Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

Very entertaining talker, if not fed up with ordered society as most of us are.

Only those with everything want an ordered society. If by "ordered" we mean society and its structure to remain as they are. There's the obvious war and revolution causing disorder, but other less violent revolutions happen all the time and comes about from hungry upstart shaking things up so they can have some.

Reminds me of this scene from Romance of the Three Kingdom where TsaoTsao was having a heart to heart with his future nemesis Liu Pei. He said, wars and chaos are terrible terrible things... but for men of ambition like us, it's the opportunity of a lifetime. Without chaos, I would still be some lowly captain of the guards guarding the imperial library; you would still be selling straw hats to the end of your days. With this failed state and civil wars, I am now the Prime Minister and you and your two blood brothers will one day challenge me for all under heaven.

Haven't read Saul's book there but from the interview he seem to separate Reason/rationality from emotion and other faculties like empathy etc. All of those, I think, add to Reason... just the person have to have a great deal of vision and foresight to do what will turn out very rational but seemingly irrational at the moment.

Take climate change... very rational to do what the captains are doing; to put a cost on polluting the environment, to invest in alternatives when the current supply is in abundance, used everywhere and have a century of investment and know-how to extract and distribute... It's very rational to stay the course; and if the world floods and crops failed - well just move to higher grounds and theres plenty of money from the work you've done so no worries.

Anyway...

 

[basilio]

If we decide to stay on our present emissions path perhaps we should hurry up the process of moving to (much) higher ground.

The latest analysis of ice melt in the Antarctic suggest that the whole continent is at risk of losing its ice cover by 2100.

Antarctic ice is melting so fast the whole continent may be at risk by 2100

New research predicts a doubling of surface melting of the ice shelves by 2050, risking their collapse by the end of the century, say scientists

Widespread collapse of Antarctic ice shelves – floating extensions of land ice projecting into the sea – could pave the way for dramatic rises in sea level.

The new research predicts a doubling of surface melting of the ice shelves by 2050. By the end of the century, the melting rate could surpass the point associated with ice shelf collapse, it is claimed.
Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn

If that happened a natural barrier to the flow of ice from glaciers and land-covering ice sheets into the oceans would be removed.

Lead scientist, Dr Luke Trusel, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, US, said: “Our results illustrate just how rapidly melting in Antarctica can intensify in a warming climate.

“This has already occurred in places like the Antarctic Peninsula where we’ve observed warming and abrupt ice shelf collapses in the last few decades.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...o-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100

 

[wayneL]

If we decide to stay on our present emissions path perhaps we should hurry up the process of moving to (much) higher ground.

The latest analysis of ice melt in the Antarctic suggest that the whole continent is at risk of losing its ice cover by 2100.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...o-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100

This is the sort of extremist crap that gullible kids, if they believe it, give cause to go and top themselves.

Congratulations basilio.

Would it be to much to respectfully ask that you lot disseminate reasonable science somewhere in the middle of the bell curve of probabilities? With a doff of the cap to either extreme?

I like Freeman Dyson's thoughts on this.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/?page=1

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but it is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"

We invited Dyson to talk about climate change and other matters, including a question from your correspondent's kids – how will we do interstellar travel?

You were being invited to help solve problems in an era when things looked pretty grim, and those problems looked insoluble, during the Cold War, and before Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution. Now we've conquered a lot of these, but there seems to be an unquenchable thirst for apocalypse.

[Laughs] Yes. I don't know why, it's a mood of the times. I don't understand that better than anyone else. It is true that there's a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don't think that's the full explanation.

It's like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we'd gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it's in the air today.

The years before 1914 were a tremendously promising time. Russia was getting richer, [but then] the whole thing fell apart. It's comparable today – we've done a much better job with feeding the world and if you look at the number of desperately poor people, it has been decreasing quite steadily.

The most important thing at the moment is China getting richer. What the rest of the world is doing doesn't really matter.

If you could give your own scientific recommendations for carbon dioxide policy at COP21 in Paris, what would they be?

Certainly land management would be one. Particularly building up topsoil, which you can do in lots of ways. Not just growing trees, there are many things you can do which are just as good. Inducing snowfall is something you can do which hasn't been discussed very much, to keep the oceans from rising. The rise of the oceans is a real problem and while they're not rising as fast as people say, they're still rising. That could be stopped if you could arrange that it snows a bit more in Antarctica. That's something that could be quite feasible, but it's not been looked at very much.

Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.

I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.

It seems almost medieval to suppose that nature is punishing us, rather than the Enlightenment view, that we can tame nature, and still be good stewards of it.

That's all true.

It's now difficult for scientists to have frank and honest input into public debates. Prof Brian Cox, who is the public face of physics in the UK thanks to the BBC, has said he has no obligation to listen to "deniers," or to any other views other than the orthodoxy.

That's a problem, but still I find that I have things to say and people do listen to me, and people have no particular complaints.

It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.

Because the big growing countries need fossil fuels, the political goal of mitigation, by reducing or redirecting industrial activity and consumer behaviour, now seems quite futile in the West.

China and India rely on coal to keep growing, so they'll clearly be burning coal in huge amounts. They need that to get rich. Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.

At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that's the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.

Have you heard of the phrase "virtue signalling"? The UK bureaucracy made climate change its foreign policy priority, and we heard a lot of the phrase "leading the world in the fight ..." and by doing so, it seemed to be making a public declaration of its goodness and virtue ...

No [laughs]. Well, India and China aren't buying that. When you go beyond 50 years, everything will change. As far as the next 50 years are concerned, there are two main forces of energy, which are coal and shale gas. Emissions have been going down in the US while they've going up in Europe, and that's because of shale gas. It's only half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. China may in fact be able to develop shale gas on a big scale and that means they burn a lot less coal.

.... etc etc

 

[wayneL]

Today I learnt that a bright, kind, lively young woman of 23, who worked at the high care nursing home where my mother lives, killed herself last Friday. There isn't a soul at the home who didn't like her; I'm only one of the relatives who respected her thoughtfulness and enjoyed her conversation. The staff are devastated, at least partly because, in spite of the training many of them have done, nobody picked up on how she must have been feeling.

I don't know what her reasons were or if global warming was any part of them. I find it hard to even try to think about reasons for the deaths of people so young and with so much potential. It's terrible that these are only two of hundreds of young people, each with reasons that must have seemed strong to them.

Wayne, you didn't say how long or how well you've known your client's daughter. Given your profession, I can imagine that she was a horse-loving kid and you watched her through pony club. As a former live-in nanny and now a "BackUp Grandparent" I know very well you don't have to be family to find that a child has a hold on your heart. I'm deeply sad for you and the pain you're feeling.

You'll know there's a "but", and here it is. Global warming is a real problem that threatens the future of the children we love. The principal cause of 20th and 21st century global warming is humans releasing fossil carbon from under the ground into the air and oceans. The way to help kids deal with the problem is to work with them on fixing it: end the burning of fossil fuels, re-invent agriculture, re-imagine cities... give them confidence to face grim realities and change them.

Again Wayne, I'm deeply sorry for that poor little girl, her family, and you.

Best wishes,

Ghoti

Thank you for this post. We have our differences on this topic, but clearly what binds us is our humanity, friendships and the like. So sorry to hear of this.

In my case, the parents paid the bills, but it was the daughter who I interacted with... and imagined I (and my wife) might be mentors to.

I remember as a young person the alarmism over the nuclear threat and the ozone layer. I wish I had discussions on this topic.

Just gutted

 

[basilio]

Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming

A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesn’t adequately account for a methane warming feedback

John Abraham

Tuesday 13 October 2015 21.00 AEDT
Comments
139
Save for later

While most attention has been given to carbon dioxide, it isn’t the only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about. Carbon dioxide is the most important human-emitted greenhouse gas, but methane has also increased in the atmosphere and it adds to our concerns.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Recently, a policy briefing from the world-leading Woods Hole Research Center has moved our understanding of this risk further through a clearly-written summary. The briefing cites two recent papers (here and here) that study the so-called permafrost carbon feedback.

One of these studies makes use of projections from the most recent IPCC report to estimate that up to 205 gigatons equivalent of carbon dioxide could be released due to melting permafrost. This would cause up to 0.5 °C (up to 0.9 °F) extra warming. Just as bad, the permafrost melting would continue after 2100 which would lock us into even more warming. Under this scenario, meeting a 2 °C limit would be harder than anticipated. The current IPCC targets do not adequately account for this feedback.

