it was in relation to a *climate trend* which is backed by over a century worth of data and the ongoing climatic influence of CO2.
> In your own WA, here's that trend:
> View attachment 132931
> ...




As I stated, the post wasn't about climate change per sae, it was about the fact that if the comments had been by a politician, they would have been attacked endlessly. 
But because the statement was made by someone, that the media use on a regular basis as a source of reference for the narrative they wish to push, the obviously flawed statements, are as you say taken in the overall context of the issue.
The media would be doing a better service for the public, if they adopted this approach to all their reporting, it would also lift the overall standard of their content.IMO


----------



## rederob (15 November 2021)

sptrawler said:


> As I stated, the post wasn't about climate change per sae, it was about the fact that if the comments had been by a politician, they would have been attacked endlessly.



First, it is exactly about climate change as that was the theme of the interview:
_*SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change ... *_​The issue was done to death a long time ago, and Flannery never backed off because what he said remains relevant to the context.
Had a politician made the comment it would have resolved in no time as the context would not have allowed it to turn into a climate science denier's beat up.


sptrawler said:


> But because the statement was made by someone, that the media use on a regular basis as a source of reference for the narrative they wish to push, the obviously flawed statements, are as you say taken in the overall context of the issue.



It's not a flawed statement.  Anyone with an ounce of nous will know that the question asked "_*what about the bush*? "_   And Flannery answered it in the context of climate change as a trend.  Many farmers committed suicide and many went bankrupt in the ensuing period due to prolonged drought in the bush.  That pattern is highly likely to return in the next El Niño cycle.


sptrawler said:


> The media would be doing a better service for the public, if they adopted this approach to all their reporting, it would also lift the overall standard of their content.IMO



What nonsense.  You have repeated* a beat up that gets the rounds from climate change denying media* at every opportunity and from nowhere else.

Your claim was that Flannery was off the mark, yet what he said would happen in the bush did happen.  FYI a more detailed explanation of Flannery's context is here.

Some recent comments at ASF relate to the ability to "analyse".  The regurgitation of out of context Flannery comments is classic example of this.


----------



## sptrawler (15 November 2021)

As per usual you go wandering off on your own tangent, I never mentioned anything about "the dams never filling again, I actually never made a direct mention to anything he said.
I posted a couple of articles, to highlight the fact that the media are inconsistent in the way they treat subjects, actually the way you are making it now about climate change, reflects a similar problem.


----------



## rederob (15 November 2021)

sptrawler said:


> As per usual you go wandering off on your own tangent, I never mentioned anything about "the dams never filling again, I actually never made a direct mention to anything he said.
> I posted a couple of articles, to highlight the fact that the media are inconsistent in the way they treat subjects, actually the way you are making it now about climate change, reflects a similar problem.



Here's your quote:


sptrawler said:


> The post isn't about global warming, but about the amount of rope some people are given, when they are in synch with the narrative.



Everything Flannery said related to the specific question about climate change (the "narrative") and its effect on farmers in the bush.
Flannery got it right.

What exactly was your purpose in linking an interview that is now 14 years old which was in fact *about climate change*?

Media organisations are not inconsistent in how they treat subjects.  Murdoch media has shitcanned climate change at every opportunity as has Fox News.  The ABC attempts to achieve balance.  Other commercial media are looking for a "headline" and seldom otherwise delve into the detailed underpinning of the story.  Why you want to rely on the media when there are actual science-based sites you could go to if you want to know more about the state of climate is a mystery.


----------



## sptrawler (15 November 2021)

As I said, the issue wasn't about climate change, or indeed about Flannery, the issue was as I said about the fact if a politician made a similar comment they would be torn to shreds by the media.
As per usual, you go off on your own tangent and make it all about you, you have your right to your opinion, unfortunately you don't extend that courtesy to others. 😂


----------



## rederob (15 November 2021)

sptrawler said:


> As I said, the issue wasn't about climate change, or indeed about Flannery, the issue was as I said about the fact if a politician made a similar comment they would be torn to shreds by the media.



Why?
Flannery was right.
You seem to be misunderstanding whatever point you think you are making.


----------



## sptrawler (15 November 2021)

I was showing that when someone makes a statement, the context in which it is made often is more important than the comment in isolation, as IMO it should be and you have explained so well.
The media on the other hand, decide which subjects they are going to apply that ideology to, which then plays into the hands of the fanatics amongst us and leads to anger and frustration.
It would be better for the country as a whole, if the media took a pragmatic approach, rather than trying to incite unrest I just think it is counter productive.
Also I don't think one media is any less antagonistic than another, they are all the same, it is just the fanatics they are directing their coverage to that differs.
Fortunately I think the majority  of pragmatics, fall in the middle ground.


----------



## rederob (15 November 2021)

sptrawler said:


> The media on the other hand, decide which subjects they are going to apply that ideology to, which then plays into the hands of the fanatics amongst us and leads to anger and frustration.



Climate science is not an ideology.
I have tried to work out what point you are making and am lost.
Who exactly are the "fanatics"?
Is it the media?
Flannery certainly was not in 2007 and is not today.  Flannery - an environmentalist - is even on the record as suggesting that Minke whaling by the Japanese may be sustainable!

We just went through COP26.  Surely there was something from that which must have been more relevant that an interview 14 years ago.  What I am I missing?


----------



## Investoradam (19 November 2021)

rederob said:


> La Niña cycles are part of our climate landscape on the eastern seaboard, as is also the case for El Niño.
> All you have done is cherrypick a comment that climate change deniers have trotted out on a regular basis since 2007.  It's a pathetic smear that lacks context as even though Flannery said what he did, it was in relation to a *climate trend* which is backed by over a century worth of data and the ongoing climatic influence of CO2.
> In your own WA, here's that trend:
> View attachment 132931
> ...




lol old Tim! like every other self proclaimed guru! they are nothing but a spruiker and a fraud who make a living for dribble endless ****!
like all climate predictions of the past 70 odd years! all have been wrong, never close and always. shifting the goal posts
ice age is coming, green house effect, ozone layer, global warming, global cooling etc










						Professor Flim Flam moves to multi-million $$$ mansion in seaside Manly
					

Scared stiff about rising sea levels...... The chief architect of Zali Steggall’s climate strategy helped her draft a policy document that calls for the return of a national climate change authority, similar to the body he once led. Former climate commissioner Tim Flannery has moved into a...



					www.michaelsmithnews.com
				











						Flannery sticks by 'ghost' city
					

AUSTRALIAN of the Year Tim Flannery is sticking by his warning that Perth could become the first ghost metropolis of the 21st century.




					www.perthnow.com.au


----------



## Investoradam (19 November 2021)

basilio said:


> The ABC has a droll but very interesting analysis of just how easy it could be to make huge inroads into our carbon emissions.
> And all the solutions are clever win/win deals that will make us far more  cost effective and productive.
> Have to say it is one of the most encouraging stories I have read.
> 
> ...



there is a difference between fantasy and reality with a leftist! and its not reality as leftist politics never works and never ever has, has history shows!

like everything left they proclaim or speak nonsense through a small article and never go on to depth on how it will be achieved


----------



## sptrawler (8 December 2021)

Just read an article which really shows how ironic the media is and just how easily public opinion was influenced.
If you asked anyone in Australia, which PM did the most damage to climate change initiatives, without a doubt Tony Abbott would be everyone's response, yet the mechanism that he and Greg Hunt developed to reduce carbon emissions is the blueprint for Labor's current plan.
What a hoot, maybe the media could send Abbott an appollogy, enter the trolls stage left. Lol
It is an interesting article and highlights the politics of issues.
The other good thing to come out of the post, it made me learn how to copy and paste a url on an Android tablet, there is always a positive to be gained from even the worst periods of life.😉

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12...r-climate-policy-greg-hunt-retiring/100680684


----------



## basilio (8 December 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Just read an article which really shows how ironic the media is and just how easily public opinion was influenced.
> If you asked anyone in Australia, which PM did the most damage to climate change initiatives, without a doubt Tony Abbott would be everyone's response, yet the mechanism that he and Greg Hunt developed to reduce carbon emissions is the blueprint for Labor's current plan.
> What a hoot, maybe the media could send Abbott an appollogy, enter the trolls stage left. Lol
> It is an interesting article and highlights the politics of issues.
> ...




That was a very illuminating article. What it highlighted IMV was Greg Hunts cleverness in constructing a transparent, effective mechanism to racket down CC emissions by big emitters.  The problem with the Liberal government was that they never actually used the process to  create an orderly emissions reduction process. That was why Abbott was such a  xxxx on CC.

Labour has decided that Greg's legislation is as good as it gets and intends to put it to work.  How's that for bipartisianship  
Wouldn't it be interesting to see Greg Hunt brought back into an offical CC position by a Labour Government  to oversee the implementation of his legislation.


----------



## sptrawler (8 December 2021)

basilio said:


> That was a very illuminating article. What it highlighted IMV was Greg Hunts cleverness in constructing a transparent, effective mechanism to racket down CC emissions by big emitters.  The problem with the Liberal government was that they never actually used the process to  create an orderly emissions reduction process. That was why Abbott was such a  xxxx on CC.
> 
> Labour has decided that Greg's legislation is as good as it gets and intends to put it to work.  How's that for bipartisianship
> Wouldn't it be interesting to see Greg Hunt brought back into an offical CC position by a Labour Government  to oversee the implementation of his legislation.



Let's be honest Bas,  the reason it was never used was because the media never stopped bagging it as a handout to big business, that is the reason nothing gets done the media cranks up the ranters and chanters then when they are shown to be a bunch of dicks down the road they just change the chant.
Mindless rabble, is what they are, both the media and their footsoldiers.


----------



## basilio (8 December 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Let's be honest Bas,  the reason it was never used was because the media never stopped bagging it as a handout to big business, that is the reason nothing gets done the media cranks up the ranters and chanters then when they are shown to be a bunch of ducks down the road they just change the chant.
> Mindless rabble, is what they are, both the media and their footsoldiers.




Not so SP.  Let's see what the article says about the  intended implementation of the policy by Labour and the non implementation by the Coalition.

Hitting on a baseline winner​Hunt's solution, the one he and independent senator Nick Xenophon slipped into legislation being drawn up to replace the carbon tax with direct grants, was to set up "baselines" for each large emitter.

To be determined by the Clean Energy Regulator in accordance with rules set by the minister and disallowable by parliament, the baselines set the maximum amount each big plant can emit without being in breach and paying penalties.






 Greg Hunt has announced he will retire from federal politics at the next election.(ABC News: Luke Stephenson)
Importantly, the baselines were to be calculated on the basis of previous emissions. Facilities were to be allowed to emit what they had, but no more.

More importantly, plants could have their baselines calculated on the basis of emissions intensity — the amount emitted per unit of production, which would mean they would be able to expand so long as they didn't emit more per unit.

*More importantly still, the Clean Energy Regulator is in the process of converting almost all baselines to emissions intensity baselines.

All Labor has to do, and what intends to do, is to make use of the mechanism Hunt and Xenophon put in place.*

Business is backing baselines​Each facility that emits more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year — 215 of them — is subject to a baseline.

*What Labor has pledged to do, and it is backed by the Business Council, is to get the Clean Energy Regulator to wind down those baselines "predictably and gradually over time" to support the transition to net zero.

Businesses that are already reducing their emissions want this, because they want other firms to be made to do the same.*

The beauty of the mechanism set up on Abbott's watch is that each facility, each "gas well, aluminium smelter and coal line" as Labor's Chris Bowen puts it, will have its tightened baseline calculated individually.





 Business Council chief Jennifer Westacott backs tightened baselines.(One Plus One)
Each will be asked to do no more than what is needed after considering what it can cope with.

*Within minutes of Friday's announcement, Energy Minister Angus Taylor labelled it "a sneaky new carbon tax on agriculture, mining and transport", but it is better described as a system of guidelines and penalties, one legislated by Taylor's side of politics.*

Quite a lot will be needed. Labor's modelling, released on Friday, didn't spell out what would be needed to get emissions to net zero by 2050, but the Coalition's modelling, released in November, did.

No matter what reasonable assumptions the model included, including "global technology trends", it couldn't get all the way to net zero by 2050.

So the Coalition's modellers added in something fanciful which they named "further technology breakthroughs" to get the remaining 15 per cent.

Greg Hunt retires as health minister and retires from parliament at the next election. He has set us on the path to getting where we will need to be.









						The surprising architect behind Labor's climate plans? A retiring Coalition minister
					

Before he became Health Minister, Greg Hunt spent years thinking about mechanisms for getting emissions down – and if elected, Labor plans to road test the one he introduced, writes Peter Martin.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## sptrawler (8 December 2021)

Please enlighten me as to how that post changes anything, getting a mechanism in place is the first and hardest hurdle, fine tuning is the easy part.
We are talking about the crap Abbott copped for suggesting the initial implementation.
It is like the gst, the hardest part was getting it in, as Keating knew.
The issue is, the basis of the Abbott/Hunt initiative was sound, yet the media went viral just because they disliked the fact he removed Labor's carbon tax which as the article shows was indeed flawed, then in punishment undermined the whole Abbott/,Hunt policy.
Just tribalism at its best and it is alive a well today.
The ridiculous statement of "let's see it implementation by Labour" is bizarre, we are talking about issues 10 years ago, Labor had already implemented their idea it was enacted, like I said in the earlier post just change the chant to suit the new norm unflooking believable. At least you are proving my main point.


----------



## basilio (18 December 2021)

The Guardian story is useful but the second article goes into the detail of what scientists are measuring under the ice​Scientists watch giant ‘doomsday’ glacier in Antarctica with concern
	

		
			
		

		
	




​Cracks and fissures stoke fears of breakup that could lead to half-metre rise in global sea levels – or more
Satellite view of Antarctica with the Thwaites glacier marked in red. Photograph: UniversalImagesGroup/UIG/Getty Images

John Vidal
Sat 18 Dec 2021 19.00 AEDT
Last modified on Sat 18 Dec 2021 19.02 AEDT

Twenty years ago, an area of ice thought to weigh *almost 500bn tonnes* dramatically broke off the Antarctic continent and shattered into thousands of icebergs into the Weddell Sea.

The 1,255-sq-mile (3,250-sq-km) Larsen B ice shelf was known to be melting fast but no one had predicted that it would take just one month for the 200-metre-thick behemoth to completely disintegrate.

Glaciologists were shocked as much by the speed as by the scale of the collapse. “This is staggering. It’s just broken apart. It fell over like a wall and has broken as if into hundreds of thousands of bricks”, said one.

This week, ice scientists meeting in New Orleans warned that something even more alarming was brewing on the West Antarctic ice sheet – a vast basin of ice on the Antarctic peninsula. Years of research by teams of British and American researchers showed that great cracks and fissures had opened up both on top of and underneath the Thwaites glacier, one of the biggest in the world, and it was feared that parts of it, too, may fracture and collapse possibly within five years or less.

*Thwaites makes Larsen B look like an icicle. It is roughly 100 times larger, about the size of Britain, and contains enough water on its own to raise sea levels worldwide by more than half a metre.* It contributes about 4% of annual global sea level rise and has been called the most important glacier in the world, even the “doomsday” glacier. Satellite studies show it is melting far faster than it did in the 1990s.









						Scientists watch giant ‘doomsday’ glacier in Antarctica with concern
					

Cracks and fissures stoke fears of breakup that could lead to half-metre rise in global sea levels – or more




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Ice shelf holding back keystone Antarctic glacier within years of failure
					

Breakup of the Thwaites eastern shelf will ramp up sea level rise




					www.science.org


----------



## basilio (24 December 2021)

This story in The Conersation examines how the *combined *effects of CC, La Nina and natural tides are causing severe flooding in Pacific Islands.  The basic point is that we know sea levels are risng steadily  and risk accelerating even more quickly. However on a week to week basis quite severe disasters will happen well before sea level rises reach particular limits.


* La Niña just raised sea levels in the western Pacific by up to 20cm. This height will be normal by 2050          *​   December 16, 2021 11.00am AEDT 

Author​ 






	

		
			
		

		
	
         Shayne McGregor              
     Associate Professor, and Associate Investigator for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, Monash University   
 
Disclosure statement​ 
Shayne McGregor receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Environmental Science Program.

Partners​ 
Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View current jobs from Monash University

View all partners

​​Severe coastal flooding inundated islands and atolls across the western equatorial Pacific last week, with widespread damage to buildings and food crops in the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands.

On one level, very high tides are normal at this time of year in the western Pacific, and are known as “spring tides”. But why is the damage so bad this time? The primary reason is these nations are enduring a flooding trifecta: a combination of spring tides, climate change and La Niña.

La Niña is a natural climate phenomenon over the Pacific Ocean known for bringing wet weather, including in eastern Australia. A less-known impact is that La Niña also raises sea levels in the western tropical Pacific.

