Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Sean K]

Ah statistics, as I may have mentioned once beore, you make them tell you want you want if you beat then hard enough.
For example, the Lancet published a chart representing deaths due to heat versus cold in Europe.
But they used a different scale for each one. When you adjust the chart to use the same scale, the deaths due to heat are insignificant compared to the deaths due to cold.
The idea that more people are dying due to climate change, can only be accepted if one also accepts that a lot more people die due to climate change induced cold.
Such a conundrum.
Mick

View attachment 160041

Is this one of the reasons Global Warming changed to Climate Change? Because, if it's just 'change', they can attribute extreme cold deaths to CO2. I'm sure that's been tried.

 

[Smurf1976]

In a technical sense it's absolutely doable to move most energy uses away from fossil fuels.

In a practical sense I don't for a moment think net zero by 2060 will actually happen. No chance whatsoever. Because humans simply can't get themselves in agreement to actually do the things required to do so.

Hopefully the problem has been drastically overstated. If not, we're toast because we're not going to stop burning until we run out of things to burn, that seems pretty certain.

Having seen plenty of the debate first hand, I'm really not sure if the activists believe it themselves. On one hand they argue there's a drastic need to cut emissions. On the other hand the very same organisations are the strongest opponents of doing so when it comes to the crunch.

What I do know is it's not really happening. A lot's said but bottom line is the trend in fossil fuel consumption remains up.

Meanwhile, it seems the climate might be sending penguins off course: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07...er-penguin-found-on-goolwa-beach-sa/102643566

 

[Sean K]

In a technical sense it's absolutely doable to move most energy uses away from fossil fuels.

In a practical sense I don't for a moment think net zero by 2060 will actually happen. No chance whatsoever. Because humans simply can't get themselves in agreement to actually do the things required to do so.

Hopefully the problem has been drastically overstated. If not, we're toast because we're not going to stop burning until we run out of things to burn, that seems pretty certain.

Having seen plenty of the debate first hand, I'm really not sure if the activists believe it themselves. On one hand they argue there's a drastic need to cut emissions. On the other hand the very same organisations are the strongest opponents of doing so when it comes to the crunch.

What I do know is it's not really happening. A lot's said but bottom line is the trend in fossil fuel consumption remains up.

Meanwhile, it seems the climate might be sending penguins off course: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07...er-penguin-found-on-goolwa-beach-sa/102643566

Yes, emissions are going to keep going up and up because billions of people in Asia and Africa are trying to get out of energy poverty with no real structural replacement to FF. But, let's spend $1.5t on some windmills and solar panels that will not change the temperature one iota, while our country is in fact a CO2 sink.

Thanks for the link.

A penguin turned up in the wrong spot and it's 'climate change'. ?

The climate factor​

Ms Green, who also works for as a Senior Wildlife Officer for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, said crested penguins followed the same migration routes every year.

She said they used sea-surface temperatures and salinity levels to help guide them, but that juveniles sometimes lost their way while they were learning where to go.

"Another major problem is climate change," she said.

 

[wayneL]

So it seems our resident Marxist didn't like me calling out his propaganda; cool, I don't have to see it anymore as I am blocked (Frankincense and Myrrh all round).

Anyway, in the interests of brevity, here is an abridged view of what I think:

1/ Yes there is climate change.
(I) Nobody knows the proportion attributable to each broad factor
(ii) There are natural cycles evident on a number of time frames
(iii) The Earth has emerged from a cold cycle, viz the little ice age and has naturally warmed since then.
(iv) There are probably some anthropogenic factors
2/ Anthropogenic factors include greenhouse gases, atmospheric particle pollution (soot, dust etc), urban heat island effect and major land use changes.
(I) The effect of co2 is real, however, is logarithmic in scale and vastly overstated by alarmists
(ii) The other factors are regional and may be ameliorated to a lesser or greater degree
3/ It would be desirable to find a viable replacement for fossil fuels for factors other than co2
4/ Humanity is not in danger from climate change
5/ Climate change alarmism is a cover for other agendas
6/ Just Stop Oil are the most asinine mob of morons imaginable

These views of mine have changed little in over ten years and stated more than a few times on these fora.