To put this in perspective, permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as is present in the atmosphere. In the rapidly warming Arctic (warming twice as fast as the globe as a whole), the upper layers of this frozen soil begin to thaw, allowing deposited organic material to decompose. The plant material, which has accumulated over thousands of years, is concentrated in to upper layers (half of it is in the top 10 feet). There is a network of monitoring stations that are measuring ground temperatures have detected a significant heating trend over the past few decades and so has the active layer thickness.

I communicated with Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes, who told me,

It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming. If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the 2 °C threshold in our rear-view mirror.

So, this means that reducing carbon dioxide pollution is even more important. If we are to stop the warming–thawing–more warming cycle, it is critical to reduce emissions now. According to these experts, this is a serious issue, and we should listen to them.

The problem Wayne is that wherever you look the reality of what is happening to our world is undeniable - unless of course you choose to deny it.

 

[wayneL]

The clue is in the weasel words basilio

 

[basilio]

And the facts on the ground Wayne are that methane emissions in the Arctic are exploding at an exponential rate as the permafrost melts because of the average 4 degrees C rise in temperature.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html

The paper below explains what impact the rapidly increasing temperatures are having on Methane and Co2 emissions.

New research shows the Arctic is warming faster than previously believed
September 11, 2015 Yana Pchelintseva, special to RBTH

Russian scientists have found about 700 “methane holes” in the Arctic shelf. The scale of emissions shows that the permafrost has degraded severely, and researchers think the thawing is irreversible.

A team of Russian scientists spent over 20 years examining thermokarst lakes – bodies of water formed by permafrost thawing. These lakes are sources of carbon dioxide, and recently they’ve begun to grow rapidly in size. Some are difficult to recognize on satellite imagery compared to a few years ago, and in certain areas the coastline has shifted by 70 meters in just two or three years. The question of carbon emissions in the Arctic continental shelf, however, is an even more serious issue than the thaw lakes.

- http://rbth.co.uk/science_and_tech/...tic_is_warming_faster_than_previou_49157.html)

 

[Tisme]

Another BBC doco:

 

[basilio]

The rate of change in the Arctic is only being really appreciated by the relatively small number of scientists who investigate, monitor and measure the changes. They are xxxx scared.

Interview: Polar ice expert, Professor Peter Wadhams,

Written by Nick Breeze
Category: Nick Beeze Articles
Published: 22 September 2015

discusses the increased dangers of climate change in the Arctic, the potential for runaway impacts and what politicians should decide when they meet in Paris
http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/blogs/nick-breeze-blogs/149-peter-wadhams2015

 

[explod]

Thank you for this post. We have our differences on this topic, but clearly what binds us is our humanity, friendships and the like. So sorry to hear of this.

In my case, the parents paid the bills, but it was the daughter who I interacted with... and imagined I (and my wife) might be mentors to.

I remember as a young person the alarmism over the nuclear threat and the ozone layer. I wish I had discussions on this topic.

Just gutted

The nuclear threat at the time was not alarmist, it was very real and the cold war affirmed it. In fact it is close to that again with the US Russia and now China.

This is a discussion forum where views and observations should be freely part of the rationale in this debate.

I am sorry for your personal experiences Ole Pal but they should have little to do with our basic discussion/debate.

Your hostilty at some of, what I would regard as reasonable views, indicates hysteria from your pocket.

One gets the feeling that you are a part of the oil/coal cartel lobby. It is that strong and vehement.

I started as just a boy from a farm, where from 1952 I observed annual heavy rainfalls and tadpoles in every puddle around Hawkesdale in Victoria. In the 1960's that changed dramatically, tadpoles disappeared and rainfall dropped. Those annual falls of 30 to 40 inches per year have never returned. The frog tadpole population formed there over many millions if years to be gone forever in a whisker.

Have stated on this thread many times the wipout of ringed tailed possums at Belcolm Creek, mount Martha, Victoria from just one hot day (over 49c). They had occupied that territory for millions of years. So one can put up all the figures you like, but what we see happening is real.

Not saying all this is from coal and oil burning but I have seen enough to believe it is a major contributer.