In a terrifying glimpse of things to come, this current La Niña is raising sea levels by 15-20 centimetres in some western Pacific regions – the same sea level rise projected to occur globally by 2050, regardless of how much we cut global emissions between now and then. So let’s look at this phenomena in more detail, and why we can expect more flooding over the summer.









						La Niña just raised sea levels in the western Pacific by up to 20cm. This height will be normal by 2050
					

Severe coastal flooding inundated islands in the Pacific last week, including the Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. It’s a taste of things to come.




					theconversation.com


----------



## basilio (24 December 2021)

*How much Global Warming is inevitable ?*

Elon Musk has offered a $100m prize pool to incentivise  realistic, cost effective ways to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere.   It's a very thoughtful and clever idea. 

This story highlights the creative use of "fake"whale poo  to sequester carbon deep in the oceans.  IMV well worth a read. 

Can fake whale poo experiment net Australian scientists a share of Elon Musk’s US$100m climate prize?​*Exclusive:* Releasing nutrients can spur phytoplankton growth, absorbing carbon dioxide in the proces



Artificial whale poo experiment hoped to capture carbon – video

Graham Readfearn

@readfearn
Fri 24 Dec 2021 03.30 AEDT


Scientists and engineers have pumped 300 litres of simulated whale poo into the ocean off Sydney as part of efforts to snag a share of Elon Musk’s US$100m prize for capturing and storing carbon.

The team, known as WhaleX, carried out its first open-ocean experiment on Sunday about eight kilometres off Port Botany in New South Wales after gaining clearance from the federal government.

The 12-strong team are racing to carry out a follow-up experiment using up to 2000 litres of the simulated poo – a mix of nitrogen, phosphorus and trace elements – before the end of January.
Tesla and SpaceX founder Musk announced in February he was funding a US$100m competition through the XPrize Foundation to find methods that could safely capture and store carbon dioxide at a scale of a billion tonnes or more a year.



The latest must-have among US billionaires? A plan to end the climate crisis
Read more
Musk said at the time the competition was not “theoretical” but was looking for teams that could “build real systems that can make a measurable impact and scale to a gigaton level.”

WhaleX registered for the four-year competition and will send a report before February hoping to be selected for one of up to 15 “milestone” prizes of U$1m each.

*Whale faeces is known as an ocean fertiliser and a food for phytoplankton. When phytoplankton grow and multiply, they absorb carbon. When they die, they sink to the ocean floor taking much of the carbon with them.*

Dr Edwina Tanner, a climate scientist who is leading the WhaleX project, and colleagues said they targeted a 225sq km area off Port Botany where their previous water sampling had shown a deficiency in nutrients.

From a small boat, the team aerated the formulation with a gel made from seaweed and mixed that with a dye so they could see from a drone how it dispersed.


----------



## basilio (24 December 2021)

The latest must-have among US billionaires? A plan to end the climate crisis
					

Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have an estimated wealth of $466bn – and are emblematic of a Davos-centric worldview that sees free markets and tech as the answer




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (1 January 2022)

Queensland backs net zero by 2050 as pressure mounts on Scott Morrison​








						Queensland backs net zero by 2050 as pressure mounts on Scott Morrison
					

Queensland will officially back a target of net zero emissions by 2050, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has confirmed.




					www.sbs.com.au
				




This is where the action doesn't match the rhetoric, but hey that isn't the issue as long as you give lip service to appease the muppets. 🤣 









						'Carbon bomb': Shock report could 'blow up' Australia's net zero plan
					

Satellite imagery has revealed Queensland is clearing land at twice the rate previously thought. Find out how this affects the climate crisis.




					au.news.yahoo.com
				



*Queensland’s “alarming” rate of land clearing could be the "carbon bomb" that derails Australia’s net zero commitments, conservations warn.

Satellite imagery analysis has revealed 680,688 hectares, or 0.7 per cent, of the state’s woody vegetation was affected by land clearing in 2018 - 2019.

That’s almost double the rate acknowledged in the previous reporting period, which estimated just 392,000 hectares had been bulldozed.*


----------



## basilio (8 January 2022)

Well this I didn't know until today.
Climate Change is causing a huge increase in lighting strikes in the far North latitudes.
Why ? Check out the story.
So what ? Think out of control wild fires started by lighting strikes in Siberia, Canada, Northern Europe.

Drastic’ rise in high Arctic lightning has scientists worried​The region’s air typically doesn’t suit strikes – so they have become an important climate crisis indicator

The high Arctic saw a dramatic rise in lightning in 2021 in what could be one of the most spectacular manifestations of the climate crisis.

*In a region where sightings were once rare, the Earth’s northernmost region saw 7,278 lightning strikes in 2021 – nearly double as many as the previous nine years combined.*

Arctic air typically lacks the convective heat required to create lightning so the latest findings, published in the Finnish firm Vaisala’s annual lightning report, have scientists like Vaisala’s meteorologist and lightning applications manager, Chris Vagasky, worried.

“Over the last 10 years, overall lightning counts north of the Arctic Circle have been fairly consistent,” Vagasky said. “But at the highest latitudes of the planet – north of 80° – the increase has been drastic. Such a significant shift certainly causes you to raise your eyebrows.”









						‘Drastic’ rise in high Arctic lightning has scientists worried
					

The region’s air typically doesn’t suit strikes – so they have become an important climate crisis indicator




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (8 January 2022)

The conversation offers a broader analysis of how global heating is affecting the weather across the US and around the world. The insurance cost of climate disasters in 2021 is an eyeopener. 

*Devastating Colorado fires cap a year of climate disasters in 2021, with one side of the country too wet, the other dangerously dry   *​   December 22, 2021 12.44am AEDT      Updated December 31, 2021 3.10pm AEDT

Alongside a lingering global pandemic, the year 2021 was filled with climate disasters, some so intense they surprised even the scientists who study them.

Extreme rainstorms turned to raging flash floods that swept through mountain towns in Europe, killing over 200 people. Across Asia, excessive rainfall inundated wide areas and flooded subway stations in China. Heat waves shattered records in the Pacific Northwest, Europe and the Arctic. Wildfires swept through communities in California, Canada, Greece and Australia.

The area around Boulder, Colorado, was so unusually dry on Dec. 30, 2021, that a powerful wind storm sent grass fires racing through neighborhoods in Superior and Louisville, burning hundreds of homes in a matter of hours. Officials said the winds were so strong, there was little firefighters could do but evacuate homes and businesses in the fires’ paths.

In the U.S. alone, damage from the biggest climate and weather disasters is expected to total well over US$100 billion in 2021. Many of these extreme weather events have been linked to human-caused climate change, and they offer a glimpse of what to expect in a rapidly warming world.









						Devastating Colorado fires cap a year of climate disasters in 2021, with one side of the country too wet, the other dangerously dry
					

US disasters in 2021 told a tale of two climate extremes. A climate scientist explains why wet areas are getting wetter and dry areas drier.




					theconversation.com


----------



## basilio (8 January 2022)

The Conversation always offers an excellent indepth, scientific understanding of the various topics it covers.
This article  overviews how the Arctic regions are being rapidly affected by accelerated global heating.

*2021 Arctic Report Card reveals a (human) story of cascading disruptions, extreme events and global connections       *​The Arctic has long been portrayed as a distant end-of-the-Earth place, disconnected from everyday common experience. But as the planet rapidly warms, what happens in this icy region, where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the globe, increasingly affects lives around the world.

On Dec. 14, 2021, a team of 111 scientists from 12 countries released the 16th annual Arctic Report Card, a yearly update on the state of the Arctic system. We are Arctic scientists and the editors of this peer-reviewed assessment. In the report, we take a diverse look across the region’s interconnected physical, ecological and human components.

Like an annual checkup with a physician, the report assesses the Arctic’s vital signs – including surface air temperatures, sea surface temperatures, sea ice, snow cover, the Greenland ice sheet, greening of the tundra, and photosynthesis rates by ocean algae – while inquiring into other indicators of health and emerging factors that shed light on the trajectory of Arctic changes.

As the report describes, rapid and pronounced human-caused warming continues to drive most of the changes, and ultimately is paving the way for disruptions that affect ecosystems and communities far and wide.









						2021 Arctic Report Card reveals a (human) story of cascading disruptions, extreme events and global connections
					

Sea ice is thinning at an alarming rate. Snow is shifting to rain. And humans worldwide are increasingly feeling the impact of what happens in the seemingly distant Arctic.




					theconversation.com


----------



## Knobby22 (9 January 2022)

Thanks Bas. 

World is going to get a lot warmer yet so it will become very interesting over the next 20 years. 

My feeling is that it's going to be the Northern hemisphere nations that will really feel it due to the Arctic, and the Pacific Islands of course due to sea rise.


----------



## basilio (10 January 2022)

Excellent story on the ABC on how to substantially strengthen homes against storms etc at relatively little cost. This comes as  traditional 1 in 100 storm events become  far more prevalent and increasing in strength.

Building codes are  almost always lagging reality.

*Should you build your home stronger to withstand the possible impacts of climate change?*​Posted 1h ago1 hours ago




  In the face of increasing extreme weather events, James Cook University, Suncorp Insurance, CSIRO and Room 11 architecture collaborated to build a home resilient to fire, flood, storm and cyclone.(Supplied: Suncorp)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article


As the footprint of climate change becomes clearer, the ability of homes to withstand the accelerating impacts of climate change and extreme weather is turning into a significant challenge.
Key points:​
Some people are building their home above code to protect from extreme weather
Experts say houses will be more exposed under climate change
The government is encouraging 'resilience' measures

Some Australians are taking it upon themselves to go beyond the building code and standards to protect their home from uncommon, but not impossible, extreme weather events. 
Working as an engineer for the Tropical Cyclone Testing Station, Geoff Boughton has seen hundreds of homes wrecked and ravaged, with families left without anywhere to live.
He most recently witnessed it in Kalbarri and Northampton, an area where houses were not built to withstand the continuous cyclonic wind gusts caused by Seroja. 


> "They have to start again, and I really don't want that to happen for myself or my family,” he said.







 Geoff Boughton's Perth home is built to withstand a weak cyclone, and intense thunderstorms(ABC: Tyne Logan)
When building his own home in Perth, well outside of the cyclone-rated region of WA, this was something he considered.
Cyclones are uncommon near Perth, but they're not unheard of.
"When you think of a 1 in 500 year event, if a house lasts for 50 years that makes it a 1 in 10 chance it happening within the lifetime of my house," he said.
“The other thing is, with climate change, we really don’t know what the climate is going to be in 50 years time."




 During construction, a series of reinforcements were added to Geoff Boughton's roof.(Supplied: Geoff Boughton)
From the outside, his house looks like a typical Perth home, but its structure is far stronger.

It's able to withstand a weak cyclone blowing constant gusts of up to 160kph and is waterproofed for extreme thunderstorm events.
And it didn't cost much.
He said this was achieved through several features, including strengthening a series of structural elements on his roof to prevent it from lifting even if a window was broken.




 Mr Boughton has higher windows, strengthened roof connections and sealing around his roof.(ABC: Hugh Sando)
The windows are a slightly higher specification to keep water out better, and his roof edge is sealed to prevent water from coming in.

*All up, he said the additional features cost him about $4000 from a new build for his timber home.









						Should you build your home stronger to withstand the possible impacts of climate change?
					

Climate change has taught us that rare weather events are becoming more common, and some Australians are heeding the warning.




					www.abc.net.au
				



*


----------



## Investoradam (16 January 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Thanks Bas.
> 
> World is going to get a lot warmer yet so it will become very interesting over the next 20 years.
> 
> My feeling is that it's going to be the Northern hemisphere nations that will really feel it due to the Arctic, and the Pacific Islands of course due to sea rise.



Well maybe we need to address the elephant in the room and discuss the actual countries omitting! Eg China? Yet some how Australian cows farting is the issue


----------



## rederob (16 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> Well maybe we need to address the elephant in the room and discuss the actual countries omitting! Eg China? Yet some how Australian cows farting is the issue



The elephants are countries with the highest per capita emissions.
You want blame a nation that has the largest population, yet Australia's per capita emissions are twice as bad.  If the highest per capita emitters reduced to the average then CO2 would not be the huge problem it is.


----------



## Investoradam (16 January 2022)

rederob said:


> The elephants are countries with the highest per capita emissions.
> You want blame a nation that has the largest population, yet Australia's per capita emissions are twice as bad.  If the highest per capita emitters reduced to the average then CO2 would not be the huge problem it is.



Nice attempt at attempting to take the high road but it’s rubbish 
We are speaking about omissions here? Isn’t the point of having to reduce them as the world will end in 20….. days the fear mongers choose to peddle eg like the have the past 70 odd yesrs

you ignore that chinas total omissions has been sky rocketing the past decade and continues to do so. They continue to build at a rapid rate hundreds of new coal fired power stations!
At present they do near 1/3 rd of the worlds TOTAL!
Australia’s is a warm climate and major exports are mining and agriculture and has been dictated to by the United Nations under the Lima Declaration thanks to garbage Gough and Bobby Whorke!

Climate change is racist and the people who argue the point are racist as it apparently only happens in white western countries.!

It that’s the only argument you have your like most of the other believers and leftists an who continue to be the gullible & evolution of a dumbed sound socially 

Seriously learn how the basics of the world works


----------



## rederob (16 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> Nice attempt at attempting to take the high road but it’s rubbish



Not that you have an ability to make the case.


Investoradam said:


> We are speaking about omissions here?



You don't appear to know much as the USA has been responsible for most CO2 emissions to date, and that's why we are where we are on climate change.  


Investoradam said:


> you ignore that chinas total omissions has been sky rocketing the past decade and continues to do so. They continue to build at a rapid rate hundreds of new coal fired power stations!



China is also replacing many outdated coal fired power stations and what they do build are state of the art. 


Investoradam said:


> Climate change is racist and the people who argue the point are racist as it apparently only happens in white western countries.



Seriously?


Investoradam said:


> It that’s the only argument you have your like most of the other believers and leftists an who continue to be the gullible & evolution of a dumbed sound socially



You are a clown!


----------



## Knobby22 (16 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> Well maybe we need to address the elephant in the room and discuss the actual countries omitting! Eg China? Yet some how Australian cows farting is the issue



We all need to do better.
China also. Per capita though we are nearly the worst country in the world and if we don't pick up you can be sure we will get sanctions from Europe which won't be good for our economy.

It is hard for us to lecture China if we do the wrong thing. I am sure we can catch up though  if we want. Cow farming isn't the issue and really doesn't figure. 

You watch what Twiggy of Fortescue does. There are many great Australian companies just wanting a fair go. We have the materials, the weather, the space. We could eat this if we want and surely will.

Over time we will produce power extremely cheaply and as long as we don't sell out to foreigners should be in a great position.

China realise this and have bought effective control of the manufacturing of solar panels using Australian breakthroughs. They also have invested in controlling rare metals and it has taken the world a while to wake up and fight back.

The government should encourage this rather than give subsidies to coal.
They should control gas exports to ensure we have this as for our industries.

We can then pressure China more. China at least has a plan to reduce emissions over the medium term. Our planning seems as hoc.


----------



## orr (16 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> Seriously learn how the basics of the world works




Luv to hear what your suggested reading list might be?


----------



## Investoradam (18 January 2022)

rederob said:


> Not that you have an ability to make the case.
> 
> You don't appear to know much as the USA has been responsible for most CO2 emissions to date, and that's why we are where we are on climate change.
> 
> ...











						China Started More Coal Plants Than The Entire World Retired In 2020 | OilPrice.com
					

Despite commitments to become a net-zero emission economy by 2060, China—the world’s biggest carbon emitter—commissioned more coal-fired capacity last year than the rest of the world retired




					oilprice.com
				











						China To Build 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants
					

The report reckons that these new coal plants and blast furnaces will add 150 million tonnes to China’s CO2 emissions. This is roughly half the UK’s total emissions.




					wattsupwiththat.com
				




building new replacing old so still keeping coal as a main source of power yet Australia can’t!
Only a muppet can’t work out the hypocrisy of it all and how usless and a scam the green 



Showing no signs of slowing down! Nearly 1/3 of the worlds total and keep climbing yet the west needy to stop eating beef as the cows farting is the problem! Or it is many of the worlds billionaires who have invested in plant based meats want us to eat synthetic meat so we ruin farmers so the billionaires can buy up the land to add to there portfolio! As what is happening to farmers already.

inmean thanx to garbage Gough and bobby Whorke who signed Australia up to the United Nations aka the IMF the privately owned bank that dictates how countries do trade and business

Yes the left are the stupidest forms of society!
Learn some history of communism and Lenin he referred to you lot as “useful idiots” educated idiots who think they are intelligent it’s the simple of the most stupid!