 

[UMike]

The real one, or the "adjusted" one?

Well..... There is no real one.

 

[noirua]

In a technical sense it's absolutely doable to move most energy uses away from fossil fuels.

In a practical sense I don't for a moment think net zero by 2060 will actually happen. No chance whatsoever. Because humans simply can't get themselves in agreement to actually do the things required to do so.

Hopefully the problem has been drastically overstated. If not, we're toast because we're not going to stop burning until we run out of things to burn, that seems pretty certain.

Having seen plenty of the debate first hand, I'm really not sure if the activists believe it themselves. On one hand they argue there's a drastic need to cut emissions. On the other hand the very same organisations are the strongest opponents of doing so when it comes to the crunch.

What I do know is it's not really happening. A lot's said but bottom line is the trend in fossil fuel consumption remains up.

Meanwhile, it seems the climate might be sending penguins off course: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07...er-penguin-found-on-goolwa-beach-sa/102643566

I wont be around in 2060 for sure. In away all this should push people off planet Earth: partly because humans are increasing in numbers too quickly. If the Earths' population halved then there would be less resources needed and less pollution. Maybe China new all this when they introduced the one child policy. Is it a pity others failed to follow and in particular India?

 

[Smurf1976]

4/ Humanity is not in danger from climate change

Regardless of the impact on humans, almost certainly there'll be other species that are threatened by a change in climate regardless of the cause.

That humans have done so many other things to push them to the edge being part of the problem there.

3/ It would be desirable to find a viable replacement for fossil fuels for factors other than co2

If nothing else then ultimately they're finite resources that would eventually run out.

How much can be economically extracted is very hard to assess but I think it's fair to say that oil and gas are moderately scarce resources. They're scarce enough that we go to great lengths to obtain them from under the ocean or in hostile regions on land. It's not like iron ore or sand which are so plentiful that most deposits are simply ignored.

5/ Climate change alarmism is a cover for other agendas

I'll go a step further and suggest that had the focus remained solely on addressing human influences on climate, without the issue being used to push other agendas, then far more progress would've been made by now with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Even among those who disagree there's a problem, I've never heard anyone argue against reducing greenhouse gas emissions per se. Nobody wants methane being released for the sake of it. That there's a pushback largely stems from the other unrelated issues hitched to the climate cause.

 

[wayneL]

 

[Dona Ferentes]

UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling".

... not helpful

 

[basilio]

UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling".

... not helpful

He was probably referring to what is happening off Florida at the moment.

Ocean heat around Florida is ‘unprecedented,’ and scientists are warning of major impacts ​

Eric Zerkel, CNN

Updated 10:21 AM EDT, Sun July 16, 2023

A sudden marine heat wave off the coast of Florida has surprised scientists and sent water temperatures soaring to unprecedented highs, threatening one of the most severe coral bleaching events the state has ever seen.

Sea surface temperatures around Florida have reached the highest levels on record since satellites began collecting ocean data. And the warming is happening much earlier than normal – yet another example of ocean heat being amplified by the human-caused climate crisis and the extreme weather it brings.

“We didn’t expect this heating to happen so early in the year and to be so extreme,” Derek Manzello, a coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Watch, told CNN. “This appears to be unprecedented in our records.”

The exceptional temperatures – close to 97 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas – are more than just another alarming climate record; extreme ocean heat and its duration are critical in deciding the survival of coral reefs. Temperatures that are too hot for too long cause coral to bleach, turning a ghastly white as they expel their algal food source and slowly starve to death.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/12/us/florida-ocean-heat-coral-bleaching-climate/index.html

 

[mullokintyre]

He was probably referring to what is happening off Florida at the moment.

Ocean heat around Florida is ‘unprecedented,’ and scientists are warning of major impacts ​

Eric Zerkel, CNN

Updated 10:21 AM EDT, Sun July 16, 2023

A sudden marine heat wave off the coast of Florida has surprised scientists and sent water temperatures soaring to unprecedented highs, threatening one of the most severe coral bleaching events the state has ever seen.

