Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

Was there ever any debate and two vast differences of opinion when the Hydrocarbon , Ozone depleting gas issues was found to be impacting on the Atmosphere and UV levels. I think most people took the evidence as gospel and the World made changes to arrest the situation and stop using Hydrocarbons.

I don't want to sound like shooting you down over a technicality , but the issue there was chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), a range of man-made chemicals the commercial production of which commenced at scale circa 1930.

We're still using lots of hydrocarbons today, commonly known as oil and gas, and indeed in some cases we're using hydrocarbons as a replacement for CFC's in solvent, propellant (aerosol cans), foam blowing and refrigeration applications.

A quick Google search finds that the composition of CFC use was approximately:

Aerosol cans as propellant = 26%
Refrigeration = 26%
Foam = 25%
Solvents = 16%
Others = 7%

So far as replacing with something else was concerned, in many cases it was straightforward and cheap, hence the relative lack of objection on economic grounds.

Aerosols = very easy to simply use butane or propane instead. Apart from being flammable (but then the other contents of the can are often flammable anyway so that's not generally a major issue), there's no real downside in the vast majority of applications. Propane and butane? That's the stuff commonly known in Australia as LPG - plenty of it and it's cheap.

Foam = various hydrocarbon based alternatives were suitable so again, it wasn't hugely difficult to just use a different gas to do the same job.

Those two "easy" replacements alone accounted for half the total CFC use. So a 50% cut was pretty straightforward.

Refrigeration and solvents were harder, but in due course various alternatives were developed first with less effect on ozone and later with none (so far as we know at present).

The hard bit was the last 7% and that includes things like fire extinguishers, some medical applications and so on. But we worked around it by just using different, albeit less effective in some situations, fire extinguishers and for a while there were exemptions for the medical applications. But still, getting rid of the vast majority of CFC use wasn't beyond our collective abilities.

Why is then that this time that people are wary of the science and others are full on believers ? Is it because the evidence is so hard to prove this time ?

In contrast, with CO2 it's very different since just about everything we do requires energy, and most energy in most places is from sources that emit CO2. There is several orders of magnitude greater impact economically when compared to the CFC issue.

When the issue first came to widespread public attention in 1988, solar and wind were both out of the question economically and it was just two years after the Chernobyl disaster which left nuclear power unpalatable to most. Here in Australia, it was also just 5 years after we effectively decided to wind up hydro development amidst huge controversy at the time, thus leaving us with "coal or nothing" for power generation and an already established national economic strategy of exporting increasing volumes of coal in order to offset the cost of importing expensive oil (an idea that came out of the 1970's oil crises).

Energy is intertwined with everything. Bottom line of a very complex subject is that if you raise the economic cost of energy then that's essentially a tax on the entire economy. The problem with CO2 is not a technical one, we already have the technology to cut emissions by about two thirds without major technical disruption to how we live, but rather it is a financial problem.

 

[explod]

Son..You are still only a boy...I am old enough to be your father and have definitely seen more weather changes in my time than most people.

The Sun has far more than a minute part in the weather...It has a major part and far more than this CO2 man made Global Warming scam that you and the lefties purport to be.

And now don't forget, the ALARMISTS are now in the minority..

Happy New Climate Change New Year and don't let the skeptics boil your blood , it is no good for your health.

Your bollicks so strenuously put forward tells me that you would be little more than 40.

 

[explod]

Smurf1976,

Your knowledge base and posts are excellent

 

[noco]

Your bollicks so strenuously put forward tells me that you would be little more than 40.

How I wish I were 40 again...I do think and feel like a 40 year old....3 kids...5 Grand kids and 5 Great Grand kids...Does that tell you something?.....My eldest granddaughter is 30 and my eldest great grand daughter is 11......Can you match it?

 

[explod]

How I wish I were 40 again...I do think and feel like a 40 year old....3 kids...5 Grand kids and 5 Great Grand kids...Does that tell you something?.....My eldest granddaughter is 30 and my eldest great grand daughter is 11......Can you match it?

Eldest Grandchild at Uni this year, 19, her Sister 17 and have 6 other Grandchildren.

So what, have a good 2016 and start to evaluate information, read some books and move away from the oil lobby.

Many of the big companies who paid no tax in 2014 made donations to the liberal party. A mate of mine obtained the lists (thanks to the Greens in Senate). Going to be interesting to highlight when I have my hard copies.

Actually, in climate, finance and corrupt money controlled government I see us as pretty well stuffed.

 

[wayneL]

So Wayne.

Exactly what is the problem with recognising that there may in fact have been some serious flooding in UK in the past and also acknowledging that the current changes in climate brought about by global warming are adding their own impact ?