----------



## moXJO (18 January 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> We all need to do better.
> China also. Per capita though we are nearly the worst country in the world and if we don't pick up you can be sure we will get sanctions from Europe which won't be good for our economy.



It's bs. If we keep immigration up then we will never hit the target. It's next to impossible. We are one of the fast growing nations in terms of immigration.

 I thought we could double our way out to lower  per capita. But it's based on 26% below 2005 levels. Immigration is going to make it near iimpossible to meet that target. 

Building new homes and everything that comes with that means emissions are going up. It's either going to mean super high electricity prices and other strict restrictions to meet targets. We are talking in the vicinity of 50% per person over the next decade years. 

Better we start to engage with Asia. Screw Europe. I don't think it's possibly unless we see tech advances.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 January 2022)

moXJO said:


> It's bs. If we keep immigration up then we will never hit the target. It's next to impossible. We are one of the fast growing nations in terms of immigration.
> 
> I thought we could double our way out to lower  per capita. But it's based on 26% below 2005 levels. Immigration is going to make it near iimpossible to meet that target.
> 
> ...



We are going to get a bit screwed upgrading the grid but seriously this will happen and faster than you think.
Just need a bit of infrastructure planning which is finally happening.


----------



## Investoradam (18 January 2022)

moXJO said:


> It's bs. If we keep immigration up then we will never hit the target. It's next to impossible. We are one of the fast growing nations in terms of immigration.
> 
> I thought we could double our way out to lower  per capita. But it's based on 26% below 2005 levels. Immigration is going to make it near iimpossible to meet that target.
> 
> ...



If there was any truth to this crap fingers would be pointing at China, India etc that they are not! Period
Only countries like Australia

You cannot make this **** up and People are so gullible and stupid to the concept

they want to be rich and everyone else poor paying for it 

Mean while


----------



## rederob (18 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> building new replacing old so still keeping coal as a main source of power yet Australia can’t!
> Only a muppet can’t work out the hypocrisy of it all and how usless and a scam the green



The reason Australia is so high in per capita emissions compared to China is because Australia was *industrialised *many decades ago, while China remains a developing nation.  I realise this is not an idea you can come to grips with.


Investoradam said:


> Showing no signs of slowing down! Nearly 1/3 of the worlds total and keep climbing yet the west needy to stop eating beef as the cows farting is the problem!



As I have often said, the west has sent its manufacturing to China which equates to significant CO2 being offshored.  Interestingly, however, is the fact that Chinese manufacturing is now state of the art and actually uses much less energy now to make the same products.


Investoradam said:


> Learn some history of communism and Lenin he referred to you lot as “useful idiots” educated idiots who think they are intelligent it’s the simple of the most stupid!



I guarantee you have never read Das Kapital, and have no idea what Leninism involved, which makes you the perfect *useful idiot* in trying to deride those ideologies.


----------



## wayneL (18 January 2022)

rederob said:


> I guarantee you have never read Das Kapital,



Perhaps your only credible post to date in a sort of backhand way.

IOW, it is almost certain that you *have read Das Kapital (inter alia)... In fact, probably studied it deeply.


----------



## basilio (21 January 2022)

More news about glaciers in East Antartica now.  This is an area so far not recognised as a potential near term contributor  to global warming.
That may be about to change.

Giant canyon discovered underneath Vanderford Glacier in Antarctica, revealing history behind rising sea levels​By political reporter Henry Belot
Posted 3h ago3 hours ago, updated 1h ago1 hours ago




 The canyon extends at least 3.5km underneath the glacier.(ABC News: Pete Harmsen)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article



Australian Antarctic expeditioners have discovered an enormous, two-kilometre-deep canyon underneath a glacier that may make it more vulnerable to warming oceans.
Key points:​
The voyage leader says the canyon may be allowing warming waters to get underneath the glacier
The discovery also indicates the Vanderford Glacier once extended 60km further than it currently does 
Satellite data indicates the surface height of the Vanderford Glacier has shrunk by about two metres since 2008

The discovery also indicates the Vanderford Glacier in East Antarctica once extended 60km further than it currently does and had a significant role in rising sea levels.
Voyage leader Lloyd Symons said the canyon extended at least 3.5km underneath the glacier, which might be influencing how quickly the ice was melting.
"The fact that there is such a deep canyon beneath this glacier would perhaps allow the possibility for warming waters to get underneath the glacier," Mr Symons told the ABC.


> "One of the issues for Antarctic glaciers at the moment is them being eaten away from underneath by warming waters coming down from the north."



The Southern Ocean circulates warming waters from around the world, pushing them deep towards Antarctica where they lap against the colder ice.









						Giant canyon discovered underneath Antarctic glacier, adding to history of rising sea levels
					

Australian Antarctic expeditioners have discovered an enormous, 2-kilometre-deep canyon underneath a glacier that may make it more vulnerable to warming oceans.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## basilio (21 January 2022)

At the risk of learning something new . check out this story on how CC is rapidly regreening the Arctic.  What are the implications of a rapidky warming Arctic region on the environment, the people, the ecosystems ?

Fascinating.






Reindeer pulling sleighs in Breivikeidet, Norway. Photograph: Morten Falch Sortland/Getty Images
The long read
‘The treeline is out of control’: how the climate crisis is turning the Arctic green​In northern Norway, trees are rapidly taking over the tundra and threatening an ancient way of life that depends on snow and ice









						‘The treeline is out of control’: how the climate crisis is turning the Arctic green
					

The long read: In northern Norway, trees are rapidly taking over the tundra and threatening an ancient way of life that depends on snow and ice




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2022)

Interesting article








						Catch 2050: Demand for solar panels presents 'global warming risk' through raw material production
					

The global community will need almost 60 times more solar power to reach net zero emissions by 2050, but the emissions-intensive aluminium required to do so presents an environmental risk, a new study has found.




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
"Australia is actually the largest producer of bauxite, and one of the largest producers of alumina — so there's a real opportunity for Australia to play a big role in this growth of renewable energy."

The study revealed that for the global community to reach net zero by 2050, about 60 terawatts of solar power along with 480 megatons of aluminium would be required.

Currently, there is 0.8 terawatts, or 800 gigawatts of solar available globally.


----------



## Investoradam (24 January 2022)

rederob said:


> The reason Australia is so high in per capita emissions compared to China is because Australia was *industrialised *many decades ago, while China remains a developing nation.  I realise this is not an idea you can come to grips with.
> 
> As I have often said, the west has sent its manufacturing to China which equates to significant CO2 being offshored.  Interestingly, however, is the fact that Chinese manufacturing is now state of the art and actually uses much less energy now to make the same products.
> 
> I guarantee you have never read Das Kapital, and have no idea what Leninism involved, which makes you the perfect *useful idiot* in trying to deride those ideologies.



 But but but if we don’t act now the world will end says mr Schwab!

so you think that Mother Nature or climate change or (insert new name) cares if China is still an emerging economy?

yes I have read enough on Lenin and communism and know allabout how propaganda works! You clearly don’t!
I mean how many times do they want to change the narrative and shift the goal posts and the useful idiots keep believing it


----------



## rederob (24 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> so you think that Mother Nature or climate change or (insert new name) cares if China is still an emerging economy?



Most of the world's populations belong to developing or undeveloped nations and their shares of CO2 are all rising as they attempt to modernise.  You conveniently neglect the fact that most G20 nations have offshored significant production to China and that this production is now much less carbon intensive than from where it originated. 


Investoradam said:


> yes I have read enough on Lenin and communism and know allabout how propaganda works! You clearly don’t!



Lenin had no interest in propaganda.


Investoradam said:


> I mean how many times do they want to change the narrative and shift the goal posts and the useful idiots keep believing it



The narrative has not changed for 4 decades so what are you talking about?


----------



## basilio (24 January 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Interesting article
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's an excellent story.  I have to say the headline is misleading.  All the way through the article the opportunities for using green energy as the source for aluminium smelting is spelt out.  And finally  the solar energy industry itself is a small part of the aluminium industry.

I reckon this story will be co-opted by the usual suspects to diss solar panels as causes of more global warming.  Just use the headline


----------



## Investoradam (25 January 2022)

rederob said:


> Most of the world's populations belong to developing or undeveloped nations and their shares of CO2 are all rising as they attempt to modernise.  You conveniently neglect the fact that most G20 nations have offshored significant production to China and that this production is now much less carbon intensive than from where it originated.



what like building hundard's of new coal fired power stations that will have some 50/60 year life span?
but but but its autralian cows farting that are are causing climate change.
if renawables were so good they would be building them instead of hundard's of new coal fired power stations

so chinas omissions sky rocket but Australia who's omossions are dropping must act to save the world while the major omitters are ignored!
LMAO


rederob said:


> Lenin had no interest in propaganda.



FFS!  Lenin was Mr Propaganda. LMAO!
there was a reason why he referred to you leftists as useful idiots. so limited that you think your intelligent. yet so limited you dont realize how limited you lot are


rederob said:


> The narrative has not changed for 4 decades so what are you talking about?



remember the green house effect, ozone layers, global warming, global cooling, climate change etc









						50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called 'experts' Are 0-50
					

This week Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:” Modern doomsayers have...




					www.aei.org
				











						The List Of 120 Years Of Climate Scares By Scientists  | 710 WOR | Mark Simone
					

Get the Latest Info!




					710wor.iheart.com
				






the scaremongering is nothing more than a way to control government, industry globalization & control of the worlds wealth.
basicaly they want to be rich and you poor! do they care about you no


----------



## rederob (25 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> so chinas omissions sky rocket but Australia who's omossions are dropping must act to save the world while the major omitters are ignored!
> LMAO



Australia's emissions are about twice China's per capita and still you claim the high ground!


Investoradam said:


> the scaremongering is nothing more than a way to control government, industry globalization & control of the worlds wealth.
> basicaly they want to be rich and you poor! do they care about you no



The evidence on climate change is available to everyone so what are you claiming?
Your posts are mostly nonsensical and there is nothing you have said in this thread that suggests you know anything about the topic.


----------



## Investoradam (26 January 2022)

rederob said:


> Australia's emissions are about twice China's per capita and still you claim the high ground!
> 
> The evidence on climate change is available to everyone so what are you claiming?
> Your posts are mostly nonsensical and there is nothing you have said in this thread that suggests you know anything about the topic.



No! You keep missing the point and attempting to take the higher ground and going around in circles!

China are building hundreds of brand new coal fired power stations and already omit nearly one 3rd of the worlds total! So when they are completed this will sky rocket! Yet yet cows farting in Australia are the issue

 there was any truth to the climate change China would not be doing this. They would be using nuclear or going and pay more attention to nicola teslas idea of kinetic energy from magnets

No they aren’t they are digging endless more toxic materials from the ground polluting and destroying the land with these usless windmills and solar panels. Your on a stock market forum and clearly have nfi how any of the monotony flows works or about any politics


Climate change has nothing to do with the environment! It is to control a nation’s industry and wealth


----------



## rederob (26 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> there was any truth to the climate change China would not be doing this. They would be using nuclear or going and pay more attention to nicola teslas idea of kinetic energy from magnets



If you knew anything about this topic you would know that China building more new nuclear plants than any other country.


Investoradam said:


> No they aren’t they are digging endless more toxic materials from the ground polluting and destroying the land with these usless windmills and solar panels. Your on a stock market forum and clearly have nfi how any of the monotony flows works or about any politics



You are in General Chat and you have shown no ability to make a valid point on climate.


----------



## Investoradam (26 January 2022)

rederob said:


> If you knew anything about this topic you would know that China building more new nuclear plants than any other country.
> 
> You are in General Chat and you have shown no ability to make a valid point on climate.



well you clearly dont!
FFS you dont even know a thing abourt Lenin!

they even tell you them self its not about the environment! muppet
no names on any propaganda papers, defecters who leave the united nations speak out its a scam, the mob attemot to cancel them.
its nothing to do about the environment its abut power. they want to be rich at your expense! you think you are going to be joining them at the seat of this degenerate leftist utopia?
not a chance



IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: _“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”








						In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'
					

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.




					www.forbes.com
				




As an estimated 400 private planes flew into Scotland this weekend for the COP26 UN Climate Summit in Glasgow, with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Prince Charles, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and US President Biden in the fleet, the world leaders are being slammed for the excessive use of private transportation while they tout efforts to lower carbon emissions. 








						World leaders slammed for taking private planes to UN climate summit
					

As an estimated 400 private planes flew into Scotland this weekend for the COP26 UN Climate Summit in Glasgow, with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Prince Charles, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and U…




					nypost.com
				



_


----------



## rederob (26 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: _“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you also belong with the idiot conspiracy theorists who also believe the moon landing was fake?
You will find your quote was debunked in an earlier post of mine to the forum years ago.
Is there anything you do know about climate?


----------



## Investoradam (26 January 2022)

rederob said:


> Do you also belong with the idiot conspiracy theorists who also believe the moon landing was fake?
> You will find your quote was debunked in an earlier post of mine to the forum years ago.
> Is there anything you do know about climate?



Thank you for not addressing the post like usual!
How’s it a conspiracy when it’s coming straight from the mouth of the IPCC.

then you have this private conference of the worlds elite that all turn up in there private planes then only to lecture us about saving the environment!

keep the tin foil cap on dude


----------



## Investoradam (27 January 2022)

Mickey Mouse the climate scientist!
Really








						‘Mickey Mouse’ scratched from 11,000 scientists declaring global climate crisis - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The scientists behind the letter say a few "invalid" names among the 11,000 signatures do not diminish their very real warning.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## rederob (27 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> Thank you for not addressing the post like usual!
> How’s it a conspiracy when it’s coming straight from the mouth of the IPCC.



Read the thread title and you might work out why your off topic remarks don't get answered.
As for your quote, it was a *fabrication*, but you don't seem to know anything about climate so I guess you were unable to work it out.


----------



## Investoradam (27 January 2022)

rederob said:


> Read the thread title and you might work out why your off topic remarks don't get answered.
> As for your quote, it was a *fabrication*, but you don't seem to know anything about climate so I guess you were unable to work it out.



lol
run Muppet run
found out wanting on every post and never anwer one direct question!
remember the worlds going to end if we dont act now and end out omissions?
but climate change is racist and only applies in white western countries?
its ok that an asian countries omits  nearly 1/3 off the worlds total and amount is sky rocketing at an alarming rate. but Australian cows are the issue!

the  IPCC even admit its a hoax and nothing to do with the environment! 
but its all conspiracies


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> the IPCC even admit its a hoax and nothing to do with the environment!




Any documentation for that statement ?


----------



## basilio (27 January 2022)

This story is very concerning. It seems that households and kitchens in particular are a very large source of methane leakage. This has health implications as well as being a large but unacknowledged contributor to greenhouse gas emissions accelerating global heating.

Science
Cooking with gas? Research finds health and emissions risks even when stoves are off​ABC Science
 /
By environment reporter Nick Kilvert
Posted 2h ago2 hours ago





 Emissions from leaking gas cookers are the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of cars.(Getty Images: Sean Gladwell)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article


Leaking methane from natural gas-burning stove tops is releasing the greenhouse-gas equivalent of hundreds of thousands of cars, and cooking on gas stovetops is posing a risk to health, according to new research.
Key points:​
The majority of methane is released from gas cookers while not in use
Nitrous oxides, fine particulate matter released during cooking pose a respiratory risk, especially to children
Monitoring of methane emissions is lacking right through the supply chain, according to the Climate Council
In findings that have taken researchers by surprise, more than three quarters of methane emissions from stovetops were leaking into houses while the appliances were not in use.

They're the results from a study published today in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, which looked at natural-gas emissions from stovetops in households in the United States.

The researchers are hoping to replicate the study in Australia, and believe the US results are largely comparable with the situation here.
"COVID-willing, we hope to sample in Australia over the next year or two, probably in 2023," said study co-author, Professor Robert Jackson from Stanford University.



> "Our biggest surprise was that most of the methane we measured leaked to the air while the stoves were off."



While the rate of methane leakage was higher while the stoves were in use, the amount of time spent not in use meant the overall volume of methane leaked was greatest during this time.

Previous studies have found methane emissions from gas stovetops to be lower than this one, but they only measured emissions when the stoves were on, Professor Jackson said.









						Cooking with gas? Research finds health and emission risks even when stoves are off
					

Most of the emissions from gas stovetops happen when they're not in use, and they're also a risk to health and the climate, researchers find.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## Investoradam (27 January 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Any documentation for that statement ?



It was provided in the link!

it’s rather self evident and explanatory!
China can pollute at alarming levels and they continue to rise and Australian cows farting are the concern?


----------



## rederob (28 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> It was provided in the link!



That was a *fabrication* (in simple terms you posted a *lie*) - find the original German version and I will translate it for you.  