So it is threatening, not an event.
Bleaching is not killing corals, its merely the corals expelling the zooplankton that create the myriad of colours.

Sea surface temperatures around Florida have reached the highest levels on record since satellites began collecting ocean data. And the warming is happening much earlier than normal – yet another example of ocean heat being amplified by the human-caused climate crisis and the extreme weather it brings.

“We didn’t expect this heating to happen so early in the year and to be so extreme,” Derek Manzello, a coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Watch, told CNN. “This appears to be unprecedented in our records.”

The exceptional temperatures – close to 97 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas – are more than just another alarming climate record; extreme ocean heat and its duration are critical in deciding the survival of coral reefs. Temperatures that are too hot for too long cause coral to bleach, turning a ghastly white as they expel their algal food source and slowly starve to death.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/12/us/florida-ocean-heat-coral-bleaching-climate/index.html

And when did the satellite start collecting data? Around 1979 I believe.
So unprecedented means nothing existed before 1979.
Scientists did not even know that bleaching occurred in til the 1980's, about the same time they discovered the coral mass spawnings at full moon in November.

"we dint expect this to happen" they said. Therefore it must be unprecedented.
Did they think there may have been a small chance that they really don't know much about the mechanism of Corals?
As to the "close to 97 degrees Farenheit" , it does not say where these temps were, how widespread the temp gradients were , or whether it was in water that the coral lived in.
Just an another example of the hysteria we get bombarded with.
Mick

 

[moXJO]

I remember swimming off green Island near Cairns over a decade ago. I swam through a strong current that got so hot I thought I was going to boil alive if it got any warmer.
It felt way above 36C.

 

[Sean K]

UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling".

... not helpful

I think he mentioned 'blisters' as well.

We all know where the boils are.

One thing that's always interested me about how temperature rise can 'boil' humans is that in southern Australia the average temp is about 22 degrees, or so.

However, in Queensland, the average temp is about 30 degrees, about eight degrees warmer.

So, why do Victorians keep moving to Queensland?

Are they going there to boil?

Maybe it's just a Dan effect.

 

[Smurf1976]

One of the issues with Greenpeace and indeed quite a few "environmental groups" is they were founded on the basis of, often for the specific purpose of, opposing nuclear and/or hydro.

Climate change is decidedly inconvenient for any organisation whose own past involved promoting fossil fuels as preferable to some non-fossil alternative, indeed at least two high profile organisations were still doing that well after the CO2 issue came to mainstream attention.

Personally well I don't hate them but I don't put them up on a pedestal either. Liberal, Labor, Greens, Greenpeace, fossil fuel lobbyists and so on have far more in common than they do to separate them really. They all in practice aren't keen on ending the use of fossil fuels no matter what they might claim.

Politics is a filthy game no matter who's involved.

 

[Sean K]

One of the issues with Greenpeace and indeed quite a few "environmental groups" is they were founded on the basis of, often for the specific purpose of, opposing nuclear and/or hydro.

Climate change is decidedly inconvenient for any organisation whose own past involved promoting fossil fuels as preferable to some non-fossil alternative, indeed at least two high profile organisations were still doing that well after the CO2 issue came to mainstream attention.

Personally well I don't hate them but I don't put them up on a pedestal either. Liberal, Labor, Greens, Greenpeace, fossil fuel lobbyists and so on have far more in common than they do to separate them really. They all in practice aren't keen on ending the use of fossil fuels no matter what they might claim.

Politics is a filthy game no matter who's involved.

Opposing dams for hydro now seems a little short sighted if the oceans are boiling because of a 1.5 degree change in temp above the LIA low point. Haven't they known about global boiling for decades? But, Greens also oppose offshore windmills because NIMBY, so.. ?