This is not hysterior but concern at the possibilties. I believe it therefore reasonable to seek change towards cleaner methods and particularly as these innovations to wind and solar, if subsidised as well as the oil/coal industry was would in fact be cheaper and certainly more efficient once running nationally and possibly linked internationally.

 

[Smurf1976]

Seems that we're setting new temperature records down here in Tas:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...ory-fnj4f7k1-1227568654501?from=trendinglinks

As for rain, well that basically just stopped a month ago with very little since mid-September. It's as though someone just flicked a switch and turned the rain off. Add in the warm weather and runoff has dropped rapidly to very low levels for this time of year.

Climate change? No proof, just another data point.

The conventional explanation is a strong El Nino combined with a positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole). Both tend to result in lower rainfall in SE Australia, put them together and the effect is pretty strong.

 

[Tom32]

I started as just a boy from a farm, where from 1952 I observed annual heavy rainfalls and tadpoles in every puddle around Hawkesdale in Victoria. In the 1960's that changed dramatically, tadpoles disappeared and rainfall dropped. Those annual falls of 30 to 40 inches per year have never returned. The frog tadpole population formed there over many millions if years to be gone forever in a whisker.

My old man has always told me the same about growing up in northern nsw. Similar timetable as well, 1950s lots of frogs then in his case he also noticed green tree snakes along with the frogs as well dissapearing. This is long before cane toads made it this far south.

I have always liked frogs and as a kid in Western Sydney used to raise a few tadpoles we would collect as eggs and raise, yeh cruel in retrospect but educational I guess.

My understanding of the issue is they are threatened by: chemicals that run off crops, a fungal infection that has affected them nearly worldwide, cane toads and habitat destruction. They have even died back in pristine national parks on the east coast which indicates how sensitive to chemicals that they are.

One reason for hope is that for some reason the South western wa frog population doesn't seem to be affected by any of these issues to the same extent. when I took the kids to fontys pool; a man made limestone pool surrounded by cropping / fruit farms I saw more frogs in one night there than I have in the rest of my life. While I like frogs this was nearly plague of Egypt style and all tree frogs. It was amazing, worth the visit for this experience alone.

 

[wayneL]

The nuclear threat at the time was not alarmist, it was very real and the cold war affirmed it. In fact it is close to that again with the US Russia and now China.

This is a discussion forum where views and observations should be freely part of the rationale in this debate.

I am sorry for your personal experiences Ole Pal but they should have little to do with our basic discussion/debate.

Your hostilty at some of, what I would regard as reasonable views, indicates hysteria from your pocket.

One gets the feeling that you are a part of the oil/coal cartel lobby. It is that strong and vehement.

I started as just a boy from a farm, where from 1952 I observed annual heavy rainfalls and tadpoles in every puddle around Hawkesdale in Victoria. In the 1960's that changed dramatically, tadpoles disappeared and rainfall dropped. Those annual falls of 30 to 40 inches per year have never returned. The frog tadpole population formed there over many millions if years to be gone forever in a whisker.

Have stated on this thread many times the wipout of ringed tailed possums at Belcolm Creek, mount Martha, Victoria from just one hot day (over 49c). They had occupied that territory for millions of years. So one can put up all the figures you like, but what we see happening is real.

Not saying all this is from coal and oil burning but I have seen enough to believe it is a major contributer.

This is not hysterior but concern at the possibilties. I believe it therefore reasonable to seek change towards cleaner methods and particularly as these innovations to wind and solar, if subsidised as well as the oil/coal industry was would in fact be cheaper and certainly more efficient once running nationally and possibly linked internationally.

Oh so you resort to the standard straw man argument, Wayne must have a sh!tload of oil shares.

That's disgraceful Plod.

a/ My views are somewhere around the median as I have detailed ad infinitum on here. Aligning somwhere in the region of Pielke Snr & Jnr, both ho have ceased writing on the subject due to the hatefest from the likes of you and basilio; and Dysons's view is also eminently reasonable.

b/ I do not own any energy shares at all. not one, zip, nada.

So you can shove that up your khyber mate.

As far as disappearing frogs etc. Mate, as I have also detailed here ad nauseum, climate change is only one issue and pathologically focussed on to the exclusion of anything else. There are a plethora of other anthropogenic factors responsible for the degradation of our soils, water, flora and fauna. Yet your Apocalyptic sect of kiddy killers wants to assign everything to exaggerated climate change.

