Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Julia]

basilio - why do you think Australia should put it's economy at risk to reduce 5% of 1.35% of world carbon dioxide emissions? Don't you think it's futile when the biggest polluting countries are not interested in this nonsense?

A very reasonable question which surely, basilio, deserves a clear answer from you.

Science makes no statement on what is the best way to encourage the move from high CO2 emitting activities to low CO2 emitting activities and what economic effect such a move would have. That is the realm of economics and politics The carbon tax is one such method. One can accept the scientific view in relation to climate change but fully reject the proposed solutions to effect the change. That isn't challenging science, but challenging an economic model that has to date never been tested in the socio-economic environment that is Australia. My opinion is that it won't work and will lead to a weakening in Australia's economic position which will put us in a worse position to tackle the problem.

Totally sensible comment, bellenuit. Good to see some objectivity.

I keep wondering about a couple of questions.

If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?

If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.

If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?

If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.

Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?

Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?

How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.

If we do some thing who will die?

Ah, some heart tugging, emotive stuff there.
However, few of your questions have to do with the usefulness of Australia engaging an economy-damaging carbon tax while the major emitters of the world do nothing, and furthermore have emphasised their attitude to this by again refusing to endorse the Kyoto stuff.

Please say simply whether you believe Australia's proposed carbon tax, while China, the USA, et al continue to grow their emissions, is useful, and if it is, then could you please explain how.

To be honest the carbon tax is neither here nor there but to do nothing is a much more serious decision.

That statement is a total cop-out, IF. What, then, do you suggest Australia should do (taking into account the non-action of other major industrialised nations) as an alternative to your 'doing nothing'?

 

[Sean K]

I keep wondering about a couple of questions.

If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?

If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.

If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?

If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.

Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?

Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?

How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.

If we do some thing who will die?

Population control is the only option until there is a solution to the fossil fuel energy reliance, and need to eat and drink.

 

[explod]

Population control is the only option until there is a solution to the fossil fuel energy reliance, and need to eat and drink.

Amen.

Remember who started the baby bonus, "one for Dad, one for Mum and one for the country" drum roll please............it was.......Johnie's right hand man Peter.

Be interesting to see who has the b.lls to reverse that one in a hurry.

And population growth is required for continued expansionism. So cutting the b.lls out of that will take some .........too.

 

[Calliope]

It's been mentioned before but still bears repeating. The mantra of continual economic growth as the only way to keep our society going is one of the basic reasons we are in this mess. And to get out of this mess (after we actually recognise it is there ! ) we have to find a way of restructuring our society to use less resources but still keep everyone alive and reasonably happy.

You have been preaching doom and gloom for so long that you have become quite paranoid. I think that you are convinced "this mess" is now in train and we are on a collision course with armageddon.

You will only get relief from your trauma when you concede, that if the end is approaching, there is nothing that mankind can do to change the result.

So relax and enjoy life while you can. The world does not want to be saved.

 

[sails]

Population control is the only option until there is a solution to the fossil fuel energy reliance, and need to eat and drink.

Ahhh, but then the per capita emissions increase...

 

[Smurf1976]

Population control is the only option until there is a solution to the fossil fuel energy reliance, and need to eat and drink.

Indeed. That really is the crux of the problem. Too many people.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

A chilly end of May night in Townsville, presently 13 degrees C, looking at a low of 10.

As it is normally this time of year.

Dams are full. Those who want a job are working. Schools and University busy, soldiers preparing for deployment. Cowboys are winning for a change.

I do not buy this climate hysteria.

gg

 

[basilio]

Australia's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Firstly the issue is a whole world problem. We are all going to be affected. Interestingly the current science suggests that Australia will be particularly affected as we are already pretty dry and hot and increases in temperature will take us to really dangerous levels. So in that sense we have more to lose if global warming continues so in our own interest we should be particularly keen to see effective action being taken.