Investoradam said:


> it’s rather self evident and explanatory!



Indeed it is.  For over two hundred years the first world overload our planet with CO2 but you now want to blame the most populous nation that still has half the per capita carbon footprint that you have.


----------



## Investoradam (28 January 2022)

rederob said:


> That was a *fabrication* (in simple terms you posted a *lie*) - find the original German version and I will translate it for you.



you only claim it’s a lie as it doesn’t suit your narrative! It’s a well documented quote and interviews!
German is my native tongue so I can read it thx


rederob said:


> Indeed it is.  For over two hundred years the first world overload our planet with CO2 but you now want to blame the most populous nation that still has half the per capita carbon footprint that you have.



Lol!
Is that all you have
There total omission rates are skyrocketing and are building hundreds of new coal power stations yet its Australian cows!

yet we need to destroy the land to build these point wind mills and solar panels!

to continue to believe this crap is just how gullible and stupid society has become!

ifnthere was any truth if it was to save the planet and renewables actually were some what useful China would not be building coal power stations for staters it would be bulldog renewables!
It’s none of that!

there has been a few proposals over the years to generate electricity look up nikola Tesla and his theory of kinetic energy!!

any muppet that peddles renewables thinking that work has the iq or a house plant


----------



## rederob (29 January 2022)

Investoradam said:


> you only claim it’s a lie as it doesn’t suit your narrative! It’s a well documented quote and interviews!



It's a proven fabrication - as my earlier link showed - so the lie sits with you.


Investoradam said:


> There total omission rates are skyrocketing



Sorry... that's not true either.  Their emissions have increased due mostly to western nations offshoring production, and there is no counter to this fact.


Investoradam said:


> if there was any truth if it was to save the planet and renewables actually were some what useful China would not be building coal power stations for staters it would be bulldog renewables!



Just to reiterate how little you know, in 2020 China led the world in renewable capacity added, accounting for nearly half of all installations. China added nearly 117 GW, bringing online more renewable capacity in 2020 than the entire world did in 2013 and almost doubling its additions from 2019.


Investoradam said:


> any muppet that peddles renewables thinking that work has the iq or a house plant



Most people believe the opposite is true.


----------



## Investoradam (1 February 2022)

rederob said:


> It's a proven fabrication - as my earlier link showed - so the lie sits with you.




what link?
all the links i post seem to go totally over your head and you clearly struggle to under stand them! only to parrot the same dribble as the rabble such as the ABC produce
very selective leftist journalism


rederob said:


> Sorry... that's not true either.  Their emissions have increased due mostly to western nations offshoring production, and there is no counter to this fact.
> 
> Just to reiterate how little you know, in 2020 China led the world in renewable capacity added, accounting for nearly half of all installations. China added nearly 117 GW, bringing online more renewable capacity in 2020 than the entire world did in 2013 and almost doubling its additions from 2019.
> 
> Most people believe the opposite is true.



why are they building all those new coal fired power stations! there omissions are already nearly 1/3 rd of the worlds total
all those renewables you claim they are building must have little confidence in  them!

yet Australian farting cows are the issue?
tell me again how old Vlad lenin didnt use propaganda despite calling his leftist followers useful idiots?


those globalist leaches want every one poor and taxed to the hilt whilst they want there tax free off shore banking and be excempt from paying any form of taxers! and you parrot the exact words for them








						Luxury Yachts To Be Exempt From EU’s Carbon Pricing Plan
					

By Paul Homewood   Only the decrepit EU could come up with this idea!   From Zero Hedge:     If there is anyone still confused why ESG, and the entire "green" movement…




					notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com
				











						EU to Exempt Private Jets from Jet Fuel Tax
					

The European Commission's planned carbon tax on jet fuel, which will be presented for legislation on July 14, will carry exemptions for private jets and




					order-order.com


----------



## Knobby22 (2 February 2022)

Look at the Antarctic this year.
Not good. (Also shows Arctic).




__





						Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
					





					nsidc.org
				




Also BOM annouced hottest January night temperatures for Melbourne  on record- due to the weird weather we were having.


----------



## basilio (15 February 2022)

The ecology of Antarctica  is changing in literally a decade.  Global heating is accelerating.

Flourishing plants show warming Antarctica undergoing ‘major change’​Dramatic spread of native plants over past decade is evidence of accelerating shifts in fragile polar ecosystem, study finds




Scientists warn the explosion of native species such as Antarctic hairgrass indicates conditions are ripe for the establishment of invasive species. Photograph: Nicoletta Cannone

The age of extinction is supported by




About this content
Phoebe Weston

@phoeb0
Tue 15 Feb 2022 03.00 AEDT
Last modified on Tue 15 Feb 2022 16.09 AED


Antarctica’s two native flowering plants are spreading rapidly as temperatures warm, according to the first study to show changes in fragile polar ecosystems have accelerated in the past decade.

*The increase in plants since 2009 has been greater than the previous 50 years combined, *coinciding with rapidly rising air temperatures and a reduction in the number of fur seals, according to researchers working on Signy Island in the South Orkney Islands.

Populations of Antarctic hairgrass (_Deschampsia antarctica_) and Antarctic pearlwort (_Colobanthus quitensis_) have been studied by scientists on the island since 1960. Research found hairgrass spread five times faster between 2009 and 2018 than between 1960 and 2009. For pearlwort, the increase was almost ten times more, according to the paper.

In the past decade, summer warming has increased from +0.02C to +0.27C each year, despite strong cooling recorded in 2012.









						Flourishing plants show warming Antarctica undergoing ‘major change’
					

Dramatic spread of native plants over past decade is evidence of accelerating shifts in fragile polar ecosystem, study finds




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2022)

Article on the state of play with renewables, the final two sentences sum it up.








						China’s renewables boom year poses major challenges to western markets
					

Balancing reliance on China’s technology providers with local interests is now a key political as well as environmental challenge, says Wood Mackenzie.




					www.mining.com
				




Whitworth said: “For China, the energy transition is a golden opportunity to develop key industries and technologies while improving its green credentials. Accelerating efforts to tackle its own emissions while supporting global decarbonisation sounds like an irresistible proposition. 

“For the western economies, responses are more wide-ranging – tariffs, local content policies, tax breaks, collaboration, technical innovation, etc.  Competition from all sides is intense, which should bring benefits to the trajectory of global decarbonisation.


----------



## basilio (28 February 2022)

A summer of broken heat records in WA.  A reminder that  global heating is not going away.









						It's official: Perth's stifling, oppressive summer was its hottest ever recorded
					

It's been a summer for the history books as Perth swelters through its hottest ever on record, with an average maximum temperature that's smashed the previous record by almost one degree.




					www.abc.net.au
				




Fingerprint of climate change​Unfortunately, climate science indicates this is just the start.






 Rainfall has declined significantly in the last 50 years over WA's south-west.
While it can be difficult for scientists to directly attribute extreme weather events to climate change, climate scientist Andrew King said Perth's summer clearly bore the fingerprint of global warming.

"Given the background trends and previous work looking at heatwaves and their links to climate change in different parts of Australia, and our understanding of how the climate system works, we can be quite confident that climate change has exacerbated the heat and Perth the summer," Dr King said.

He said there would still be cooler summers in future, but climate change had loaded the dice to make hot years more common.



> "Because we've got such a clear trend in temperatures across the whole of Australia, including in Western Australia, it's just quite easy to break records these days," he said.



"I guess an analogy to that is you can think of like COVID cases.

"If you've got an outbreak occurring, you can have record numbers of cases each day, day after day, when you've got a strong trend in case numbers. 

"In a way, temperature trends are a bit like that, when you've got a very clear trend, it's very easy to break records so you break them more frequently."


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 February 2022)

basilio said:


> Rainfall has declined significantly in the last 50 years over WA's south-west.



An interesting thing about WA is that the decline hasn't occurred in manner that correlates to anything obvious but rather, has occurred as distinct "steps" downward in runoff.

It's as though someone simply flicked a switch and said that's it, we're going to level 1 climate change as of midnight tonight and that's it, done. Then came back later and turned it up to level 2.

Far less extreme but the same "sudden step" pattern exists in Tasmania also. Get a bar chart of runoff records and it's very clear that there was no gradual decline, it's a sudden step change.

Politics around climate change and solutions to reducing emissions etc aside, there's some interesting science there in terms of what's going on to cause that response since there isn't a direct correlation with something obvious. Not sure about WA but Tas has done quite a bit of research at the state level looking for an explanation.


----------



## wayneL (28 February 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> An interesting thing about WA is that the decline hasn't occurred in manner that correlates to anything obvious but rather, has occurred as distinct "steps" downward in runoff.
> 
> It's as though someone simply flicked a switch and said that's it, we're going to level 1 climate change as of midnight tonight and that's it, done. Then came back later and turned it up to level 2.
> 
> ...



Going off at a bit of a tangent to the discussion here, but related... We are about to buy a property here in WA. First order of priority is contingency planning should the power go down or is insufficient.

It's actually quite a complex problem for someone who has never considered all the facets which may eventually come into play.

But let's just say that Mrs and I are learning how to make fire by rubbing sticks together... just in case


----------



## basilio (7 March 2022)

In case anyone missed it  Climate Change has well and truly arrived in Australia. The flood events across the East Coast have all the fingerprints of the extreme weather patterns that a warming climate will produce. So where to from here ?









						It's the elephant in our flooded east coast — and now's the time to talk about it
					

As images of flooding fill our bulletins, it's important to remember that this isn't happening in a vacuum. Extreme weather is going to get more common under climate change.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## macca (7 March 2022)

As you have told us repeatedly, one off events or even one season events are weather, not climate change.

Weather sites forecast La Nina and it arrived, so all good so far.

Why are we having floods, because over the past  few decades many more houses have been built on flood plains.

Why higher then previously, often times, it is because the overflow areas up river that used to hold the water for a week or more no longer exist, they have been filled and have houses on them.

Just in my area, along the banks of the Hunter river, which is a dangerous river for flooding, there are dozens of houses which have been built right next to the river.

The Councils have allowed people to build flood island for their houses, they have created mounds up to 10m high and 100m long and there can be 6 or 8 in a row.

These have become a virtual levee bank preventing the water from spilling out over the farmlands as it has done so for centuries.

By changing the flow of the river and directing all of the water back into the river it will result in higher floods in Raymond Terrace.

When it does, someone will cry climate change, old hands will say "We told you so"


----------



## rederob (7 March 2022)

macca said:


> As you have told us repeatedly, one off events or even one season events are weather, not climate change.
> 
> Weather sites forecast La Nina and it arrived, so all good so far.
> 
> ...



You have missed the real point about the difference between weather and climate.  
Climate is a pattern of weather events and that pattern is near unequivocal.  
The planet is warming.  Warmer atmospheres contain more energy.  More energy leads to greater intensity of weather events.  This does not necessarily mean we will get more cyclones, for example, but it does mean that on average their intensity is greater over time.
Your anecdote is irrelevant to global climate.  Some parts of the globe have cooled in the past 100 years, and even some glaciers have grown in size.  But the overall pattern is the very opposite.


----------



## basilio (7 March 2022)

Macca you overlook the fact that the volume and intensity of rainfall has trashed all records. But on a practical basis flood insurance is almost  impossible in many areas.  On top of that the insurance costs of natural disasters (even when companies have not insured whole areas) is raising insurance premiums around the country.

This isn't going away.


----------



## macca (7 March 2022)

basilio said:


> Macca you overlook the fact that the volume and intensity of rainfall has trashed all records. But on a practical basis flood insurance is almost  impossible in many areas.  On top of that the insurance costs of natural disasters (even when companies have not insured whole areas) is raising insurance premiums around the country.
> 
> This isn't going away.




No one is suggesting that it is going away, as so often happens, activists have it back to front. 

People who suggest that it has all happened are in fact saying, we need to learn to live with it and stop being like chicken little every time an unusual weather event happens.

I find it intriguing as to why CC lovers have this blind belief that ALL weather extremes have conveniently happened within the past 200 years so that we have had the opportunity to write them all down.

Anything outside of that is seen as catastrophic, yet, the Elders of the Sydney tribes have said before, that when Macquarie was shown around Windsor after the big flood, he was warned that a much bigger flood happened when they were young.

They indicated that the flood was up to 5 metres above the present debris in the trees.

Everyone needs to accept the fact that  weather events are unpredictable, another example for you.

Brisbane Will get hit by a cyclone, when it does everyone will scream climate change, but in reality it did happen a few times before the white fellas got there.

I live quite a "green life" (not the Fake greens Party) but close to nature, it bugs me when I see all the litter that people toss into our parks and waterways.

It bugs me when people won't reuse, a lot of people recycle but that actually uses power to make the change, I mean reuse, as in a second hand item, so many useful things are thrown out in the Council clean ups. 

So I am doing my bit locally in the hope that it helps but then I see photos of all the junk flowing out of Asian countries as they happily pump out pollution and everyone gives them a free ride.

Maybe we should be targeting the pollution we can see coming out of rivers and fouling the air, no one can argue about that so "there it is, clean it up".

Not just western countries but every country, with penalties if they don't do it


----------



## rederob (7 March 2022)

macca said:


> No one is suggesting that it is going away, as so often happens, activists have it back to front.
> 
> People who suggest that it has all happened are in fact saying, we need to learn to live with it and stop being like chicken little every time an unusual weather event happens.
> 
> ...



You are writing from the perspective of a person who confuses the past with the future.
Our planet has been a lot hotter and a lot colder, and wetter and drier in the distant past.
Our future climate will be dominated by the gases that warm our planet, and that trend will continue for many decades to come, irrespective of even extreme climate mitigation strategies.
When, as you do, write your own narrative and have no demonstrated understanding of climate science, it's easy to think that your local situation is the same most places.  That's just not so.  Furthermore, no amount of recycling will save us from additional warming, nor will the admirable cause of preventing pollution.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 March 2022)

macca said:


> I find it intriguing as to why CC lovers have this blind belief that ALL weather extremes have conveniently happened within the past 200 years so that we have had the opportunity to write them all down



As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Is the climate changing? The available data says yes, it is changing.

Have we experienced all extremes of weather that would occur with an unchanged climate since accurate records began? Almost certainly no, bearing in mind that for many areas the period of accurate recordkeeping is rather short.

Does recycling help? Well that depends what you're recycling and how you're recycling it. What can be said though is that of itself it's nowhere near a total solution despite having some benefits as such (noting that depending on what's being recycled, the primary benefit isn't necessarily about the climate since there's also other benefits from it).

All of this comes down to detail. Take plastic for example. Depending on circumstances it's anywhere between pure evil and the best thing invented thus far. Totally depends on the detail - what sort of plastic and what's being done with it. From a human safety perspective well as an electrical insulator and moulded structural material it sure as hell beats asbestos. As a food for birds and fish though well it's pure evil. Detail.....


----------



## macca (10 March 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Is the climate changing? The available data says yes, it is changing.
> 
> ...




I have never doubted that the climate is changing, history shows it is always happening, no reason for it to ever stop.

If you go to Mungo NP you can see what it was like for thousands of years, what is now desert was a lush chain of lakes.

They say that the weather pattern that now blows along the Oz bight used to blow across Rockhampton, over the last 12000 years it has moved that far as the Earth warmed after the last big Ice Age.

With so many people on the planet we are always going to effect it, millions of people in India burn cow dung instead of turning on a light or hot plate.

Is it better to burn coal and make electricity or burn cow dung and timber ? We need to include the making of the posts and wires as well as the light bulbs and appliances when we discuss the pros and cons.

Adani are adamant that it is better to make electricity in their modern power plant than burn things which produce smoke.

Often the younger set, (15 to 35 years) are avid greens yet they happily throw out perfectly good clothes and devices so that they stay in fashion and to expect them to turn out a light after leaving a room is just nagging.

I like the slogan "think globally but act locally" but it does not appeal to everyone, we regularly pick up Maccas wrapping and empty cans and bottles from our footpath. 

We live about 5k from Maccas so not sure what happens in between, maybe it takes them that long to eat a burger


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 March 2022)

macca said:


> I like the slogan "think globally but act locally"



Same here.

The "issue" I've long had with mainstream environmental politics however is that it tends to do the exact opposite. Think extremely locally and completely ignore the global picture or even the national one.

As a case in point, the oil and gas industry in New Zealand where the government has a plan to cease production and shift to imports.

So that means more greenhouse gas emissions for gas liquefaction.

It means more emissions from shipping.

No impact on anything is actually avoided, just moved to the other side of the world in an ultimate act of NIMBY.

Plus sending money to the dominant oil and gas countries helps fund wars and atrocities.

A classic case of thinking locally and ignoring the rest of the planet completely. Makes sure thare aren't any spills washing up on NZ beaches, enables some virtue signalling that they stopped oil and gas production, meanwhile makes the situation worse at the global level. 

