Climate Change Thread.

General Social Discussion
User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17207
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Climate Change Thread.

Post by Cultured Bogan » Wed 29 Nov, 2017 7:01 pm

Posts from the SSM thread about Climate Change have been moved here for discussion.

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 6:49 pm
What a day when established religions, interfering in affairs of state, copped two upper cuts on the same day - never before and maybe never again. Same sex marriage passing in the Senate today and House of Reps to follow and the Victorian Government passing voluntary euthanasia legislation.

Once upon time there was also consensus to tackle climate change but Abbott demolished that - but it is far more important that the other two issues competed today and it's time can't wait.
One major global policy is already underway with the Paris Agreement. Synthetic gas control alone will go a long way to stemming the average global temperature rise.

Even if Trump follows through on the withdrawal, there's a US commonwealth of about 9 or 10 states (economically vital states like California, New York etc,) which will uphold the covenants of the PA with or without Trump's support.

I'll leave this for another thread however as it is sidetracking.
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...


Earl
Member
Member
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat 18 Feb, 2017 9:21 am

Post by Earl » Wed 29 Nov, 2017 7:21 pm

I'm not a fan of GW getting any policy traction. The proof is far from clear cut. On the flip side I think moving away from fossil fuels and especially how much we drive cars is a good thing.

It was good that the nutters didn't get a look in with the decisions made so far.

LCA
Member
Member
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun 06 Mar, 2011 5:58 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by LCA » Wed 29 Nov, 2017 8:53 pm

Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 7:21 pm
I'm not a fan of GW getting any policy traction. The proof is far from clear cut. On the flip side I think moving away from fossil fuels and especially how much we drive cars is a good thing.

It was good that the nutters didn't get a look in with the decisions made so far.
A fan? Really? Has it resorted to that?

Like supporting a footy team on whether action should be taken on global warming (I assume that 's what you meant by GW?....or maybe "Glow Worms" or "Giant Wombat")

"The proof is far from clear cut". Really?

I think what is far from clear cut is your ability to understand the proof or to find some other opportunistic issue to post a ridiculous comment.

jadtiger
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 8:12 am
Location: bayview

Post by jadtiger » Wed 29 Nov, 2017 9:16 pm

LCA wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 8:53 pm
Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 7:21 pm
I'm not a fan of GW getting any policy traction. The proof is far from clear cut. On the flip side I think moving away from fossil fuels and especially how much we drive cars is a good thing.

It was good that the nutters didn't get a look in with the decisions made so far.
A fan? Really? Has it resorted to that?

Like supporting a footy team on whether action should be taken on global warming (I assume that 's what you meant by GW?....or maybe "Glow Worms" or "Giant Wombat")

"The proof is far from clear cut". Really?

I think what is far from clear cut is your ability to understand the proof or to find some other opportunistic issue to post a ridiculous comment.
Unfortunately LCA some people dont want to believe it is happening and will deny scienctific evidence(i know a couple like that).The vast majority of scientists say it is real and happening now but until a concerted effort is made to change our weak politicians nothing will happen

Earl
Member
Member
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat 18 Feb, 2017 9:21 am

Post by Earl » Wed 29 Nov, 2017 10:24 pm

LCA wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 8:53 pm
Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 7:21 pm
I'm not a fan of GW getting any policy traction. The proof is far from clear cut. On the flip side I think moving away from fossil fuels and especially how much we drive cars is a good thing.

It was good that the nutters didn't get a look in with the decisions made so far.
A fan? Really? Has it resorted to that?

Like supporting a footy team on whether action should be taken on global warming (I assume that 's what you meant by GW?....or maybe "Glow Worms" or "Giant Wombat")

"The proof is far from clear cut". Really?

I think what is far from clear cut is your ability to understand the proof or to find some other opportunistic issue to post a ridiculous comment.
This always causes a reaction. Try not to take this personally but I studied the topic at university a long time ago and I have kept up to date on it. There are plenty of climatologists who have the same opinion as me.

In reality the push to make this out as 100% verifiable science has been from some very poorly qualified scientists.

So yes the proof is definitely not clear cut despite the ranting and raving whenever the facts are bought up.


Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4244
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Wed 29 Nov, 2017 10:44 pm

Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 10:24 pm
LCA wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 8:53 pm
Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 7:21 pm
I'm not a fan of GW getting any policy traction. The proof is far from clear cut. On the flip side I think moving away from fossil fuels and especially how much we drive cars is a good thing.

It was good that the nutters didn't get a look in with the decisions made so far.
A fan? Really? Has it resorted to that?

Like supporting a footy team on whether action should be taken on global warming (I assume that 's what you meant by GW?....or maybe "Glow Worms" or "Giant Wombat")

"The proof is far from clear cut". Really?