The buzzword in every utterance has been "unprecedented". UofG et al showed it isn't.

In addition the change of river and drainage management practices (EU mandate) as copied by Moonbat from every modearate and the "it's climate change" hystrionics starts to look a little shakey.

Plod.

DYOR on current arctic temps. There is more to it that you think.

 

[noco]

Eldest Grandchild at Uni this year, 19, her Sister 17 and have 6 other Grandchildren.

So what, have a good 2016 and start to evaluate information, read some books and move away from the oil lobby.

Many of the big companies who paid no tax in 2014 made donations to the liberal party. A mate of mine obtained the lists (thanks to the Greens in Senate). Going to be interesting to highlight when I have my hard copies.

Actually, in climate, finance and corrupt money controlled government I see us as pretty well stuffed.

Perhaps we should get back onto the the Resisting Climate HYsteria thread..:topic

 

[Ijustnewit]

I don't want to sound like shooting you down over a technicality , but the issue there was chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), a range of man-made chemicals the commercial production of which commenced at scale circa 1930.

We're still using lots of hydrocarbons today, commonly known as oil and gas, and indeed in some cases we're using hydrocarbons as a replacement for CFC's in solvent, propellant (aerosol cans), foam blowing and refrigeration applications.

A quick Google search finds that the composition of CFC use was approximately:

Aerosol cans as propellant = 26%
Refrigeration = 26%
Foam = 25%
Solvents = 16%
Others = 7%

So far as replacing with something else was concerned, in many cases it was straightforward and cheap, hence the relative lack of objection on economic grounds.

Aerosols = very easy to simply use butane or propane instead. Apart from being flammable (but then the other contents of the can are often flammable anyway so that's not generally a major issue), there's no real downside in the vast majority of applications. Propane and butane? That's the stuff commonly known in Australia as LPG - plenty of it and it's cheap.

Foam = various hydrocarbon based alternatives were suitable so again, it wasn't hugely difficult to just use a different gas to do the same job.

Those two "easy" replacements alone accounted for half the total CFC use. So a 50% cut was pretty straightforward.

Refrigeration and solvents were harder, but in due course various alternatives were developed first with less effect on ozone and later with none (so far as we know at present).

The hard bit was the last 7% and that includes things like fire extinguishers, some medical applications and so on. But we worked around it by just using different, albeit less effective in some situations, fire extinguishers and for a while there were exemptions for the medical applications. But still, getting rid of the vast majority of CFC use wasn't beyond our collective abilities.




In contrast, with CO2 it's very different since just about everything we do requires energy, and most energy in most places is from sources that emit CO2. There is several orders of magnitude greater impact economically when compared to the CFC issue.

When the issue first came to widespread public attention in 1988, solar and wind were both out of the question economically and it was just two years after the Chernobyl disaster which left nuclear power unpalatable to most. Here in Australia, it was also just 5 years after we effectively decided to wind up hydro development amidst huge controversy at the time, thus leaving us with "coal or nothing" for power generation and an already established national economic strategy of exporting increasing volumes of coal in order to offset the cost of importing expensive oil (an idea that came out of the 1970's oil crises).

Energy is intertwined with everything. Bottom line of a very complex subject is that if you raise the economic cost of energy then that's essentially a tax on the entire economy. The problem with CO2 is not a technical one, we already have the technology to cut emissions by about two thirds without major technical disruption to how we live, but rather it is a financial problem.

Thanks Smurf , My bad I do the same when I go to the Chemist looking for lip balm , I get all mixed up and walk out with a tube of Anusol.

 

[Ijustnewit]

I did manage to see a Meteorologist on the ABC news 24 tonight saying that El Nino is also related to and causing the havoc weather in the Northern Hemisphere . Including the floods in England , I didn't catch his name but I hope they replay the interview.

 

[basilio]

The buzzword in every utterance has been "unprecedented". UofG et al showed it isn't.

In addition the change of river and drainage management practices (EU mandate) as copied by Moonbat from every modearate and the "it's climate change" hystrionics starts to look a little shakey.

.

So lets get this right Wayne.. Your prepared to accept an analysis by one group of scientists that suggests there were some very serious floods in the UK in the past but reject the work of thousands of other current scientists on the extent and effect of current climate change largely caused by human produced GG ?

 

[wayneL]

So lets get this right Wayne.. Your prepared to accept an analysis by one group of scientists that suggests there were some very serious floods in the UK in the past but reject the work of thousands of other current scientists on the extent and effect of current climate change largely caused by human produced GG ?

I love how you put words in my mouth basilio.

I'm saying alarmists are using the current floods, miscategorizing them as 'unprecedented' as evidence of climate change.

I'm saying when analyzing the extent of any climate change. we dhould be a bid more sober about current events, analyzing them in toto and with reference to the past.