Far more effective would be to wind down the use of oil and gas in an orderly but timely manner but in the meantime making every possible effort to produce what's still being used domestically. Trouble is, that doesn't sue the political "optics" as they call it.


----------



## macca (11 March 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> Same here.
> 
> The "issue" I've long had with mainstream environmental politics however is that it tends to do the exact opposite. Think extremely locally and completely ignore the global picture or even the national one.
> 
> ...



When the industry already exists it seem silly to scrap it, a bit like the idiot in SA blowing up a good power station.

To deliberately cause the country to lose oil independence is rather foolish and very dangerous, as is being shown in Europe at present.

For NZ to go all EV and virtue signal their green power is rather hypocritical given they reshaped thousands of acres when creating their hydro system and lakes.

Personally, I strongly support hydro and even pumped hydro where suitable sites already exist so I am not against the creation of the scheme in NZ.

It is just the smugness of their woke attitude and the annoyed looks I get when I remind my family members that the whole thing is man made


----------



## basilio (14 March 2022)

macca said:


> I have never doubted that the climate is changing, history shows it is always happening, no reason for it to ever stop.
> 
> If you go to Mungo NP you can see what it was like for thousands of years, what is now desert was a lush chain of lakes.
> 
> ...



There's a pretty clear problem isn't there Macca ? You simply don't accept the scientific evidence  that the current steep increase in global temperatures is a direct result of massive human burning of fossil fuels boosting  atmospheric CO2 to levels we havn't seen for hundreds of thousands of years.

Everything else you have to say is just a meandering side step of reality. 








						Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
					

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## basilio (22 March 2022)

Temperatures at the Arctic and Antarctic  now showing extremes that couldn't have been considered only a decade ago.  

Antarctic and Arctic heat records have been smashed. What's going on?​ABC Science
 / 
By environment reporter Nick Kilvert
Posted 3h ago3 hours ago, updated 3h ago3 hours ago





 Parts of Antarctic recorded their warmest temperatures on record, and it was warm enough to rain on the coast.(Getty Images: Paul Souders)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article

Antarctic and Arctic temperature records were sent tumbling over the weekend.
Key points:​
An 'atmospheric river' drove warm, moist air down over Antarctica
It was warm enough to rain over parts of the Antarctic coast
Research will have to be done before we can scientifically conclude what role climate change played
*Parts of eastern Antarctica were reportedly around 40 degrees Celsius above average*, with Concordia weather station at 3,234 metres above sea level recording its highest ever temperature of -11.5 degrees Celsius, according to tweets from meteorologist Etienne Kapikian from France-Meteo.

The March temperature record at Antarctica's Vostok station was broken by almost 15C and the Terra Nova Base on the Antarctic coast hit +7C, according to tweets by extreme weather tracker Maximiliano Herrera.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the planet, *parts of the Arctic were reported to be experiencing extremes pushing 30C above the monthly average. Heat records were broken in Norway and extreme highs were recorded in Greenland.









						Temperatures hit 'unthinkable' highs at both of Earth's poles on the weekend. Climate scientists are trying to find out why
					

Temperature records have been sent tumbling simultaneously in parts of Antarctica and the Arctic. Here's what's happening.




					www.abc.net.au
				



*


----------



## sptrawler (22 March 2022)

Have you ordered the E.V yet @basilio ? Don't forget every little bit helps with climate change.


----------



## basilio (23 March 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Have you ordered the E.V yet @basilio ? Don't forget every little bit helps with climate change.



Not yet.  I just walk everywhere or use my electric bike.

Of course I recharge my bike via an indoors exercise bike connected to a generator /battery back.

I replace my worn out shoe leather from all the walking  with the tread from  old car tyres.

Of course if everything hits the fan I'll  have to seriously consider sharing a cave in the Nillabour with Wayne.  However we are still having discussions around my trans gender grand children as well as the gay and pan sexual children who will also need to escape from the coming climate apocalypse.

But hey it is all in hand..


----------



## basilio (23 March 2022)

What the conservative military establishment thinks about Global Heating.                  

             ASLCG Open Letter ​ 
*The first duty of government is to protect the people, but on climate–security risks, Australia is missing in action.*​ 
                    Download                    
 

An open letter to Australia’s political leaders​ 
As ex-Service members and experienced security practitioners who have witnessed up-close the devastation of war and crisis, we consider that climate change now represents the greatest threat to the future and security of Australians.

The first duty of government is the safety and protection of the people, but Australia has failed when it comes to climate change threats. Australia currently has no credible climate policy, leaving our nation unprepared for increasingly harsh impacts.

We call upon all those offering themselves as political leaders in this election year to make climate change a primary focus and commit to mobilising the resources necessary to address this clear and present danger.

Our Earth is already too hot and climate change is already dangerous. Fossil fuel emissions must be reduced to zero at emergency speed. The goal of net zero emissions by 2050 is wholly inadequate; decarbonisation must be reached as close to 2030 as possible. Accelerating renewables to secure energy resilience in a conflicted world is critical for Australia.

Climate change imperils the health, well-being and livelihoods of Australia’s people. Hotter and more extreme weather, floods, bushfires, cyclones and heatwaves, together with coastal inundation, are threatening water, transport, food and other critical infrastructure systems, disrupting supply chains and undermining our resilience as a nation.

The recent east coast floods and the Black Summer bushfires compelled major peacetime mobilisations of the Australian Defence Force, including Reserves, which is now increasingly being used to undertake climate-related humanitarian and disaster relief.
The Great Barrier Reef is at risk of collapse; likewise irrigated agriculture in the longer term in the Murray-Darling Basin system, which remains under severe stress.

Across our region, climate change is an existential threat to nations and communities, especially those vulnerable to sea-level rise. Globally, water and food crises exacerbated by climate change, along with population pressures, have resulted in escalating cycles of civil unrest and conflict. Inevitably, vulnerable people migrate from affected areas in increasing numbers.

Addressing this challenge requires global co-operation rather than conflict. While our allies are taking action, climate-security risks are not being properly assessed in Australia; we are ill-prepared, and failing in our responsibilities as a global citizen and strategic defence ally.
Climate must be made an immediate security priority, at the top of the national agenda, with a commitment for mobilisation and emergency action from all sides of politics.

Your Sincerely,



ADMIRAL CHRIS BARRIE AC​Former Chief, Australian Defence Force (Retd)
AIR VICE-MARSHAL JOHN BLACKBURN AO​Deputy Chief, Royal Australian Air Force (Retd)
*COLONEL NEIL GREET *​Australian Army (Retd)
AIR VICE-MARSHAL NEIL HART AM​Royal Air Force (Retd)
VICE ADMIRAL PAUL MADDISON​Royal Australian Navy (Retd)
GROUP CAPTAIN ANNE BORZYCKI​Royal Australian Air Force (Retd)
LIEUTENANT COLONEL DECHLAN ELLIS​Australian Army (Retd)
COMMODORE VINCENZO DI PIETRO AM,CSC​Royal Australian Navy (Retd)
*CAPTAIN PADDY HODGMAN*​Royal Australian Navy (Retd)
*COLONEL JOHN BLAXLAND*​Australian Army (Retd)


COMMODORE DREW MCKINNIE​Royal Australian Navy (Retd)
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER STEVE COLE​Royal Australian Navy (Retd)
MAJOR MICHAEL THOMAS​Australian Army (Retd)
CHERYL DURRANT​Former Director of Preparedness and Mobilisation, Australian Department of Defence
*JASON BROWN*​Former Assistant Secretary, Defence Security
*DR PETER LAYTON*​Associate Fellow Royal United Services Institute
DR ALBERT PALAZZO​Former Director of War Studies, Australian Army
IAN DUNLOP​Former Chair, Australian Coal Association








						ASLCG Open Letter - Australian Security Leaders Climate Group
					






					www.aslcg.org


----------



## wayneL (23 March 2022)

basilio said:


> Not yet.  I just walk everywhere or use my electric bike.
> 
> Of course I recharge my bike via an indoors exercise bike connected to a generator /battery back.
> 
> ...



Bring Guinness and all will be good


----------



## sptrawler (23 March 2022)

basilio said:


> What the conservative military establishment thinks about Global Heating.
> 
> ASLCG Open Letter ​
> *The first duty of government is to protect the people, but on climate–security risks, Australia is missing in action.*​
> ...



It's o.k, it's getting fixed next term of Government.  That's 1.2% of global emissions Australia produces fixed, now for the other 98.8%.  🥳


----------



## basilio (23 March 2022)

wayneL said:


> Bring Guinness and all will be good



Over 60 and still think beer/Guinness googles will solve everything..

That is stout thinking indeed..

I thought the SMP mantra only applied to young bucks  who couldn't pull a bird unless  both of them were half sozzled.  But it takes all sorts I suppose.


----------



## wayneL (23 March 2022)

basilio said:


> Over 60 and still think beer/Guinness googles will solve everything..
> 
> That is stout thinking indeed..
> 
> I thought the SMP mantra only applied to young bucks  who couldn't pull a bird unless  both of them were half sozzled.  But it takes all sorts I suppose.



Beer "googles"? Jeez I am old fashioned.

Anyhow, if Guinness is a little too lowbrow, a few bottles of Grange will suffice, if you're paying


----------



## basilio (8 April 2022)

Some posters may have heard of Climate Change Tipping points.  But what does that mean ? What are the situations that would irrevocably create  runway global heating that no amount of tree planting/ electric cars/ renewable energy can fix?

This is a clear well written analysis. Well worth checking out.

Climate Tipping Points​The 8 climate tipping points we could reach this century.





This is what climate tipping points will do to Florida by 2050 as sea levels rise. Image: ClimateCentral.org
Abrupt Collapse of Climate System​The phrase “climate tipping point” describes how parts of Earth’s climate system could abruptly collapse and trigger an irreversible sequence of warming.

The example most commonly used to illustrate how a climate tipping point works, is a tall tower of bricks. Removing bricks from various locations in the lower part of the tower will gradually weaken its stability. But there comes a point when the removal of just one more brick will send the tower crashing to the ground.

Often, it takes time for the effects of the tip-over to become visible. So it’s possible we may have breached one or more of these critical thresholds without realizing it. As we shall see, an example of this may be the ocean, which takes time to respond to climatic variations.

In This Article​
Abrupt Collapse of Climate System
What’s the Biggest Problem About Climate Tipping Points?
Who First Coined the Term Climate Tipping Points?
What Does the IPCC Say About Climate Tipping Points?
8 Major Climate Tipping Points
1. Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
2. Drying Out of the Amazon Rainforest
3. Slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
4. Thawing of Northern Permafrost
5. Collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet
6. Ecological Shifts in the Northern Boreal Forests
7. Loss of Tropical Coral Reefs
8. Hothouse Earth: A Cascade of Climate Tipping Points
References


----------



## basilio (25 April 2022)

The IPCC released the third part of it's latest Climate report.  For the first time they delved into just how the world could reduce GG emissions at a pace that would mitigate the worst effects of global heating. If we continue the way we are going the world will heat at least 3C  within 30 years with catastrophic effects for everyone.

This analysis goes to the bottom line solutions. If we choose to do them.


----------



## basilio (25 April 2022)

Found another analysis of Climate Change tipping points. 









						Explainer: Nine ‘tipping points’ that could be triggered by climate change - Carbon Brief
					

Tipping points are thresholds where a tiny change could push a system into a completely new state.




					www.carbonbrief.org


----------



## basilio (29 April 2022)

What could 2050 look like around global heating ? It certainly won't be "normal."






						There’s No Scenario in Which 2050 Is ‘Normal’
					

Earlier this month, the United Nations-led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the latest volume of its current "synthesis report,"




					smartagain.org


----------



## rederob (30 April 2022)

sptrawler said:


> It's o.k, it's getting fixed next term of Government.  That's 1.2% of global emissions Australia produces fixed, now for the other 98.8%.  🥳



We certainly punch above our weight. 
With 0.3% of the global population we knock out 1.2% of global CO2 emissions!
Onya Scomo.  I had no idea how good a job you have been doing.


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2022)

rederob said:


> We certainly punch above our weight.
> With 0.003% of the global population we knock out 1.2% of global CO2 emissions!
> Onya Scomo.  I had no idea how good a job you have been doing.



Yes and if he had stopped the bushfires, that would have helped, what the hell is he up to, lucky the rest of us are doing our bit. 🤣
If we ran the World Rob, the problems would be solved tomorrow avo, over a shiraz, cheese and biscuits.


----------



## rederob (30 April 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Yes and if he had stopped the bushfires, that would have helped, what the hell is he up to, lucky the rest of us are doing our bit. 🤣
> If we ran the World Rob, the problems would be solved tomorrow avo, over a shiraz, cheese and biscuits.



What are we waiting for?
A better bottle of red?

(ps - I did my usual mistake with decimal places as fractions are not percentages!)


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2022)

Using the oceans to capture atmospheric CO2


----------



## basilio (2 May 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Using the oceans to capture atmospheric CO2





As usual very interesting and thought provoking.

It is one of a myriad of possible and necessary options to drastically tackle GG emissions before global warming destroys our current ecosystems.

Unfortunately our current economic systems aren't capable of recognising that the end of our current eco system is a truly bad event.


----------



## basilio (7 May 2022)

India and Pakistan are currently sweltering in extreme heat wave conditions.
What is really sad however is that closing down coal fired power stations and moving to solar/wind power will increase temperatures. 


*A climate scientist on India and Pakistan’s horror heatwave, and the surprising consequences of better air quality         *​ 
     Published: May 6, 2022 1.57pm AEST

Author​ 







	

		
			
		

		
	
         Andrew King               
Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne
 
Disclosure statement​ 
Andrew King receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program. 
​The record-shattering heatwave that engulfed most of India and Pakistan through March and April brought temperatures exceeding 45℃ in many areas, leading to critical electricity and water shortages.

Indeed, the maximum temperatures forecast for Delhi, India, will continue to reach over 40℃ for several days. The severe heat has strained healthcare systems across both nations, which are already stretched due to the continuing high numbers of COVID cases.

Temperatures overall have eased back to near-average in the last few days, but unfortunately as the planet continues to warm, such extreme heat will become more commonplace.

This is particularly dire for India and Pakistan, as steps to improve air quality is an added factor that will actually _increase_ temperatures during heatwaves. Let’s take a closer look at why this heatwave is exceptional, and what the future may hold for the region.









						A climate scientist on India and Pakistan's horror heatwave, and the surprising consequences of better air quality
					

This long, uncharacteristically early heatwave has hit hundreds of millions of people in one of the world’s most densely populated and vulnerable regions.




					theconversation.com


----------



## basilio (7 May 2022)

How are behind India is Australia ?
​*Seriously ugly: here’s how Australia will look if the world heats by 3°C this century          *​ 
     Published: March 31, 2021 5.56am AEDT   

Authors​ 






	

		
			
		

		
	
         Ove Hoegh-Guldberg              
     Professor, The University of Queensland   





	

		
			
		

		
	
         Lesley Hughes              
     Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University   
 
Disclosure statement​ 
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg receives research funding from the Australian Research Council, the UNEP and WWF. HIs salary is paid for by the University of Queensland.

Lesley Hughes has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Councillor with the Climate Council of Australia, a Director of WWF-Australia, a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, and a member of the Climate Targets Panel.

Imagine, for a moment, a different kind of Australia. One where bushfires on the catastrophic scale of Black Summer happen almost every year. One where 50℃ days in Sydney and Melbourne are common. Where storms and flooding have violently reshaped our coastlines, and unique ecosystems have been damaged beyond recognition – including the Great Barrier Reef, which no longer exists.

Frighteningly, this is not an imaginary future dystopia. It’s a scientific projection of Australia under 3℃ of global warming – a future we must both strenuously try to avoid, but also prepare for.

The sum of current commitments under the Paris climate accord puts Earth on track for 3℃ of warming this century. Research released today by the Australian Academy of Science explores this scenario in detail.

The report, which we co-authored with colleagues, lays out the potential damage to Australia. Unless the world changes course and dramatically curbs greenhouse gas emissions, this is how bad it could get.









						Seriously ugly: here's how Australia will look if the world heats by 3°C this century
					

This is not an imaginary future dystopia. It’s a scientific projection of Australia under 3℃ of global warming – a future we must both strenuously try to avoid, but also prepare for.




					theconversation.com


----------



## wayneL (17 May 2022)

Not strictly to do with climate change (and after all this time my opinion has not changed a job on that), but this is something I've been going on about for months and months and not one greeny is picking it up as an issue.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2022)

wayneL said:


> Not strictly to do with climate change (and after all this time my opinion has not changed a job on that), but this is something I've been going on about for months and months and not one greeny is picking it up as an issue.




