Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Temjin]

I'm seeing a very large increase in the number of people I meet who don't believe the whole thing. A year ago it was probably 99% acceptance, now I'd say that's down to maybe 50% and in freefall.

Really?? I still see 98% acceptance, but I'm obviously amoung the 2%. I am not convinced with the whole GW thing, using the same argument that you just put forward. (the whole thing being pushed too hard)

I also take into account of human cognitive biases. Again, the recency bias comes into play. I just don't see how using a chart of 200 years would determine the future trend when Earth has a history of few hundred million years. Just because we see an ice breaking off the Arctic does not mean the whole polar cap will melt away in the next few years.

And I am definitely not buying into the Al Gore's BS. Just look at his massive "green" fund and the amount of management fee he charges.

 

[Aussiejeff]

That clearly shows an increase in ice cover to my eyes...

Hmmm. You sure you took off your rose tinted glasses first, Smurf? LOL

I class myself as a modest performer when it comes to completing the "Spot The Difference" photos in her mags...

So, here is a tagged copy of those same maps showing those areas that I can see have seen a significant REDUCTION in the concentration of sea ice since 1998 compared to the ONE area (denoted by green arrow at left) that appears to have gained.

There is also a massive decrease in the % concentration of an area near the pole itself - at about the 11 o'clock position - denoted by the change from purple/mauve (80-100%) to red (60-70%).

Sorry. But to MY eye these comparative pics show that the overall reduction in % of sea concentration since 1998 appears to be SIGNIFICANT - totally opposite to what you and Wayne are claiming! Oh, wait a minute... I just put on some rose tinted glasses. AMAZING - the whole map is now covered with sea ice!!!

PS: The green arrow pointing to the void near the centre of the pixc was supposed to be yellow! My bad...



AJ

 

[wayneL]

Hmmm. You sure you took off your rose tinted glasses first, Smurf? LOL

I class myself as a modest performer when it comes to completing the "Spot The Difference" photos in her mags...

So, here is a tagged copy of those same maps showing those areas that I can see have seen a significant REDUCTION in the concentration of sea ice since 1998 compared to the ONE area (denoted by green arrow at left) that appears to have gained.

There is also a massive decrease in the % concentration of an area near the pole itself - at about the 11 o'clock position - denoted by the change from purple/mauve (80-100%) to red (60-70%).

Sorry. But to MY eye these comparative pics show that the overall reduction in % of sea concentration since 1998 appears to be SIGNIFICANT - totally opposite to what you and Wayne are claiming! Oh, wait a minute... I just put on some rose tinted glasses. AMAZING - the whole map is now covered with sea ice!!!

PS: The green arrow pointing to the void near the centre of the pixc was supposed to be yellow! My bad...



AJ

Jeff,

That's not really the point I was trying to make. In the sample period of observation, from 1979 till now, there is a downward trend in Arctic sea ice.

But what I hoped to illustrate, both implicitly and explicitly, are the following points.

1/ The data period is a statistically minuscule sample; not even long enough to get any sort of meaningful standard deviation. Variations in Arctic sea ice can have no statistical conclusions drawn from them at this stage.

2/ While we observe a downward trend in the Arctic, there is an upward trend in the Antarctic... both temperatures and sea ice. In isolation from each other, diametrically opposing conclusions can be drawn. Of course the AGW fear mongers only consider the situation that suits them, viz, the Arctic.

Intellectual fraud

3/ The IPCC fear mongers are guilty of disingenuous data mining. This is the most damning conclusions drawn from Crikey's images in comparison to those that I posted. The public will take Crikey's on face value without ever realizing that the true picture in entirety is totally different to that inferred.

We are being effectively lied to by strategic omission, irreconcilably and irreversibly damaging the public's trust in quangos such the IPCC who may ultimately have an important role in the future. But by the time the future arrives, their credibility will be completely and deservedly destroyed.

Bad show.

 

[2020hindsight]

....
Here's what Penny Wong said this week - quoting the CSIRO .. note the last sentence. of the second page

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2008/pubs/tr20080707.pdf

" The CSIRO have reports out that project where climate change will take the reduction in water in the Murray Darling by 2050. We're currently tracking below the worst case scenario of mid-century.

In other words, what we are experiencing now is worse that the scientists have predicted for the worst case climate change scenario for 2050... "

 

[2020hindsight]

.....

Here's that excerpt referrd to in previous post..