In the political world of pure self interest it is exceptionally hard for one country to make big changes and then watch others not follow. I suppose we could call it bludging. So any treaties that are developed to solve an international problem need some sort of oversee able and enforceable regulation that tries to ensure everyone plays their part. That is what the Kyoto agreements were intended to do. But as we know America refused to ratify it and Australia followed. That reduced the impact markedly.

It is also not accurate to say that other countries are not doing anything significant. China for example is actually a front runner in trying to reduce it's CO2 output. (Sounds crazy but I have supplied a reference) They are watching climate change lay havoc with their environment and , again for self interest, want to see effective action.

The conversation about "wrecking the economy" is interesting. We realise that the main people arguing this are companies with large fossil fuel interests who would see the value of these depreciate enormously. There will also be power companies that use coal who don't want to see these assets stranded by a change in policy. So naturally these interest are going to be at the forefront of cries of "it will wreck the economy " (Us ! Us Us!)

But if we decide that we can't accept coal as a main source of power generation (in it's current form) then we are faced with a massive but necessary re engineering of our power supplies to no carbon alternatives.

Despite what the fossil fuel industry says there are such viable alternatives. Solar thermal power stations with molten salt back ups already exists. There is a case for next generation thorium nuclear power stations. Wind works and development of onsite storage can extend it's capacity. One particular technology that I believe could be a game changer will be UCG (underground coal gasification) coupled with a low cost fuel cell that would turn the synthetic gas into electricity with no carbon output at a cost comparable to current coal fired power stations. This is very close to commercialization.

In fact we would probably need to substantially increase our supply of clean electricity if we also decided to reduce the impact of cars and general transport by going electric.

All of these projects would change the face of our industrial infrastructure. There would be new winners and old losers. But in the end we would have designed and produced a clean supply of power that was not going to inevitably run out. Not a bad result.

Now if we were quick and clever it could be Australian skills and technology that got the jobs and profits from these projects. As distinct from what has happened to the solar cell technology which was developed in Australia but has been commercialised in China and USA.

On another front there is a strong case for developing bio char as a way to take CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into a long life charcoal that would stay in the soil AND improve the quality of our soils. (which would help grow more food.)

There are already tomes of books and papers outlining how we might quickly and effectively address the multiple problems Ifocus outlined earlier and which need to be addressed.

It would not be easy or cheap. I can't see how we could keep our current ways of living and spending going while undertaking such a huge re engineering of our society. But unless 99% of all climate scientists are dead wrong we face a starkly disastrous future if we don't have a go.

References.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation
A good overview of many of the major ways we could reduce Greenhouse gases.

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

This is a very ambitious and detailed plan of how Australia could be running on only renewable energy by 2020. Worth reading at least the synopsis and who is contributing to this project.

http://www.energyglobal.com/sectors...g_alkaline_fuel_cell_technology_with_UCG.aspx

A brief overview of the UCG fuel cell application for cheap clean electricity from stranded coal. The australian company Linc energy holds the rights to develop this technology around the world.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/Biochar-Factsheet.html

As it says. CSIRO analysis of the potential of biochar to sequester carbon and improve soils.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/chinas-thorium-reactor-and-japans.html

A look at thorium nuclear reactors. Small, relatively low radioactivity . Allegedly can't cause any melt downs.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...tspending-us-now-matches-us-in-wind-capacity/

Interesting analysis of how much China is doing with regard to renewable energy in comparison to America

http://www.energybulletin.net/

An excellent site that pulls together many of the best ideas on how to tackle these multiple issues

 

[derty]

Actually science doesn't say that at all. Science, at least the consensus view, tells us that the earth is warming and that the warming trend is due to an increase in carbon dioxide due to human activity. To the extent that I have followed the debate I accept that that is the case. Science also tells us that the way to slow down or stop the warming trend is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which can only be achieved by reducing CO2 emissions to a point where CO2 absorption exceeds CO2 emissions. Science can also tell us what human activities produce the most CO2 and what produce the least.