The wife and I ride around the place on push bikes and there are discarded masks everywhere.


----------



## basilio (18 May 2022)

wayneL said:


> Not strictly to do with climate change (and after all this time my opinion has not changed a job on that), but this is something I've been going on about for months and months and not one greeny is picking it up as an issue.




Absolutely nothing to with CC. Just another distraction.  
Often used by COVID deniers to point out how *disastrous for the environment *all these used masks are.

I reckon the next line from the usual suspects  will be counting up the many millions of RAT tests used with all the plastic waste they generate as the next distraction.

In the meantime of course, not a peep about how runway human caused global warming is destroying the habitability of our planet as we are watching.









						How climate change plunders the planet
					

A warming Earth disturbs weather, people, animals and much more. Here, we explore three critical effects of climate change.




					www.edf.org


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2022)

Yep, plastic waste is a complete non-issue. Absolutely zero effect on the environment whatsoever. Governments (usually leftist) have been absolutely wrong, and it has been absolutely unnecessary to try to reduce single use plastics.

Furthermore, anybody with any concerns, whatsoever, with plastics on the environment are surely antivaxxers and covid deniers... Probably racists, transphobes and Nazis too.

There should be immediate legislation introduced to prosecute plastiphobes indulging in plastic hate speech.

Absurdity reigns.


----------



## basilio (18 May 2022)

wayneL said:


> Yep, plastic waste is a complete non-issue. Absolutely zero effect on the environment whatsoever. Governments (usually leftist) have been absolutely wrong, and it has been absolutely unnecessary to try to reduce single use plastics.
> 
> Furthermore, anybody with any concerns, whatsoever, with plastics on the environment are surely antivaxxers and covid deniers... Probably racists, transphobes and Nazis too.
> 
> ...



Drop off the nearest cliff Wayne. Shouldn't be hard becasue you are marching purposefully to the edge. 

*Plastics are an environmental disaster.  *Dealing with the myriad issues around plastic waste  and it's infiltration into the ecosystem  and all creatures  is a critical issue.  I'm sure I have brought it up in other threads.

However choosing to focus on masks as a symbol of this disaster on this thread is just a  diversion.  And as I  said previously* it's a diversion used largely by people trying deflect action against the spread of COVID .*

There are   tens of thousands of single use plastic products that would warrant special attention. Bottled water immediately comes to mind. But this thread is *about the issue of Global Warming becoming unstoppable and the impacts this is having on everything around us. *Can we stay on the subject ?


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2022)

basilio said:


> Drop off the nearest cliff Wayne. Shouldn't be hard becasue you are marching purposefully to the edge.
> 
> *Plastics are an environmental disaster.  *Dealing with the myriad issues around plastic waste  and it's infiltration into the ecosystem  and all creatures  is a critical issue.  I'm sure I have brought it up in other threads.
> 
> ...



Cool.

I'm glad we can agree on the issue of plastics finally, despite divergence on climate change.

It is a shame that such is framed by the acrimony you introduced. You could have just said, yep I agree with you on the plastics issue (which polyester masks etc have become a huge part of).

But no, you just had to be a total c&$#.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2022)

Here you go Baz, from one of your own leftist sh1trags:









						Coronavirus face masks: an environmental disaster that might last generations
					

As face marks and coverings become compulsory worldwide, littering and their potential impact on the environment increases.




					theconversation.com
				




And then there is the issue of microplastics in human lungs.

These issues are far too political for you, to be able to have any sort of objective opinion.

Now, about that cliff...


----------



## basilio (18 May 2022)

Lets change the tone of this thread. Just for a minute

Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?​Many people just refuse to accept the facts that surround them, even if we saw 100 more years of it plain and apparent




There’s no such thing as climate change, Northampton has always looked like this. Photograph: Alamy

Dean Burnett

@garwboy
Tue 25 Nov 2014 09.17 GMTFirst published on Tue 25 Nov 2014 07.13 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/science...h-how-much-more-evidence-do-you-need#comments
363
Climate change is a myth. We all know this, deep down. Some of you reading this may have been taken in by the fear-mongering governments or corrupt scientists so have been brainwashed into thinking climate change is a real thing that “threatens all of humanity” or some other nonsense, but it’s just that: nonsense. When you look closely at it, the so-called evidence for climate change, or “global warming” or “warmageddon” or “planetary death spiral” or whatever they’re calling it these days, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.









						Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need? | Dean Burnett
					

Dean Burnett: Many people just refuse to accept the facts that surround them, even if we saw 100 more years of it plain and apparent




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2022)

basilio said:


> Lets change the tone of this thread. Just for a minute
> 
> Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?​Many people just refuse to accept the facts that surround them, even if we saw 100 more years of it plain and apparent
> View attachment 141836
> ...



You may want review many pronouncements I have made on this topic, instead of once again, being a total ****.

Just so I don't have to do it all over again for the hundredth time.


----------



## basilio (18 May 2022)

Critical climate indicators broke records in 2021, says UN​World Meteorological Organization says extreme weather wreaked heavy toll on human lives




People wade across a street after heavy rains that caused flooding killed at least 33 people in Henan province, China, in July 2021. Photograph: Noel Celis/AFP/Getty Images

Damian Carrington Environment editor

@dpcarrington
Wed 18 May 2022 09.00 BSTLast modified on Wed 18 May 2022 09.09 BST


Critical global indicators of the climate crisis broke records in 2021, according to a UN report, from rising oceans to the levels of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere.

The UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said these were clear signs of humanity’s impact on the planet, which was bringing long-lasting effects. Extreme weather, which the WMO called the day-to-day face of the climate emergency, wreaked a heavy toll on human lives and led to hundreds of billions of dollars in damages, the agency said.

*Droughts and floods triggered food price rises that have been exacerbated in 2022. The WMO’s State of the Global Climate in 2021 report also found the past seven years have been the hottest recorded.*

“Today’s State of the Climate report is a dismal litany of humanity’s failure to tackle climate disruption. Fossil fuels are a dead end – environmentally and economically,” said António Guterres, the secretary general of the UN.

“The only sustainable future is a renewable one. The good news is that the lifeline is right in front of us. Wind and solar are readily available and, in most cases, cheaper than coal and other fossil fuels. If we act together, the renewable energy transformation can be the peace project of the 21st century.”

*Prof Petteri Taalas, the WMO secretary general, said: “Our climate is changing before our eyes. Human-induced greenhouse gases will warm the planet for many generations to come. Some glaciers have reached the point of no return and this will have long-term repercussions in a world in which more than 2 billion people already experience water stress.*

“Extreme weather has the most immediate impact on our daily lives,” he said. “We are seeing a drought emergency unfolding in the Horn of Africa, recent deadly flooding in South Africa and the extreme heat in India and Pakistan. Early warning systems are critically required [to save lives] yet these are only available in less than half of WMO’s 187 member nations.”



Extreme heat in oceans ‘passed point of no return’ in 2014
Read more
The world’s oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases and 2021 set a record. The increasing warmth in the ocean, which is irreversible over timescales of centuries to millennia, has been especially strong in the last 20 years. Much of the ocean experienced at least one strong marine heatwave in 2021, the WMO said.

*The global sea level also reached a new record high in 2021. It has increased by 10cm since 1993 and the rise is accelerating, driven by the melting of ice sheets and glaciers and the thermal expansion of the ocean. The rise imperils hundreds of millions of coastal dwellers, the WMO said, and increases the damage caused by hurricanes and cyclones.*

Almost a quarter of CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans, but this causes them to become more acidic. This threatens shell-forming wildlife and corals and therefore food security, tourism and coastal protection, the WMO said. The oceans are now more acidic than for at least 26,000 years.

CO2 and methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are at record levels, with CO2 concentration 50% higher than before the Industrial Revolution sparked the mass burning of fossil fuels. The global temperature in 2021 was 1.1C above the pre-industrial average, moving closer towards the 1.5C limit agreed by the world’s nations to avoid the worst climate impacts.

*The WMO noted exceptional heatwaves in 2021 in western North America and the Mediterranean, deadly flooding in Henan, China, and western Europe, and rain being recorded for the first time on the summit of Greenland’s ice sheet.* The agency warned eastern Africa is facing a high risk of rains failing for a fourth consecutive season, meaning the worst drought in 40 years.

Prof James Hansen, who warned the world about the climate crisis in testimony to the US Senate in 1988, said this week there was “a spectacular, continuing failure of governments to adopt effective long-term energy and climate policies.

“We must all be aware that demands for effective policies will yield only superficial change as long as the role of special interests in government remains unaddressed.”

Last week, the Guardian revealed that 195 oil and gas “carbon bombs” were planned by the industry, ie projects each producing at least a billion tonnes of CO2. These carbon bombs alone would drive global heating beyond the 1.5C limit, but the dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend $103m a day to 2030 on climate-busting schemes.









						Critical climate indicators broke records in 2021, says UN
					

World Meteorological Organization says extreme weather wreaked heavy toll on human lives




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2022)

basilio said:


> Absolutely nothing to with CC. Just another distraction.
> Often used by COVID deniers to point out how *disastrous for the environment *all these used masks are.
> 
> I reckon the next line from the usual suspects  will be counting up the many millions of RAT tests used with all the plastic waste they generate as the next distraction.
> ...



Hey Bas, you ever thought of starting your own thread, or a blog, the doom and gloom or maybe the end is near, or world is about to end thread. I mean really there is an election on we dont have time for all this other crap, can it wait?


----------



## basilio (19 May 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Hey Bas, you ever thought of starting your own thread, or a blog, the doom and gloom or maybe the end is near, or world is about to end thread. I mean really there is an election on we dont have time for all this other crap, can it wait?



Indeed

One wouldn't want to talk about anything like that at an election time would we? Far too much of a downer.
And as you point out both Liberal and Labour have been running dead on on CC.  Certainly no one wants to spoil the party.

By and large I haven't been posting "end of the world" stories but rather trying to look at constructive solutions to a really big and really serious problem. And it will be a  catastrophic issue if we continue on the path we are currently taking. 

I got a bee in my bonnet with Wayne's efforts at  trying to divert the thread. It was just another part of the repertoire of climate deniers/delayers/don't look up brigade. That is why I called him out. And that is why I then chose to highlight in full what we are facing if we collectively don't make huge changes across a score of situations that might slow down global heating.


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2022)

basilio said:


> Indeed
> 
> One wouldn't want to talk about anything like that at an election time would we? Far too much of a downer.
> And as you point out both Liberal and Labour have been running dead on on CC.  Certainly no one wants to spoil the party.
> ...



LMAO!

You're tilting at windmills there, Mr Quixote.


----------



## basilio (20 May 2022)

Stanford Gets $1B for Climate Change School From John Doerr​*Stanford University will launch a new school focusing on climate change thanks to a $1.1 billion gift from billionaire venture capitalist John Doerr and his wife, Ann, the university announced Tuesday.*

NEW YORK (AP) — Stanford University will launch a new school focusing on climate change thanks to a $1.1 billion gift from billionaire venture capitalist John Doerr and his wife, Ann, the university announced Tuesday.

The gift, one of the largest single donations to an American institute of higher education, will open the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability this fall. The school combines several existing Stanford departments and institutes and will hire dozens of new faculty members over a decade, as well as establish an accelerator to provide grants for new projects.

“We have designed a school for the future combining knowledge generation and impact, building on the strong foundation established through Stanford’s history of scholarship,” said Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, in a statement.

Stanford engaged in a years long process to define a vision for a new school focused on climate change. The Doerrs connected with Stanford after learning about the new school, university spokesperson Mara Vandlik said in an email.

One of Silicon Valley's most prominent investors, John Doerr is chairman of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, where he has worked since 1980, successfully advocating for early investment in technology companies like Google, Amazon and Slack. He has authored a book 
published last year "Speed & Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now," that outlines technology and policy priorities for attaining a livable future. Ann Doerr is the board chair of the online education provider Khan Academy, as well as an advisory trustee and former board member of the Environmental Defense Fund.



			https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-05-04/stanford-gets-1b-for-climate-change-school-from-john-doerr


----------



## basilio (5 June 2022)

Came across this essay on how some leaders in the climate movement are now thinking. 

_For those able to feel the meaning of the news, the message of the sixth IPCC assessment report from August 2021 was harrowing. Our best climate scientists said the harm humans have done to our habitat is ‘unequivocal’ and ‘unprecedented’. We are already too late in some ways, and still too slow in others, which is why Rupert Read’s emphasis on ‘transformative adaptation’ in this essay is such an important shift of perspective. *Paradoxically it is only by preparing for what can no longer be prevented that we might yet avoid something even worse.









						What next on climate? The need for a new moderate flank - [ Perspectiva ]
					

The moderate flank can be a force in party politics; and this offers hope.




					systems-souls-society.com
				



*_


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 June 2022)

basilio said:


> Came across this essay on how some leaders in the climate movement are now thinking.
> 
> _For those able to feel the meaning of the news, the message of the sixth IPCC assessment report from August 2021 was harrowing. Our best climate scientists said the harm humans have done to our habitat is ‘unequivocal’ and ‘unprecedented’. We are already too late in some ways, and still too slow in others, which is why Rupert Read’s emphasis on ‘transformative adaptation’ in this essay is such an important shift of perspective. *Paradoxically it is only by preparing for what can no longer be prevented that we might yet avoid something even worse.
> 
> ...



I don't like saying this. 

Global Warming to a catastrophic degree is unstoppable. 

War, Plague, Pestilence and Famine prevent any reasonable international consensus on addressing it. 

gg


----------



## basilio (5 June 2022)

When I started this thread I already felt aware that  substantial Climate Change was going to happen regardless of anything we did.  The momentum we had created was not going to be stopped. If we were very, very fortunate we might arrive at  a  messy, disastrous, survival situation. I concur with GG's view.

The above analysis and the one I'm posting now expand on that POV.

Rupert Read and Wolfgang Knorr

This is not an 'Emergency'... It's Much More Serious Than That​​*The real climate emergency is that we don’t treat the climate crisis as an emergency because we feel no emergency. Call this ‘the meta-emergency’.*​
The mantra of ‘Climate Emergency!’ has been a central feature of the exhilarating and deeply necessary climate-movement that has swept the world since 2018. In this essay, we ask uncomfortable questions: *What if climate is not an emergency, but something much more difficult? *Worse: What if the drive towards declaration of emergency is just another form of immunity to deep change, in disguise? Then, the only significant practical value of declarations of emergencies by institutions would be that the language can be mirrored back to them by activists trying to hold them to account for the next step. The question we are asking is whether that advantage outweighs the significant downside that we explore below.

*Our contention is that the emergency frame is actually too optimistic. It’s a form of denial about the width, depth, and tragic nature of the crisis. We connect this briefly with the contemporary fetish for net zero carbon declarations. Both, ultimately, for all their attractions and even successes, are forms of simplistic wishful thinking.









						This is not an 'Emergency'... It's Much More Serious Than That - Emerge
					

The real climate emergency is that we don’t treat the climate crisis as an emergency because we feel no emergency. Call this ‘the meta-emergency’.




					www.whatisemerging.com
				



*


----------



## basilio (7 June 2022)

*Where do we stand if La Nina ends up as the default climate position for Australia ?*

A recent research paper has identified that the Atlantic conveyor belt current is slowing as a result of the huge inflow of fresh meltwater from the Arctic.  Has big implications world wide.


*A huge Atlantic ocean current is slowing down. If it collapses, La Niña could become the norm for Australia   *​ 
     Published: June 7, 2022 6.02am AEST

Authors​ 







	

		
			
		

		
	
         Matthew England               
Scientia Professor and Deputy Director of the ARC Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science (ACEAS), UNSW Sydney





	

		
			
		

		
	
         Andréa S. Taschetto               
Associate Professor, UNSW Sydney





	

		
			
		

		
	
         Bryam Orihuela-Pinto               
PhD Candidate, UNSW Sydney
 
Disclosure statement​ 
Matthew England receives funding from the Australian Research Council.  Matthew is a Chief Investigator and Deputy Director of the ARC Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science.

Andréa S. Taschetto receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Andréa is a Chief Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes and is affiliated with the Australian Government's National Environmental Science Program.

Bryam Orihuela-Pinto received a scholarship from the University of New South Wales.

Print

Climate change is slowing down the conveyor belt of ocean currents that brings warm water from the tropics up to the North Atlantic. Our research, published today in Nature Climate Change, looks at the profound consequences to global climate if this Atlantic conveyor collapses entirely.

We found the collapse of this system – called the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation – would shift the Earth’s climate to a more La Niña-like state.  This would mean more flooding rains over eastern Australia and worse droughts and bushfire seasons over southwest United States.

East-coast Australians know what unrelenting La Niña feels like. Climate change has loaded our atmosphere with moister air, while two summers of La Niña warmed the ocean north of Australia. Both contributed to some of the wettest conditions ever experienced, with record-breaking floods in New South Wales and Queensland.