Here's two recent articles since ..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/13/2302210.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/13/2302192.htm?section=justin

Beyond Reasonable Drought ...
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2007/s1933481.htm

 

[2020hindsight]

Beyond Reasonable Drought - A photographic exhibition that will tour Aus next year.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2007/s1933481.htm

... "a few miles over they've got paddocks that would fatten a crow bar"

http://hackwatch.blogspot.com/2004/09/is-david-uren-howards-man.html

"a grazier in the richest postcode (some years back) who claimed "you could fatten a crowbar" in the region, but didn't get any comments from Cullacabardee in Western Australia (the poorest postcode). "

That first photo taken at Weldon Hill Station, NT (I think that's right - hard to read)

"You don't have to become all emotional and speak about it because here is a photograph that very sensitively and articulately communicates it".

Andrew Chapman agrees it's a constantly evolving process and the final exhibition wont be ready until next year.

"I think it's the ebb and flow of what's happening out there right around the country. It's value as a collection of images will be there in 10 or 15 years when people look back on this period. Is it global warming? Is it a bad drought? I guess time will tell."

It's hoped Beyond Reasonable Drought will tour the country next year including Old Parliament House in Canberra, and organisers are still looking for contributors from drought affected parts of Western Australia and central western Queensland

 

[2020hindsight]

Any photos from 1660?

gg

...
no but here's the graphical projections that go back to 1660 (and some!) Incidentally 1660 was a cold period.

Firstly the "con" version put up in the show "the Great Global Warming Swindle" (it says - totally falsely - that "now" is less than the 1200's)

next with the graph where "now" REALLY means "now" !!

and projected into the (disturbingly near) future.

I can't understand why you blokes keep saying "check the money trail" to see if the talk of global warming ( by the likes of David Attenborough etc) is real or not ..

and you don't seem to realise that you yourselves are pawns of the oil industry (or if not - passing on their propaganda, Ball and co, scientific harlots) A couple of whom have proven track record - eg "smoking and lung cancer are unconnected" - yeah right - so, much were you paid for that "scientific opinion"? lol.

PS When you look at that graph - be aware that the IPCC plan is to TRY to limit the temp increase to only 2 deg rise -
and we do that by reducing the CO2e emissions by 1.9% per annum - PROVIDED we start NOW.
We wait 7 years - we have to reduce by about 2.5% per annum from memory.

 

[2020hindsight]

Killer cornflakes!

Damn headlines!

Just about put me off my favourite brekky...

until I read the whole story.

this post way back (#944)

Will 'killer cornflakes' be on our tables?
Rosemary Desmond | May 13, 2008 - 3:25PM

Climate change could lead to "killer cornflakes" with the cereal carrying the most potent liver toxin ever recorded, an environmental health conference has been told.

Speaking of jesting -
no doubt someone has already made this joke

but does that mean there will be an outbreak of serial killers?

 

[2020hindsight]

...
and you don't seem to realise that you yourselves are pawns of the oil industry (or if not - passing on their propaganda, Ball and co, scientific harlots) A couple of whom have proven track record - eg "smoking and lung cancer are unconnected" - yeah right - so, much were you paid for that "scientific opinion"?

As I said back there - in #735 I think...

Back to Singer and Ball - If you had a relative who died from smoking-related cancer AFTER Singer and Ball went in to bat so strongly (including financial gain) FOR the cigarette companies, would you say it's fair to call them scientific who-res? Or would you use a term like murderers?

Yet another question that your side of the discussion here seems reluctant to answer . - maybe because it's blantantly obvious that it's at least manslaughter.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hmmm. You sure you took off your rose tinted glasses first, Smurf? LOL

I class myself as a modest performer when it comes to completing the "Spot The Difference" photos in her mags...

So, here is a tagged copy of those same maps showing those areas that I can see have seen a significant REDUCTION in the concentration of sea ice since 1998 compared to the ONE area (denoted by green arrow at left) that appears to have gained.

There is also a massive decrease in the % concentration of an area near the pole itself - at about the 11 o'clock position - denoted by the change from purple/mauve (80-100%) to red (60-70%).

Sorry. But to MY eye these comparative pics show that the overall reduction in % of sea concentration since 1998 appears to be SIGNIFICANT - totally opposite to what you and Wayne are claiming! Oh, wait a minute... I just put on some rose tinted glasses. AMAZING - the whole map is now covered with sea ice!!!

PS: The green arrow pointing to the void near the centre of the pixc was supposed to be yellow! My bad...



AJ

Am I looking at it right? I mean, only the white area is actual ice I assume? Or is the purple, red etc also ice?