Pielke Jnr had some great science on this approach until he was hounded out of the debate by the Climate McCartyists.

 

[basilio]

Nah mate your just a total BS artist. Your definition of looking at the whole picture in toto is picking out the crumbs of historical data that might conceivably support your case.

Anything and everything else that doesn't support your non case is just classified as alarmist. And you call that looking at the whole picture?

What a sick sad joke..

 

[wayneL]

Nah mate your just a total BS artist. Your definition of looking at the whole picture in toto is picking out the crumbs of historical data that might conceivably support your case.

Anything and everything else that doesn't support your non case is just classified as alarmist. And you call that looking at the whole picture?

What a sick sad joke..

Thank you for adding that ad hominem basilio.

Can you explain, please, how viewing the current floods in the UK, directly to it's own history of floods, can be categorized as 'crumbs'?

 

[basilio]

Thank you for adding that ad hominem basilio.

Can you explain, please, how viewing the current floods in the UK, directly to it's own history of floods, can be categorized as 'crumbs'?

Simple... The floods are unprecedented in terms of the past 150 years. The rainfall that has caused these floods is also at record levels. Around the world we have weather events in US, Australia, Europe the North Pole that challenge and overrun our current concepts of "normal" weather. They are off the scale in in fact depict changes in climate.

These events have been accurately forecast by climate scientists as logical consequences of the increase in global temperature cause largely by human generated Greenhouse Gases.

Yet you ignore all this research , all these events, all these consequences as immaterial in the discussion. In that picture I suggest those records are crumbs. The whole loaf is cooked and turning to toast.

 

[wayneL]

Simple... The floods are unprecedented in terms of the past 150 years. The rainfall that has caused these floods is also at record levels. Around the world we have weather events in US, Australia, Europe the North Pole that challenge and overrun our current concepts of "normal" weather. They are off the scale in in fact depict changes in climate.

These events have been accurately forecast by climate scientists as logical consequences of the increase in global temperature cause largely by human generated Greenhouse Gases.

Yet you ignore all this research , all these events, all these consequences as immaterial in the discussion. In that picture I suggest those records are crumbs. The whole loaf is cooked and turning to toast.

Floods have many vectors basilio. And mate, repeating the mantra does not make anything so.

We all know the weather has warmed, we all know co2 has played a role. What we don't know yet is definitively how much of a role, in relation to natural variability.

Interesting blog from The UK met http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/12/31/whats-been-happening-to-our-weather/ best summed up by the concluding sentence

So from basic physical understanding of weather systems it is entirely plausible that climate change has exacerbated what has been a period of very wet and stormy weather arising from natural variability.

Notice Slingo said 'plausible' rather than definite?

Sober analysis is what is needed, not breathless alarmism and weather event opportunism

 

[explod]

We all know the weather has warmed, we all know co2 has played a role. What we don't know yet is definitively how much of a role, in relation to natural variability.

Arr huh, finally Wayne ole Pal

And we need to eliminate all contributing facits and causes that we can. And we can almost eliminate coal, will take a bit more time oil too.

Welcome aboard. Is it time to blank out hysteria and work towards rebuilding a liveable environment.

 

[wayneL]

Arr huh, finally Wayne ole Pal

And we need to eliminate all contributing facits and causes that we can. And we can almost eliminate coal, will take a bit more time oil too.

Welcome aboard. Is it time to blank out hysteria and work towards rebuilding a liveable environment.

This is evidence you don't listen Plod. This has been my position, stated explicitly on this thread several times, for years.

 

[explod]

This is evidence you don't listen Plod. This has been my position, stated explicitly on this thread several times, for years.

No champ, I have noticed a gradual shift and statements made to insulate in case so to speak, but your earlier vehemence against us so called hysterics was oposite to the extreme and venomous.

No more to be said, you have my respect, let's move on constructively and encourage moves to help our planet.

 

[wayneL]

No champ, I have noticed a gradual shift and statements made to insulate in case so to speak, but your earlier vehemence against us so called hysterics was oposite to the extreme and venomous.

No more to be said, you have my respect, let's move on constructively and encourage moves to help our planet.

I am still against unwarranted hysteria Plod, That is the topic of this thread. I will speak out against propagandists such as Cook, Gore, Hansen, basilio et al till the cows come home.

 

[noco]

I am still against unwarranted hysteria Plod, That is the topic of this thread. I will speak out against propagandists such as Cook, Gore, Hansen, basilio et al till the cows come home.

+1 Wayne......I cannot believe these idiots are still pushing there barrow full of Man made Global Warming tripe when there is so evidence to prove otherwise.

The sooner the Alarmist wake up to the fact that they now in the minority the better.