Meanwhile, over the southwest of North America, a record drought and severe bushfires have put a huge strain on emergency services and agriculture, with the 2021 fires alone estimated to have cost at least US$70 billion.









						A huge Atlantic ocean current is slowing down. If it collapses, La Niña could become the norm for Australia
					

The collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation would profoundly alter the anatomy of the world’s oceans. New research explores the consequences.




					theconversation.com
				



​


----------



## sptrawler (15 June 2022)

The oil giants, starting to edge their bets.








						BP backs giant $44b green hydrogen project in country’s north-west
					

One of the energy supermajors taking control is a game-changer for what promises to be one of the world’s largest renewable and green hydrogen energy hubs.




					www.watoday.com.au
				



The credibility of much-hyped green hydrogen has been boosted by BP taking a 40.5 per cent stake in a vast project between Port Hedland and Broome in the north of Western Australia.

BP has bought a 40.5 per cent stake in the Asian Renewable Energy Hub and will take control of the $US30 billion ($43.6 billion) project, designed to produce 1.6 million tonnes of green hydrogen a year from water.






AREH will be powered by about 1700 wind turbines and 25 million solar panels progressively installed over a decade, according to a project presentation in 2021.
The green hydrogen will either be exported as is, or combined with nitrogen from the air to make 9 million tonnes a year of ammonia, which is more easily transported.

BP executive vice president for gas and low carbon energy Anja-Isabel Dotzenrath said AREH will be one of the largest renewable and green hydrogen energy hubs in the world.
“It also reflects our belief that Australia has the potential to be a powerhouse in the global energy transition, benefiting from both its existing infrastructure and abundant renewable energy resources,” she said.
Dotzenrath said AREH was a cornerstone project in the British company’s quest to capture 10 per cent of the future global hydrogen market.
Green hydrogen is expected to be used as a fuel to decarbonise industries that cannot easily be switched to electricity from renewable energy, including shipping and steelmaking. The clean product could also replace existing highly polluting hydrogen and ammonia made from gas, and used to make explosives and fertilisers.
BP will operate the project on behalf of the other owners InterContinental Energy (26.4 per cent), CWP Global (17.8 per cent) and Macquarie Capital and Macquarie’s Green Investment Group (15.3 per cent).


----------



## sptrawler (20 June 2022)

U.K and Germany ponder their commitment to shutdown coal, as the fuel crisis continues.
https://www.mining.com/web/war-derails-plan-to-ditch-coal-after-uk-championed-global-cuts/

Efforts to get rid of dirty power are being slowed as the war hits European economies, with soaring gas and electricity prices stoking inflation and raising the spectre of recession. While peers such as Germany are also rethinking coal ahead of this winter, the change of tack by the UK in particular highlights how energy security has turned into the top political priority in such a short time for a government that was so zealous at COP26.

UK gas prices were up almost 50% last week alone. While the country only imports 4% of its gas from Russia, the market is exposed to prices in Europe where cuts to flows along a key pipeline are driving huge spikes in costs. Even environmentalists concede that higher emissions in the short term may be the cost of reducing reliance on Russian fuels in the longer term.

“We have bigger problems to worry about,” said Dave Jones, a global electricity analyst at London-based climate think tank Ember. “The government is taking some decisions — like keeping a coal power plant open — that, to some people, look like a softening on fossil fuels. To me, it looks like a rational short-term decision to help keep the lights on.”

The commitment remains to end coal generation by 2024 and boost renewable sources such as wind and nuclear energy. Coal emits almost twice as much carbon as burning natural gas. The issue now, though, is timing. Operations are being extended at least at one station that would otherwise have closed. Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has described the measure as a “sensible, precautionary step.”









						Germany is taking steps to bolster gas supplies, Habeck says
					

The German government is preparing to fire up more coal plants to keep the use of gas at a minimum.




					www.mining.com


----------



## basilio (5 July 2022)

The science on how Methane is responding  to global warming is grim. 

Methane much more sensitive to global heating than previously thought – study​Greenhouse gas has undergone rapid acceleration and scientists say it may be due to atmospheric changes




Wildfires behind Los Angeles in 2016. An increase in wildfires may have pumped more carbon monoxide into the atmosphere and altered the chemical balance. Photograph: Ringo HW Chiu/AP

Kate Ravilious

@katerav
Tue 5 Jul 2022 06.00 BST



Methane is four times more sensitive to global warming than previously thought, a new study shows. The result helps to explain the rapid growth in methane in recent years and suggests that, if left unchecked, methane related warming will escalate in the decades to come.

The growth of this greenhouse gas – which over a 20 year timespan is more than 80 times as potent than carbon dioxide – had been slowing since the turn of the millennium but since 2007 has undergone a rapid rise, with measurements from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recording it passing 1,900 parts a billion last year, nearly triple pre-industrial levels.

“What has been particularly puzzling has been the fact that methane emissions have been increasing at even greater rates in the last two years, despite the global pandemic, when anthropogenic sources were assumed to be less significant,” said Simon Redfern, an earth scientist at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

About 40% of methane emissions come from natural sources such as wetlands, while 60% come from anthropogenic sources such as cattle farming, fossil fuel extraction and landfill sites. Possible explanations for the rise in methane emissions range from expanding exploration of oil and natural gas, rising emissions from agriculture and landfill, and rising natural emissions as tropical wetlands warm and Arctic tundra melts.

But another explanation could be a slowdown of the chemical reaction that removes methane from the atmosphere. The predominant way in which methane is “mopped up” is via reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH) in the atmosphere.

“The hydroxyl radical has been termed the ‘detergent’ of the atmosphere because it works to cleanse the atmosphere of harmful trace gases,” said Redfern. But hydroxyl radicals also react with carbon monoxide, and an increase in wildfires may have pumped more carbon monoxide into the atmosphere and altered the chemical balance. “On average, a carbon monoxide molecule remains in the atmosphere for about three months before it’s attacked by a hydroxyl radical, while methane persists for about a decade. So wildfires have a swift impact on using up the hydroxyl ‘detergent’ and reduce the methane removal,” said Redfern









						Methane much more sensitive to global heating than previously thought – study
					

Greenhouse gas has undergone rapid acceleration and scientists say it may be due to atmospheric changes




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## basilio (17 July 2022)

Extreme heat waves are now hitting Europe, China and the US. The consequences are wild fires that are destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of land and housing and infrastructure, thousands of people dying from heat stress and drought undermining the stability of many regions.

Global warming is here.  *However we have still only reached about 1.1 C global temperature increase. *What  impact will a 2-3C increase in global temperature have on the liveability of our cities ?





__





						World of Change: Global Temperatures
					

The average global temperature has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975.




					earthobservatory.nasa.gov
				











						Extreme heat around the world in videos, photos and graphics
					

From wildfires to glacier collapses, a flurry of extreme heat events have led to deaths and disrupted lives since the start of the month




					www.theguardian.com
				











						Thousands evacuated as wildfires sweep across western Europe
					

People ordered to leave homes in France and on Costa del Sol while Portugal says heatwave has killed 238 so far




					www.theguardian.com
				











						UK declares national emergency: Red ‘extreme heat’ warning issued
					

A red ‘extreme heat’ warning has been issued for parts of UK with temperatures expected to soar to record levels next week, with a top of 40C forecast in London on Tuesday.




					www.skynews.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (17 July 2022)

basilio said:


> Extreme heat waves are now hitting Europe, China and the US. The consequences are wild fires that are destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of land and housing and infrastructure, thousands of people dying from heat stress and drought undermining the stability of many regions.
> 
> Global warming is here.  *However we have still only reached about 1.1 C global temperature increase. *What  impact will a 2-3C increase in global temperature have on the liveability of our cities ?
> 
> ...



As I've said on numerous occasions Bas, global warming is unstoppable, because when humans find a way to mitigate their thermal footprint, they will find new ways off increasing it to take up the slack they have made by their reductions.
We will find new technologies that use more power consumption to run, like we have moved on from DVD's to streaming, which uses heaps more power, we are making bitcoins that use heaps more power, we have gone from one T.V per house to probably 5 and 3 P.C's and two tablets and four mobile phones.
Eventually we will become extinct and it will all start again. 😂


----------



## JohnDe (19 July 2022)

> *Live updates: Tanya Plibersek delivers State of the Environment address following 'shocking' climate report*
> 
> Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek will address the National Press Club following a five-yearly report into Australia's climate, which she has described as "shocking."












						Live: Tanya Plibersek says the government will protect 30 per cent of land and oceans by 2030
					

The Environment Minister will address the National Press Club following a five-yearly report into Australia's climate, which she has described as "shocking." Follow live.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2022)

sptrawler said:


> As I've said on numerous occasions Bas, global warming is unstoppable, because when humans find a way to mitigate their thermal footprint, they will find new ways off increasing it to take up the slack they have made by their reductions.
> We will find new technologies that use more power consumption to run, like we have moved on from DVD's to streaming, which uses heaps more power, we are making bitcoins that use heaps more power, we have gone from one T.V per house to probably 5 and 3 P.C's and two tablets and four mobile phones.
> Eventually we will become extinct and it will all start again. 😂




I think the worst aspect to it is that the biggest populated countries , India and China will aspire to the same standard of living as we in the West enjoy, and they won't be keen on being told that they can't have the same standard of living as the West.

They will expect us to cut back while they plough ahead with ever increasing consumption.

Inevitably that will lead to a worse situation.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2022)

I've listed the different pillars of climate change denial tropes.

The last is we can't do anything about it because ..... so we shouldn't try.
...and anyone, especially young people who say we need to act as we are going to have to live this are called suitable names such as....hysterical, suffering cognitive dissonance, ... anything else that helps justify no action.

Anyway temperature record smashed on London.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> I think the worst aspect to it is that the biggest populated countries , India and China will aspire to the same standard of living as we in the West enjoy, and they won't be keen on being told that they can't have the same standard of living as the West.




Humans are akin to the mice who just happened to stumble across an abandoned grain silo that was left full of grain.

A massive population explosion but it's ultimately unsustainable.

Plus we've made it worse by making products designed to fail and by generally doing everything in the cheapest, easiest way possible.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> I've listed the different pillars of climate change denial tropes.
> 
> The last is we can't do anything about it because ..... so we shouldn't try.
> ...and anyone, especially young people who say we need to act as we are going to have to live this are called suitable names such as....hysterical, suffering cognitive dissonance, ... anything else that helps justify no action.
> ...



The ultimate climate change denial is living like y'all do. Running around in circles virtue signalling, is going to do squat.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2022)

wayneL said:


> The ultimate climate change denial is living like y'all do. Running around in circles virtue signalling, is going to do squat.



Little things like living in a mud hut and going Pol Pot aint going to make any difference coz people are people and there are a lot of them and some will still order Perrier water and do whatever they want to, which is fair enough. 

Individual action is bullsht. Electric cars are pointless without a grid fed from renewables and nuclear energy.

We need nation actions.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Little things like living in a mud hut and going Pol Pot aint going to make any difference coz people are people and there are a lot of them and some will still order Perrier water and do whatever they want to, which is fair enough.
> 
> Individual action is bullsht. Electric cars are pointless without a grid fed from renewables and nuclear energy.
> 
> We need nation actions.



Such as?


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2022)

wayneL said:


> Such as?



Grid fed from renewables and nuclear energy.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 July 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Grid fed from renewables and nuclear energy.



Agree with nuclear as long as it's fusion.

Say in 30 years time ?


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Grid fed from renewables and nuclear energy.



Yep nuclear seems a no brainer to me. Hydro and geothermal if possible. Wind and solar a waste of time IMO.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2022)

wayneL said:


> Yep nuclear seems a no brainer to me. Hydro and geothermal if possible. Wind and solar a waste of time IMO.



Geothermal must be tricky. The government blew a fair bit on one project that didn't work.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Agree with nuclear as long as it's fusion.
> 
> Say in 30 years time ?



The Greens in Finland recently went pro nuclear. If you are in a country with little sunlight and lousy weather then it's really all you can do.

I've put some capital behind this future. We shall see.


----------



## DB008 (22 July 2022)

​


----------



## devjo (22 July 2022)

There's another issue - it's that people are being asked to sacrifice today to prevent effects that won't be seen for another generation. People just can't reason on such timescales. Evolution optimized us for solving problems on the seconds to hours scale, and then agriculture on problem solving on a single year scale. After that, we have nothing.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 July 2022)

DB008 said:


> View attachment 144392
> 
> ​



Do UK!


----------



## SirRumpole (29 July 2022)

Contrasting disasters in the US.









						Kentucky floods death toll to rise, Governor says, as thousands lose power
					

A series of storms drenching the state's east leave damage that could take years to repair.




					www.abc.net.au
				












						Oak fire tops 18,000 acres, destroys 41 structures as crews continue to battle blaze
					

California officials are hoping that an end to the wildfire, near Yosemite National Park, is in sight. The fire is 26% contained.




					www.latimes.com


----------



## basilio (31 July 2022)

The climate disaters unfolding around the Earth are where we are at today.  Today average global temperatures have risen by around 1.1C.
What happens when average global temperatures have increased by 1.5- 2 - 3 degrees C ?
This is the prognosis. Very uncomfortable reading.

‘Soon it will be unrecognisable’: total climate meltdown cannot be stopped, says expert​





Record high temperatures and extreme weather events are being recorded around the world. Photograph: Ian Logan/Getty Images
Blistering heatwaves are just the start. We must accept how bad things are before we can head off global catastrophe, according to a leading UK scientist

Robin McKie
Sat 30 Jul 2022 16.48 BSTLast modified on Sun 31 Jul 2022 05.10 BST


The publication of Bill McGuire’s latest book, _Hothouse Earth_, could not be more timely. Appearing in the shops this week, it will be perused by sweltering customers who have just endured record high temperatures across the UK and now face the prospect of weeks of drought to add to their discomfort.

And this is just the beginning, insists McGuire, who is emeritus professor of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London. As he makes clear in his uncompromising depiction of the coming climatic catastrophe, we have – for far too long – ignored explicit warnings that rising carbon emissions are dangerously heating the Earth. Now we are going to pay the price for our complacence in the form of storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves that will easily surpass current extremes.

The crucial point, he argues, is that there is now no chance of us avoiding a perilous, all-pervasive climate breakdown. We have passed the point of no return and can expect a future in which lethal heatwaves and temperatures in excess of 50C (120F) are common in the tropics; where summers at temperate latitudes will invariably be baking hot, and where our oceans are destined to become warm and acidic. “A child born in 2020 will face a far more hostile world that its grandparents did,” McGuire insists.

...“Just look at what is happening already to a world which has only heated up by just over one degree,” says McGuire. “It turns out the climate is changing for the worse far quicker than predicted by early climate models. That’s something that was never expected.”









						‘Soon the world will be unrecognisable’: is it still possible to prevent total climate meltdown?
					

Blistering heatwaves are just the start. We must accept how bad things are before we can head off global catastrophe, according to a leading UK scientist




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sptrawler (31 July 2022)

@basilio would it work if Russia shuts off the gas to Europe right now and freeze millions to death in the coming winter and we stop all gas and coal exports, that would send a lot of third World and Asian countries into power crisis, which would probably increase the morbidity rate in those countries.
Does that sound like a plan to you, because it would work, the population would reduce and there would be a massive and decisive reduction in pollution.
You probably think that is radical, but everything you post up requires radical action and even then they state it wont help.
So posting every depressing article of the imminent climate doom, doesn't achieve much, other than depress people further.  
Maybe you could intersperse some uplifting articles, to lighten the mood somewhat and try to persuade people that all is not lost. 😂


----------



## basilio (31 July 2022)

sptrawler said:


> @basilio would it work if Russia shuts off the gas to Europe right now and freeze millions to death in the coming winter and we stop all gas and coal exports, that would send a lot of third World and Asian countries into power crisis, which would probably increase the morbidity rate in those countries.
> Does that sound like a plan to you, because it would work, the population would reduce and there would be a massive and decisive reduction in pollution.
> You probably think that is radical, but everything you post up requires radical action and even then they state it wont help.
> So posting every depressing article of the imminent climate doom, doesn't achieve much, other than depress people further.
> Maybe you could intersperse some uplifting articles, to lighten the mood somewhat and try to persuade people that all is not lost. 😂




That's a really thought provoking observation SP. Your quite right about the brutality and consequences of  such a course of action.  And it would "work", as you point out, at a horrendous cost.

So where do we go from here ?  If you read the whole article there is an attempt to throw in some "good" news. The "good" news, essentially,  is that  perhaps (?)  this sort of direct frankness about what is unfolding might (?)  start a massive effort to reduce CO2 emissionsand start up other programs that might (?)  turn an unmitigated catastrophe into a very serious but survivable problem.   There is your hope - as slim as it is.