 

[Smurf1976]

[/U]

...
no but here's the graphical projections that go back to 1660 (and some!) Incidentally 1660 was a cold period.

Firstly the "con" version put up in the show "the Great Global Warming Swindle" (it says - totally falsely - that "now" is less than the 1200's)

next with the graph where "now" REALLY means "now" !!

and projected into the (disturbingly near) future.

I can't understand why you blokes keep saying "check the money trail" to see if the talk of global warming ( by the likes of David Attenborough etc) is real or not ..

and you don't seem to realise that you yourselves are pawns of the oil industry (or if not - passing on their propaganda, Ball and co, scientific harlots) A couple of whom have proven track record - eg "smoking and lung cancer are unconnected" - yeah right - so, much were you paid for that "scientific opinion"? lol.

PS When you look at that graph - be aware that the IPCC plan is to TRY to limit the temp increase to only 2 deg rise -
and we do that by reducing the CO2e emissions by 1.9% per annum - PROVIDED we start NOW.
We wait 7 years - we have to reduce by about 2.5% per annum from memory.

I have, both through work and as an individual, been involved on numerous occasions with emergencies of various kinds. Floods, fires, explosions, gas leaks, road accidents, workplace accidents, blackouts, structural collapse - I've been involved in the response to all of those.

And if there's one thing about emergency response it's this. You always, always, use whatever solution can be most quicky implemented. It doesn't have to be perfect and you don't worry about the side effects. You pick the quickest option from the choices (if there are any) that are good enough to do the job.

Environmentalists are increasingly talking of a climate "emergency". Fair enough, that may well be the case.

But if it is indeed an emergency then it warrants urgent action to do something about it. That by definition means the response will not be perfect and it will have side effects.

Now here's the crunch. What would be the quickest way to cut Australia's (for example) emissions? You'd have no choice other than to move everything possible to electricity (unless you can directly use solar for heat etc). And you'd have no choice but to build nuclear, hydro and wind to generate that power (nuclear being dominant).

I challenge anyone to come up with a plan that actually works (without collapsing the economy) that doesn't involve using more electricity and getting that electricity from nuclear, hydro and wind. You can do it in 50 years for sure, but if that's adequate then it's not a real emergency.

But environmentalists oppose all of these. We all know they don't like dams and nuclear but they aren't real keen on wind either - unless it's on a small scale and thus doesn't solve the problem. Instead we hear calls to "go solar" and do all sorts of other things which, whilst they might work eventually, are too little, too late if they are the response to an actual emergency.

Hence I don't believe that the majority of environmentalists (or the general public) believes we have or are headed for an emergency with the climate. A long term problem requiring a long term solution maybe - that's what their actions are pushing for. But few if any are talking about action in the context of an emergency here and now.

That being so, the calls to cut x% within 10 or 20 years are ridiculous - nobody is willing to support the measures needed to actually do it.

 

[explod]

[/U]


That being so, the calls to cut x% within 10 or 20 years are ridiculous - nobody is willing to support the measures needed to actually do it.

Smurf, having no power invested in me to do so I hereby declare this as the best thread of the Month.

And there is no more that I can add.

Cheers explod

 

[2020hindsight]

1. .... You pick the quickest option from the choices (if there are any) that are good enough to do the job.

2. Environmentalists are increasingly talking of a climate "emergency". Fair enough, that may well be the case. ..then it warrants urgent action

3. ...you'd have no choice but to build nuclear, hydro and wind to generate that power (nuclear being dominant).

4. I challenge anyone to come up with a plan that actually works (without collapsing the economy) that doesn't involve using more electricity and getting that electricity from nuclear, hydro and wind. You can do it in 50 years for sure, but if that's adequate then it's not a real emergency.

5. But environmentalists oppose all of these. .. Instead we hear calls to "go solar" ... too little, too late.

6. Hence I don't believe that the majority of environmentalists (or the general public) believes we have or are headed for an emergency with the climate. A long term problem requiring a long term solution maybe - that's what their actions are pushing for. But few if any are talking about action in the context of an emergency here and now.

7. That being so, the calls to cut x% within 10 or 20 years are ridiculous - nobody is willing to support the measures needed to actually do it.

1. .... "Do what you can, now, with what you've got" Winston Churchill. (something like that anyway)

2. "urgent action?" - yep. Heck we could discuss that emergency fallback position of Prof Tim Flannery's again if you wish (sulphur, artificial volcanoes etc)

3. ... "no choice but to build nuclear, hydro" - true but see also 2

4. ... They (IPCC) are intentionally keeping their goals realistic - I mean 1.9% per year reduction in CO2e isn't or SHOULD NOT be unachievable surely. That will keep the max rise to 2deg C.