 

[qldfrog]

As discussed and argued here on ASF eons ago, it is absolutely y12 level education to prove current levels of CO2 or even a 10% increase can not in any way bring a significant increase of temperature.
Any honest scientist would be aware.
It does not mean climate is not warming or any temp increase if any man made. It does not mean it is good to burn fossil fuels, etc..
But pretending preventing any climate warming..(if it is real it is now very hard to get unrigged data.), by reducing CO2 human emissions, is lunacy...and scientific fraud but too much profits involved
Shameful but our government are shameless with the misuse of sciences..
as per Covid saga proved to all but the most naive

 

[Dona Ferentes]

in southern Australia the average temp is about 22 degrees, or so.

However, in Queensland, the average temp is about 30 degrees, about eight degrees warmer..

Is that "average" maxima?

The easiest way to find a year round average temperature in any location is to find a local cave (closed, no air flow) and go in about 20m with a thermometer.

 

[mullokintyre]

Blackroack and Vanguard, two extremely large fund mangers, have always made a great song d=dance about their virue signalling by saying how they sun investment in US coal and other petroleum products.
From Energy Post

BlackRock’s decision to divest from coal, as the world’s largest asset manager with a long shareholder history of voting against climate action, sends a powerful signal. By mid-2020 BlackRock’s $1.8tn of actively managed funds will divest from any firm generating more than 25% of revenue from thermal coal. Further reviews of sectors heavily reliant on thermal coal will also take place. Tim Buckley, Tom Sanzillo and Melissa Brown at IEEFA welcome the move but criticise the fact that there is little sign of divestment extending to its passively managed indexed funds, fixed income and real asset portfolios. And they note that concern for the climate is not the only driver. Coal firms in major markets are performing poorly and struggling to deliver to their shareholders. Meanwhile, decarbonising and clean energy firms are becoming stock market favourites as the Transition gains pace. The authors run through BlackRock’s plans and names the coal firms across the globe that are under threat. They also point to the energy firms, until recently heavily into fossil fuels, that are decarbonising successfully and beating the stock market.

The world’s largest fund manager announced overnight it is cutting companies that derive a quarter or more of their profits from thermal coal from its actively managed portfolios, in response to climate change.

In his annual letter to CEOs, BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink announced a globally significant policy that strongly flags this US$7 trillion investor powerhouse is finally starting to align its portfolios with the Paris Agreement.
When BlackRock announced this month it was signing up for Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative to ensure the world’s largest corporate emitters take necessary action on climate change, the global financial response suggested this was probably no more than greenwash, given BlackRock’s long history of voting against climate action in shareholder resolutions.

Fink’s CEO letter, however, starts with a clear reference to BlackRock’s ‘fiduciary duty’ to its investors. BlackRock’s own analysis shows global financial markets will be materially impacted by climate change, reflected in the Bank of England’s analysis of $20 trillion at risk. BlackRock concludes this stranded asset risk is not yet priced into the market, so as a fiduciary, BlackRock really has no choice but to act.

But like so much of the virtue signalling, the reality is somewhat different from the virtue.
Blackrock invested 1.2Billion in Adani, builder of the infgaous Adani gold mine in QLD (see Greenbiz ).
Although it tells its US audience they will not fund US coal producers, it does not stop them investing in foreign owned companies.
from ECO Business

As of January 2021, 439 investors have invested shares and bonds worth $19.6 billion in Chinese GCEL companies, surpassing Chinese domestic financial investments by $2 billion.

The largest global companies investing in Chinese coal companies are US firms BlackRock, with $2.7 billion, and Vanguard, with $2.2 billion. In third place is the Qatar Investment Authority, with $1.7 billion. US investors were in an overall lead with a total of $11.5 billion in bonds and equities of Chinese GCEL companies.

Nothing to see here, move right along.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

The first post in this thread was in 2009,
Here is a video from the same year- Jon kerry saying that there would be the first ice free Arctic summer.
Another failed climate alarmist prediction.


Mick

 

[Sean K]

The first post in this thread was in 2009,
Here is a video from the same year- Jon kerry saying that there would be the first ice free Arctic summer.
Another failed climate alarmist prediction.


Mick

Bloody hell! When are any of the alarmists on this thread who are proclaiming imminent destruction of the multiverses due to CO2 build up going to take pause and realise..... wolf.