That is both unbelievably stupid and incredibly irresponsible as these other issues are completely ignored.

In fact I strongly support the majority replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy forms. Mining/drilling is incredibly destructive and though we've cleaned up substantively, it is still a polluting and dirty technology. I am also uncomfortable with the power and behaviour of oil companies.

For the meantime we have to live with them however.

So plod, we've discussed this all before. I had commended you on your sincerity on this issue but I now recind that based on your inability to grasp the full range of issues and continuous retreat to unfounded and unreasonable alarmism.

As I stared before, basilio is a hopeless case and looks to be at ease with kid topping themselves. :frown:

 

[Tisme]

I see Perth has come off it's hottest something or other.

Brisbane weather is changing too

 

[Tisme]

I started as just a boy from a farm, where from 1952 I observed annual heavy rainfalls and tadpoles in every puddle around Hawkesdale in Victoria. In the 1960's that changed dramatically, tadpoles disappeared and rainfall dropped. Those annual falls of 30 to 40 inches per year have never returned. The frog tadpole population formed there over many millions if years to be gone forever in a whisker.

.

In the 1950s, DDT use was rampant as was deforestation. I think the worst state in the 50's, for wrecking habitat was WA land clearing to make way for the wheat belts. Micro climates must have suffered.

You can't wipe out 40% of the remnant forests, leaving land islands, in the last 60 years and expect native flora and fauna to continue living.

Really though, who gives a fig ... we have our childhood memories and the current kids only care about their smart phones and game PCs.

 

[Tisme]

Check out WA dam inflow page 10:


http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/37d4a0d2a372656332d75d0163d9e8b8.pdf

 

[basilio]

As I stared before, basilio is a hopeless case and looks to be at ease with kid topping themselves. Wayne L

I'm not sure what's sadder Wayne. This particularly nasty little jibe or the fact that you choose to overlook both my personal regret at the death of friends daughter and the deliberate plus 1 I made on Ghotlibs post on the topic.

Cut the nastiness please. It does not improve the quality of this thread or the ASF forum. Maybe you might like to look at the scientific sources of the papers I quote and discuss ay issues you see with their methodology

 

[Tisme]

As I stared before, basilio is a hopeless case and looks to be at ease with kid topping themselves. :frown:

You know one of the many kids who would sleep at my place in lieu of questionable parenting from their own, decided to leave my house at midnight and jump off a major shopping centre carpark to his death, in his teens. I didn't go hunting for heartless b4stards to blame, instead I went around to his house and told his dad that his boy loved him.

Basilio doesn't deserve you viciousness. If he advocated inappropriate ideas for children and youth I would be deeply concerned for those he might infect, but your invective does appear displaced.

 

[Ijustnewit]

Seems that we're setting new temperature records down here in Tas:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...ory-fnj4f7k1-1227568654501?from=trendinglinks

As for rain, well that basically just stopped a month ago with very little since mid-September. It's as though someone just flicked a switch and turned the rain off. Add in the warm weather and runoff has dropped rapidly to very low levels for this time of year.

Climate change? No proof, just another data point.

The conventional explanation is a strong El Nino combined with a positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole). Both tend to result in lower rainfall in SE Australia, put them together and the effect is pretty strong.

Hobart has some other interesting but worrying facts and that is the number of new Monthly average records set in the 2000's . We have had new records for the hottest months now set in , 2003, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014 and with this month certain to join that's 2015. This is based on 122 years of records. Only 2 records remain in the 1800's and the other records were set in 1990's.
Maybe we are at the peak and then it will shift back the other way ? One things for certain , washing out our jam jars and installing millions of solar panels and charging climate taxes won't reverse what mother nature has install for us.

 

[wayneL]

I'm not sure what's sadder Wayne. This particularly nasty little jibe or the fact that you choose to overlook both my personal regret at the death of friends daughter and the deliberate plus 1 I made on Ghotlibs post on the topic.

Cut the nastiness please. It does not improve the quality of this thread or the ASF forum. Maybe you might like to look at the scientific sources of the papers I quote and discuss ay issues you see with their methodology

I 100% stand by my comments.