......But even then, a percentage of the public winge as if countless lives of countless types of critters (particularly the quality of life of their grandchildren) didn't depend upon it.

5. ... we hear calls to "go solar" ... too little, too late. Probably true - I used to import solar cells in the 80's. Was hard to sell ; too much - too early

6. .. "few if any are talking about action" - so what are you saying smurf? - as a well educated person? - do nothing?

7. "x% within 10 or 20 years" - nobody is willing to support the measures needed to actually do it" - the big majority have come round - and the rest are coming round or don't matter - slowly but surely, mate.

The following graphs for either
a) starting now, and (1.9% per annum reduction in CO2e)
b) starting in 2017 (2.5% per annum reduction in CO2e)

 

[explod]

Smurf, having no power invested in me to do so I hereby declare this as the best thread of the Month.

And there is no more that I can add.

Cheers explod

Sorry smurf, got so carried away with my lack of statutry power and the content of your thread that got confused between thread and post.

A great post, and you too 2020

cheers explod

 

[2020hindsight]

smurf and eplod, I suspect you'll both agree with this one

Progress was all right. Only it went on too long.
James Thurber

 

[Smurf1976]

My underlying point in all my posts on this subject comes down to this really:

Question 1.

Is the problem real or not? Not the warming as such, but the consequences thereof.

Question 2.

Is it necessary to make a significant reduction in emissions compared to business as usual (that is, growth in emissions) within the next 30 years?

Question 3.

Is the scale of the necessary reduction such that emissions would, in 30 years time, need to be reduced below present levels? (As opposed to simply slowing the rate of growth).

Answer.

If the answer to the above 3 questions is all "yes" then from a practical perspective there's really only one course of action available. And that is to (1) shift away from the direct use of fossil fuels wherever possible and (2) no new fossil fuel power stations of any type to be built.

Point 1 implies a large increase in total electricity consumption. It would vary by region but I'm talking 100% increase or something like that not 5 or 10%. And that's in addition to any increase that would normally have occurred.

Point 2 requires a massive building program for non-fossil power generation that needs to start today. It must thus be based on technolgies that are available, proven and viable today. That limits it to nuclear baseload with a wind and hydro system providing the rest at the national level (the Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA interconnected system).

This means building nuclear power stations in Australia. It means building a lot more wind farms, many near the coast and on hill tops. And it means building more hydro-electric dams, though not to the point of damming every last creek and flooding genuine wilderness areas.

If we had 20 or 30 years before ending emissions growth then there's all sorts of things we could do without needing nuclear or wind power.

But if it's urgent then nuclear, hydro and wind it is. Sometime in the future, we can swap nuclear with geothermal and wind with solar thermal for new plant construction. So 50 years time, and it will take that long before we're completely finished with fossil fuel power generation, we'd have a mix of geothermal and nuclear baseload plus a wind, solar and hydro system taking care of the rest. Nuclear and wind would be declining, geothermal and solar taking their place.

Technically it's very doable if properly planned and the economics would likely be tolerable if the rest of the world is likewise acting to reduce emissions.

But sadly, I will guarantee you that mainstream environmentalists will fight every last piece of such a plan. They'll fight wind farms anywhere they can be seen - which is just about everywhere they can be built. They'll fight dams even if the area being flooded is of no real value to anyone. And they'll fight the transmission lines needed to connect it all up no matter where they're put. And no need to mention that they won't support nuclear.

Hence we're stuck with ongoing emissions growth and, at best, a few % of total energy from renewables. That outcome works only if we've got 50 or so years before any real action is needed - many disagree with that but hardly anyone supports the measures needed to do something about it. Hence I don't believe any mainstream politician or environmentalists is in any way serious about this being an urgent problem.

And so that's my point. Either we need to take drastic action or we don't. And if we need to take drastic action then we're stuck with nuclear reactors, flooded valleys and not being able to get around without seeing wind turbines as the consequence. If we had 30 years to start then we can likely avoid doing those things, but we've got no choice if it's urgent.

No easy options unfortunately - that's the inherent problem of energy. Personally, I'm hoping we can wait then go geothermal / solar thermal / hydro with a bit of wind. But that view assumes the problem isn't urgent - many are starting to argue otherwise.