Science makes no statement on what is the best way to encourage the move from high CO2 emitting activities to low CO2 emitting activities and what economic effect such a move would have. That is the realm of economics and politics The carbon tax is one such method. One can accept the scientific view in relation to climate change but fully reject the proposed solutions to effect the change. That isn't challenging science, but challenging an economic model that has to date never been tested in the socio-economic environment that is Australia. My opinion is that it won't work and will lead to a weakening in Australia's economic position which will put us in a worse position to tackle the problem.

Great summation bellenuit. The science, the economics and the politics. The boundaries get blurred and misinterpreted.

I agree that the current proposed carbon tax is a futile effort. It is heading in the right direction (i.e. It's the thought that counts.) but the reality is that the magnitude of task is that vast that there would be no economic or political motivation to seriously address it.

There is a certain amount of inertia in the system. At the current CO2 levels the system is not at equilibrium. The Earth's temperature still has some rising to do before it has enough energy to allow the heat escaping the Earth to match that entering. So even if we magically manage to stabilise the atmospheric CO2 at the current level of 390ppm we remain locked into further temperature rise.

Stabilising CO2 at 390ppm is not going to happen. The number bandied about to limit the temperature rise to 2 deg.C is 450ppm atmospheric CO2. To achieve that it requires drastic changes to our energy generation. (I posted something about this before and will place a link to that at the end.)

Basically the current global energy budget is around 16 terawatts (TW).

About 1.5TW is produced from hydro and nuclear.

The remaining 14.5TW is generated by fossil fuels.

To stabilise atmospheric CO2 at 450ppm we need to reduce the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels to 3TW within 25 years.

We need to convert 11.5TW of energy production to renewable or non-CO2 generating methods within 25 years.

While this scenario is theoretically possible, I cannot envisage it being a practical reality. The globe cannot even agree to begin to make rudimentary and cosmetic cuts to CO2 generation. It will not be until we start to see serious and unambiguous manifestations of temperature rise that there will be enough motivation to begin to act in more than a token gesture. And by then it will be too late.

When you look at it like this it makes the Labor carbon tax futile. It's a classic game of the Tragedy of the Commons. If you are all going to end up at the same point (i.e. ruin) why force yourself to endure hardship on the journey there while others do not?

Link to my previous post: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17955&p=592182&#post592182
Link to discussion on power density and the magnitude of the problem: http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/power-density/

While I am pessimistic about our current trajectory, I do believe that there may be future breakthroughs in nanotech or fusion that will provide the next great cheap energy source that will spurn the human race onto the next level of our technological advancement.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Is it me or are the alarmists in this thread trying to write a book with "fact" packed posts? Er, anyone awake, still no credibility, you can't answer a simple question...

And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)

One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.

 

[startrader]

Is it me or are the alarmists in this thread trying to write a book with "fact" packed posts? Er, anyone awake, still no credibility, you can't answer a simple question...

And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)

One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.

Yes, it looks like they're trying to write a book!

We all know there is climate change - there always has been. The argument is about man's contribution to the coming alleged end of the world. This climate change hysteria is all based on an unproven THEORY, which won't be proven or disproven in our lifetimes, but in the meantime some people in power are planning on getting as much mileage as possible out of it and making as much money as possible.

There are many things we could and should be doing to make the environment better, such as cleaning up the oceans which are treated as a huge rubbish tip, but why do we see no interest shown by anyone in doing anything in these areas? Is it because there is no money to be made out of something like this???

 

[wayneL]

Alarmists tend to categorize anyone who doesn't believe we'll be huddled on mountain tops surrounded by boiling oceans as "deniers.

Here is a more considered categorization from Ira Glickstein:

Divergent Views – There is a valid, science-based argument between people I refer to as Warmists, Lukewarmers, and Skeptics. I distinguish their reasoned views from the far out, unscientific rantings of people I refer to as Alarmists and their equal and opposite reaction opponents, who I call Disbelievers.

 

[trainspotter]

In 1975 there was evidence of global cooling:-

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

In 1975 there was evidence of global warming:-

In this paper, Broecker correctly predicted “that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide”, and that “by early in the next century [carbon dioxide] will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years”. He predicted an overall 20th Century global warming of 0.8 ºC due to CO2 and worried about the consequences for agriculture and sea level.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/

In 4500 B.P. it was bloody hot

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Hmmmmmmmmmm ......