I don't like these disaster scenarios one little bit. They drove me around the bend and over a cliff years ago and for sheer self preservation I decided  to not focus too much on the very real real science and look for  ways and means to make  worthwhile contributions to tackling the issue.  Realistically it has been the equivalent of emptying an ocean with a glass tumbler.

I have posted many "good news" stories on ASF.  I'm keenly aware of the effects of  climate despair and have tried to present technologies, practices and policies that could turn the tide so to speak.  They do exist.  However Bill McGuire is just pointing  out that  we are now so far down the road of global warming it is impossible to avoid quite devastating  outcomes. Only a monumental  effort might contain the consequences to a level that allows human civilization to continue in it's current form. Unfortunately he only saying out loud what every climate scientist understands is happening.


----------



## sptrawler (31 July 2022)

basilio said:


> That's a really thought provoking observation SP. Your quite right about the brutality and consequences of  such a course of action.  And it would "work", as you point out, at a horrendous cost.
> 
> So where do we go from here ?  If you read the whole article there is an attempt to throw in some "good" news. The "good" news, essentially,  is that  perhaps (?)  this sort of direct frankness about what is unfolding might (?)  start a massive effort to reduce CO2 emissionsand start up other programs that might (?)  turn an unmitigated catastrophe into a very serious but survivable problem.   There is your hope - as slim as it is.
> 
> ...



It ain't going to happen any time soon, with the war in Russia causing a re commissioning of coal generation in europe and with China already committing to 100 new coal fired power stations, nothing is going to happen in the short term.
As for Australia we are soldiering on, but even when we stop all carbon emissions it will only reduce the total World emissions by less than 2%, but every little bit helps.   
By the way have you ordered an electric car yet?


----------



## basilio (31 July 2022)

Has anyone else seen "The Line" ?  This is a Saudi Arabian vision of a Utopian  brand new technological world.  









						Saudi Arabia plans 100-mile-long mirrored skyscraper megacity
					

The Line – due to be just 200 metres wide – will make Neom world’s most liveable city ‘by far’, officials claim




					www.theguardian.com
				









						THE LINE
					

THE LINE: THE FUTURE OF URBAN LIVING




					www.neom.com


----------



## sptrawler (31 July 2022)

There is a huge amount of available space over existing highways, that would reduce the requirement to deploy solar panels over native habitat, or arable land IMO.
I would rather see taxpayers money spent on covering highways with solar panels and tapping off charging stations, than subsidising power generators to denude land to put in solar farms. 
How the Govt can say we are losing flora and fauna at an increasing rate and not thinking about the ramifications of mass solar farms is beyond me.








						Photovoltaic roof for highways
					

Researchers from Germany and Austria are testing how photovoltaic roofs may be deployed along highways. The first pilot project is planned to be implemented starting from the autumn.




					www.pv-magazine.com


----------



## basilio (2 August 2022)

sptrawler said:


> There is a huge amount of available space over existing highways, that would reduce the requirement to deploy solar panels over native habitat, or arable land IMO.
> I would rather see taxpayers money spent on covering highways with solar panels and tapping off charging stations, than subsidising power generators to denude land to put in solar farms.
> How the Govt can say we are losing flora and fauna at an increasing rate and not thinking about the ramifications of mass solar farms is beyond me.
> 
> ...



I don't  believe this makes sense in so many ways.
The article itself points out that the cost of building over a roadway is substantially more than building on "normal" sites.  

Also solar farms are *not* going to be put on prime or even secondary agricultural land. The economics don't make sense.  Quality arable land offers far more return for growing crops rather than solar power.

The development of solar farms on marginal properties can actually improve farming and environment outcomes.    It can also be used on higher quality arable areas to improve  productivity. We have highlighted many examples of  solar/farming hybrid models on ASF.
*
But having said that there is a legitimate question about very narrow based solar farms being built on prime agricultural land .*









						Largest Farm to Grow Crops Under Solar Panels Proves To Be A Bumper Crop For Agrivoltaic Land Use — AGRITECTURE
					

This agrivoltaic farm generates enough to power 300 private homes, and grows tomatoes, turnips, carrots, squash, beets, lettuce, kale, chard, and peppers.




					www.agritecture.com
				












						Growing Crops Under Solar Panels? Now There’s a Bright Idea
					

In the new scientific (and literal) field of agrivoltaics, researchers are showing how panels can increase yields and reduce water use on a warming planet.




					www.wired.com
				











						Food or energy? The battle for Australia's prime agricultural land
					

Four foreign-owned energy companies are racing to get their large-scale solar projects off the ground on farmland in the NSW Southern Riverina.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2022)

Australian native animals losing their habitat at a world leading pace.









						‘Crumbling rapidly’: Australia’s environment scorecard’s out – and it’s dire
					

Australia has lost more mammals than any other continent and the latest report card says things will get worse faster without urgent intervention.




					www.smh.com.au
				




Ecologists say clearing of land is the leading cause in the loss of native species.


But who cares, eh Bas.

As for growing crops under solar panels, I'm sceptical. Maybe some niche produce, but I cant see it being a useful addition to farming, other than in areas of extremely high temps, where nothing grows currently.
But It will be great if it does prove to be a bonus, time will tell, I've seen some very large solar installations in Japan, the only thing growing under them were weeds and problem saplings.


----------



## basilio (2 August 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Australian native animals losing their habitat at a world leading pace.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you put in sheep or goats.  Enough shade to keep them happy and they keep down the weeds.
And the loss of environment ? Absolutely a problem but the driving reason is commercial  farming


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2022)

basilio said:


> So you put in sheep or goats.  Enough shade to keep them happy and they keep down the weeds.
> And the loss of environment ? Absolutely a problem but the driving reason is commercial  farming



I'm more concerned about the massive solar farms that are going to go in the North, to supply power and hydrogen to overseas buyers, for very little benefit for Australia as it will be like the gas we export, the net benefit to us in miniscule when you compare it to what the middle East earns. Yet the cost to us ecologically could be huge.
I know that this is the way we have to and are going, but as per usual we seem to be approaching it as we do with mining, just let the companies do as they like and we collect the crumbs off the table.
Putting in solar wind farms in and around the Riverina area and central Queensland can't be avoided, as they are the obvious areas to locate them to supply the East coast grid, same as the great dividing range, Victorian alps and Tasmania will require more dams.
But as I said when the mega solar farms in the Northern Territory and Northern W.A were announced, there is scant information as to what financial benefit Australia gains other than the wages and construction jobs, which is normal for us and why we get exploited so badly.
But I think it will come home to bite us on the butt, when the ecological/cultural fall out happens and we are tagged as ecological vandals.
Unless we get proper  compensation for the land use, we will wear the cost of compensation for the damage it causes and I believe their will be compensation costs involved down the track.
Time will tell.


----------



## basilio (6 August 2022)

France is facing the most severe drought in its history. Apart from the effects of a record heat wave on people and the environment, drinking water is now unavailable in 100 municipalities.

On the energy front Frances nuclear power stations are also under pressure because  river water is now becoming too hot. 

France is facing its 'most severe drought' ever, PM to activate government crisis unit​Posted 4h ago4 hours ago




 The country is facing its third heatwave of the summer. (Reuters: Pascal Rossignol)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article



French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne has warned France is facing its "most severe drought" on record, announcing the activation of a government crisis unit.
Key points:​
The government's crisis unit will monitor the drought in the hardest-hit areas and coordinate measures like supplying drinking water 
More than 100 municipalities are not able to provide drinking water to the tap anymore 
A heatwave is expected to continue for 15 days, which the PM says will worsen the already "historic situation" 









						After three heatwaves, France is facing its most severe drought in history
					

France faces its most severe drought in history, after the country endured three heatwaves this summer. It's impact will be tragic for many, according to the country's Prime Minister.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## basilio (6 August 2022)

More detail on the current drought in France and its effects across the country.
This is happening with global temperatures only 1.1 C above our previous normal levels.

Water restrictions in force across France as drought threatens crop production​





Issued on: 02/08/2022 - 12:14Modified: 02/08/2022 - 12:20

The remains of a fish lies on the parched Loire River bed at Ancenis, western France. The country is battling with the consequences of a third heatwave in less than 2 months, with water restrictions hampering agricultural production.                 AFP - SEBASTIEN SALOM-GOMIS

 2 min                              
Drought and a succession of three heat waves since June – attributed by scientific consensus to climate change - have severely reduced river flows across France, multiplying water restriction measures, directly affecting agricultural production.

Across the fields of France, crops are suffering from heat and drought, with water restrictions worrying the farming community, especially with regard to corn production, which has already been hit hard by the record-breaking temperatures.

With just 9.7 millimetres of rain in July according to weather service Météo France, rainfall over the past four weeks was 84 percent down on average figures for July over the past three decades.

The French drought has hampered agriculture and force widespread restrictions on the use of freshwater.

The cumulative effects of drought and the lack of water are occurring during the pollination of corn – a crucial period for the crop’s development.









						Water restrictions in force across France as drought threatens crop production
					

Drought and a succession of three heat waves since June – attributed by scientific consensus to climate change - have severely reduced river flows across France, multiplying water restriction measures,…




					www.rfi.fr


----------



## bux2000 (15 August 2022)

Wow this makes sense









						Vanuatu, one of the most climate-vulnerable countries, launches ambitious climate plan
					

The Pacific country has committed to 100% renewable energy in electricity generation by 2030




					www.theguardian.com
				




and to pay for it









						Vanuatu GDP - Gross Domestic Product 2021
					

Gross Domestic Product of Vanuatu grew 0.5% in 2021 compared to last year. This rate is 59 -tenths of one percent higher than the figure of -5.4% published in 2020.




					countryeconomy.com
				




Hmmm seems the bean counters thought that one through   

I must admit to not being any sort of expert on carbon credits but not sure how it could stack up.

Not sure if there is a Carbon Credit thread but I would be interested to learn. 



bux


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2022)

bux2000 said:


> Wow this makes sense
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Pacific islands should be fully renewables IMO, there wont be a large load.
How to pay for it was in the article by the Guardian, you posted, $1.2 billion isn't a lot on a global scale.
“Today, Vanuatu is calling for the establishment of a new loss-and-damage finance facility at the UN. To be an effective ally to the Pacific on climate action, Australia should support a new loss-and-damage finance facility.”


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2022)

A person saying what I've been saying, increasing Australia's population and reducing the carbon footprint is very difficult.


----------



## Knobby22 (31 August 2022)

The Pakistan flood is truly incredible.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 November 2022)

Bad luck kids. We dropped the ball. Sorry.
Our excuse is that we had two many dumbfcks that believe everything they are told. 









						Every continent 'dangerously off track' as extreme weather smashes global records
					

A new Climate Council report chronicles the succession of disasters that have struck since last November's global climate summit in Scotland.




					www.sbs.com.au


----------



## Belli (4 November 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Bad luck kids. We dropped the ball. Sorry.
> Our excuse is that we had two many dumbfcks that believe everything they are told.
> 
> 
> ...




Yup.  The ball was dropped many years ago.  The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 so there has been ample warning.


----------



## moXJO (6 November 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Bad luck kids. We dropped the ball. Sorry.
> Our excuse is that we had two many dumbfcks that believe everything they are told.
> 
> 
> ...



I think believing that renewable energy was the saviour. Or that bleating about doing something would somehow bring about change. Especially when they were taking stop gap measures like nuclear off the table.

The same stupidity that made the covid response such a totalitarian fckfest is similar to the climate mess. There are too many activist groups with no give. Who also want unrealistic measures that will never be implemented, turning off too large a group of general population.


----------



## sptrawler (6 November 2022)

Belli said:


> Yup.  The ball was dropped many years ago.  The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 so there has been ample warning.



If we could change smugness into a reduction in power usage it would be a massive step forward in reducing climate change.
The elites profess a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, yet they are the biggest consumers of energy, weird case of negating a guilt complex IMO.
Just got off the ship in Melbourne today, the missus and I walked both ways into and out of the city centre, yet the ship is full of save the planet elite wannabees they all line up endlessly to catch a small tram because they are eating themselves into oblivion and can't walk, Australia a country being shaped by a narrative. Lol
Please someone cancel me.


----------



## DB008 (8 November 2022)

.​


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 November 2022)

moXJO said:


> The same stupidity that made the covid response such a totalitarian fckfest is similar to the climate mess. There are too many activist groups with no give. Who also want unrealistic measures that will never be implemented, turning off too large a group of general population.



If society wants a non-emitting energy system then, in the Australian context at least, it's not all that hard technically. There's plenty of people up to the task of designing and building.

Trouble is, well if you listen to the public debate you might've noticed something and it's that essentially all the technically skilled people have now walked away from public discussion. It's rare these days to see comment from the very people who live and breathe this stuff. They've left the debate because there's only so long someone's going to bash their head against the proverbial brick wall before they decide they're better off focusing on something else. What's left are the politicians and wannabes shouting at each other.

My own view is it'll take a crisis, a real one, to bring action.

The sad thing is it really didn't need to be this way. We've had 34 years since the issue came to mainstream attention and we've got plenty of technologies ready for deployment. What we need to do is get the ignorant buffoons out of the way. 

A big problem specifically being that we know how to do not all but a lot of it. We have the tech and it's fully developed. Trouble is, more than a few who claim to want something done stand in the way of deployment, insisting that we instead try and come up with some other means of doing it.

That approach is nothing more than stalling. It's saying don't do anything now, let's wait until some future time when we might have some other way. Then they've got the nerve to claim they want action ASAP.


----------



## IFocus (10 November 2022)

moXJO said:


> Especially when they were taking stop gap measures like nuclear off the table.




Mo, nuclear is 20 years (min but unlikely) if you use others processing tech (sovereign  risk) , 30 to 40 to develop your own then there is not in my backyard syndrome, only becomes cost effective if you go nuclear weapons if not costs a mosta.


----------



## DB008 (19 November 2022)

Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## wayneL (19 November 2022)

DB008 said:


> View attachment 149452


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2022)

The ever sensible Judith Curry


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2022)

Meanwhile from NASSA.... 


Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 280 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.












						Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change
					

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2022)

IFocus said:


> Meanwhile from NASSA....
> 
> 
> Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 280 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.
> ...



You didn't even watch the vid, just assumed s++t.


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2022)

wayneL said:


> You didn't even watch the vid, just assumed s++t.




Rarely ever watch vids, they tend to be total emotive dribble did how ever read Dr Judith Curry's bio which was interesting wouldn't ever call her sensible but certainly well qualified and a contrarian.

The rate of depletion of earths ice mass does blow away 99'9% of the anti climate change claims.


----------



## sptrawler (28 November 2022)

IFocus said:


> Rarely ever watch vids, they tend to be total emotive dribble did how ever read Dr Judith Curry's bio which was interesting wouldn't ever call her sensible but certainly well qualified and a contrarian.
> 
> The rate of depletion of earths ice mass does blow away 99'9% of the anti climate change claims.



I don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it and I doubt anyone is 100% sure on what is causing it or what effect it is going to have. 
There is a desalination plant in Sydney built in 2007, that is costing people a lot of money, that stands testament to that.
2009








						Coral growth in decline at Great Barrier Reef
					

The growth of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has slowed to the most sluggish rate in at least 400 years and signs point to manmade greenhouse gas emissions as the culprit, according to a new study.




					www.nbcnews.com
				



2022


			https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/04/great-barrier-reef-coral-recovery-climate-change/
		


IMO it is time technical people took the reigns from emotional people and the media gave fair commentary to all sides and became facilitator to forward facts, not their personal opinion of the facts, unless the reporter is qualified in the subject .


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2022)

sptrawler said:


> I don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it and I doubt anyone is 100% sure on what is causing it or what effect it is going to have.
> There is a desalination plant in Sydney built in 2007, that is costing people a lot of money, that stands testament to that.
> 2009
> 
> ...



This is why I enjoyed the J Curry interview above


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2022)

sptrawler said:


> I don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it




If you have a good look at the current rates and they are not an anomaly and the trend continues  its to late to stop anyway.

Once climate changed was politicized by the US Republicans that was game over.

Problem is the whole climate change process isn't linear.

In our life time we wont get the full impact but kids and grand children will unfortunately be impacted a lot more.


----------



## basilio (5 December 2022)

Another  approach to Climate Change activism.

*The Moderate Flank* 
Guiding Principles​ 
The way in which we pursue our work reflects

1. Try to respect everybody 
                   2. Try to focus on building a coalition for a better future, not establishing moral superiority     

3. Try to remember nobody owns climate action as an “issue” 

4. Try to meet people where they are 

5. Try to patiently engage people with empathy and insight 

https://moderateflank.org/about-the-moderate-flank/


----------