 

[wayneL]

And so that's my point. Either we need to take drastic action or we don't. And if we need to take drastic action then we're stuck with nuclear reactors, flooded valleys and not being able to get around without seeing wind turbines as the consequence. If we had 30 years to start then we can likely avoid doing those things, but we've got no choice if it's urgent.

No easy options unfortunately - that's the inherent problem of energy.

On the money - completely.

If we take the example set by the actions of members of IPCC and the AGW lobby, it would seem we do nothing apart from some cosmetic feel good measures around the edges.

They are showing us that hedonistic, energy gluttonous lifestyles are OK. eg Al Bore's house and IPCC meetings at luxury South Pacific resorts.

If they do nothing, Joe Sixpack certainly ain't going to do it or pay for it. A point I am sorry to repeat ad nauseum.

 

[2020hindsight]

Q1. Is the problem real or not? Not the warming as such, but the consequences thereof.

Q2. Is it necessary to make a significant reduction in emissions compared to business as usual (that is, growth in emissions) within the next 30 years?

Q3. Is the scale of the necessary reduction such that emissions would, in 30 years time, need to be reduced below present levels? (As opposed to simply slowing the rate of growth).

Answer.

4. If the answer to the above 3 questions is all "yes" then from a practical perspective there's really only one course of action available. And that is ...no new fossil fuel power stations of any type to be built.

5. ...... This means building nuclear power stations in Australia. It means .. wind farms, .. And it means building more hydro-electric dams, ...

6. .. If we had 20 or 30 years before ending emissions growth then there's all sorts of things we could do without needing nuclear or wind power.

7. But if it's urgent then nuclear, hydro and wind it is. Sometime in the future, we can swap nuclear with geothermal and wind with solar thermal for new plant construction. ...

Technically it's very doable if properly planned and the economics would likely be tolerable if the rest of the world is likewise acting to reduce emissions.

..
And so that's my point. Either we need to take drastic action or we don't.

Q1. yep, real
Q2. yep, significant reduction within the next 30 years essential
Q3. yep, shinbone yes!

4. "above 3 questions is all "yes" - ..no new fossil fuel power stations of any type to be built."
Well I would agree 100%, but check out the Yanks and the Chinese putting up coal fired plants at a rate of knots
PS don't forget the Flannery solution
The confidence people are claiming for carbon capture is ... ,mmm ...... I remain to be convinced - but let's give em the benefit of the doubt (I guess )

5, 6, and 7. ..let's go nuclear - and forget the hydro - too much flaming methane

8. "And so that's my point. Either we need to take drastic action or we don't."
well, we're having enough problem convincing a few around here that the polar icecaps are melting, - lol. - lol? I mean groan.

IPCC very reasonably say that 1.9% per annum is ok!
I'm backing them. : 2twocents

PS There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt in my mind that Australia will be more than 50% nuclear by 2100 - i.e. our grandkids ( freed of all disease, and cured from all known causes of death, lol) may live to see it : 2twocents

 

[Smurf1976]

5, 6, and 7. ..let's go nuclear - and forget the hydro - too much flaming methane

With present technology either we have significant hydro in the grid or we have significant fossil fuels. It doesn't work with reasonable efficiency to be 100% nuclear and intermittent sources (wind etc). Even 100% coal is problematic - it's always more efficient to add some hydro.

In a technical sense this is simply because of the incredibly high flexibility of hydro plant in operation. It's easy to bring a turbine online and to 100% load real fast. And just as easy to shut it down again. Try doing that with a nuclear reactor, sending the output all over the place, and you're just asking for trouble.

It's quite practical to build a hydro scheme with minimal methane emissions. Just remove the vegetation before the dam is closed.

As for the specifics, I'm refering to largely pumped storage schemes with relatively small storages. Big turbines run for short periods. Some natural flow as well, we need the primary energy, but that's not the main objective for future hydro development. This won't make a lot of methane if done properly.

We're not going to run the whole country on hydro that's for sure. But it's a vital component of any move to a non-fossil grid due to the flexibility and storage it can provide.

 

[2020hindsight]

We're not going to run the whole country on hydro that's for sure. But it's a vital component of any move to a non-fossil grid due to the flexibility and storage it can provide.

thanks smurf,
ok - have it your way - some hydro as well ...

damned if I know where, lol - but somewhere , somehow , .. maybe.
and/or wind I guess. (as you suggested - but my subconscious discounted because of start up cost - sheesh - not that I've done any sums whatsoever)

probably because I've spent too much time sailing - doldrums - becalmed etc