 

[mexican]

Yes, it looks like they're trying to write a book!

We all know there is climate change - there always has been. The argument is about man's contribution to the coming alleged end of the world. This climate change hysteria is all based on an unproven THEORY, which won't be proven or disproven in our lifetimes, but in the meantime some people in power are planning on getting as much mileage as possible out of it and making as much money as possible.

There are many things we could and should be doing to make the environment better, such as cleaning up the oceans which are treated as a huge rubbish tip, but why do we see no interest shown by anyone in doing anything in these areas? Is it because there is no money to be made out of something like this???

Right on the money startrader....it is a theory not fact. Alot of other improtant issues that should be considered first...that are FACT!
Only have to ask Professor Tim "Our dams will never be full again" Flannery about theories.
Professor Carter vs Professor Basilio could be interesting as well!!

 

[OzWaveGuy]

And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)

One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.

Basilio, Derty?

Let me give you a hand.....could this be an answer? 1979 : Before The Hockey Team Destroyed Climate Science, perhaps, as many have been pointing out, a cooling trend is upon us? Ah, no it couldn't be since CO2 isn't the driving force.....this research must be completely wrong, right?

pls post your observed evidence, should be easy to find since there is a "con-sensus"

 

[Knobby22]

Oz wave guy.

The world has moved on.

If you want to say the world is cooling then give some evidence and tell me why all the glaciers are disappearing and NASA is lying. Otherwise I am afraid I will have to rate you as a acolyte of Jones

 

[basilio]

Good story in The Age reviewing the updated Garnaut report on how to tackle climate change. The article itself highlights some of the issues raised here (what is the rest of the world doing ) and why the carbon tax makes sense as a way to drive investment towards low carbon technology and away from high carbon businesses.

Garnaut's cry from the heart for honesty
June 1, 2011

Comments 91


Lies and political slogans have demeaned our climate change politics.

ROSS Garnaut's final report on climate change has three great strengths. It skewers myth after myth spread by those who oppose putting a price on Australia's carbon emissions. It restates his state-of-the-art 2008 blueprint on how the world should share the burden of cutting global emissions in half by 2050.

But perhaps most important of all, he proposes a way to take politics out of Australia's future decisions on climate change by setting up three independent agencies to advise the government on future targets, on future industry assistance measures and to administer the scheme.

After 18 months of sloganeering and lies that have demeaned Australian politics, this offers us a structure for honest, objective decision-making on what is arguably the most important issue of our time.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...for-honesty-20110531-1feky.html#ixzz1NzNimi7A

Summary of the report
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/summary-garnaut-review-2011.html

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Good story in The Age reviewing the updated Garnaut report on how to tackle climate change. The article itself highlights some of the issues raised here (what is the rest of the world doing ) and why the carbon tax makes sense as a way to drive investment towards low carbon technology and away from high carbon businesses.

Ho Hum....another important notice, this time from the Garnaut Climate Change Review web site.....

Disclaimer
The Garnaut Climate Change Review Secretariat recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to their use of this web site and that users carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the website for their purposes.

However, the Garnaut Climate Change Review Secretariat does not guarantee, and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to, the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this web site or on any linked site.​

More fairy magic.

Now, back to my very simple question....

 

[basilio]

Basilio, Derty?

Let me give you a hand.....could this be an answer? 1979 : Before The Hockey Team Destroyed Climate Science, perhaps, as many have been pointing out, a cooling trend is upon us? Ah, no it couldn't be since CO2 isn't the driving force.....this research must be completely wrong, right?

pls post your observed evidence, should be easy to find since there is a "con-sensus"

All yours

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.

 

[derty]

Is it me or are the alarmists in this thread trying to write a book with "fact" packed posts? Er, anyone awake, still no credibility, you can't answer a simple question...

And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)

One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.

OWG, can you please answer me this? How do you explain the increase in atmospheric CO2 of almost 40% over pre-industrial levels?