I think what is far from clear cut is your ability to understand the proof or to find some other opportunistic issue to post a ridiculous comment.
This always causes a reaction. Try not to take this personally but I studied the topic at university a long time ago and I have kept up to date on it. There are plenty of climatologists who have the same opinion as me.

In reality the push to make this out as 100% verifiable science has been from some very poorly qualified scientists.

So yes the proof is definitely not clear cut despite the ranting and raving whenever the facts are bought up.
Earl, it seems to be accepted that about 130 temperature records broken in Australia is a result of climate change. If you check out Four Corners this week it is about those islands/atolls nuked bombs by USA, they are all complaining now about the ocean taking over their islands with nowhere to live within a few decades.

My brother in law is a right wing zealot plus science fanatic with a few degrees that touch on climate and he insists that change is happening very fast.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
diedpretty
Member
Member
Posts: 2398
Joined: Thu 16 Jul, 2009 7:31 am
Location: port macquarie

Post by diedpretty » Wed 29 Nov, 2017 11:02 pm

jadtiger wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 9:16 pm
LCA wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 8:53 pm
Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 7:21 pm
I'm not a fan of GW getting any policy traction. The proof is far from clear cut. On the flip side I think moving away from fossil fuels and especially how much we drive cars is a good thing.

It was good that the nutters didn't get a look in with the decisions made so far.
A fan? Really? Has it resorted to that?

Like supporting a footy team on whether action should be taken on global warming (I assume that 's what you meant by GW?....or maybe "Glow Worms" or "Giant Wombat")

"The proof is far from clear cut". Really?

I think what is far from clear cut is your ability to understand the proof or to find some other opportunistic issue to post a ridiculous comment.
Unfortunately LCA some people dont want to believe it is happening and will deny scienctific evidence(i know a couple like that).The vast majority of scientists say it is real and happening now but until a concerted effort is made to change our weak politicians nothing will happen
Its nothing to do with weak politicians - its to do with vested interests that control those politicians.

Earl
Member
Member
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat 18 Feb, 2017 9:21 am

Post by Earl » Wed 29 Nov, 2017 11:18 pm

I'll give some names as a counter point that aren't buying it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn - a left winger. The brother of labour party leader in Britain Jeremy Corbyn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry -- a well respected climatologist. Her viewpoint is completely aligned with mine. Piers is extreme in that he calls it outright crap. Judith states CO2 affects the environment but there is massive uncertainty about the impact.

There have been lots of scams by climatologists that state that this is a foregone conclusion. One of the worst is John Cook (an Australian cartoonist by trade I believe) who basically falsified the data to state that 99% of climatologists believe in global warming. Another one is the hockey stick graph.

The reality is that we don't understand the Earth's climate mechanism that well and the data is running closer and closer to statistically invalidating the climate change models. The models are basically running hot - the predictions are a lot hotter than the actual temperatures.

It may turn out to be true but anyone stating that it's 100% verifiable and we know what is going to occur is living in la la land.

MG1962
Member
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu 06 Apr, 2017 12:44 pm

Post by MG1962 » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 5:41 am

Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 10:24 pm
This always causes a reaction. Try not to take this personally but I studied the topic at university a long time ago and I have kept up to date on it. There are plenty of climatologists who have the same opinion as me.
No they dont -

The only question up for debate at the moment is how deep the poo is.

Have we crossed the point of no return for catastrophic climate change or do we still have some wriggle room? The numbers coming out of the Western Pacific and Southern ocean suggest we might all need to think about swimming lessons in the near future.

jadtiger
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 8:12 am
Location: bayview

Post by jadtiger » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 6:42 am

diedpretty wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 11:02 pm
jadtiger wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 9:16 pm
LCA wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 8:53 pm
Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 7:21 pm
I'm not a fan of GW getting any policy traction. The proof is far from clear cut. On the flip side I think moving away from fossil fuels and especially how much we drive cars is a good thing.

It was good that the nutters didn't get a look in with the decisions made so far.
A fan? Really? Has it resorted to that?

Like supporting a footy team on whether action should be taken on global warming (I assume that 's what you meant by GW?....or maybe "Glow Worms" or "Giant Wombat")

"The proof is far from clear cut". Really?

I think what is far from clear cut is your ability to understand the proof or to find some other opportunistic issue to post a ridiculous comment.
Unfortunately LCA some people dont want to believe it is happening and will deny scienctific evidence(i know a couple like that).The vast majority of scientists say it is real and happening now but until a concerted effort is made to change our weak politicians nothing will happen
Its nothing to do with weak politicians - its to do with vested interests that control those politicians.
Which is why they are weak,they dont do what they are elected to do only what the fossil fuel industry tells them to do

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4244
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 7:06 am

The issue is so simple. From wiki: The Earth's atmosphere is about 300 miles (480 km) thick, but most of the atmosphere (about 80%) is within 10 miles (16 km) of the surface of the Earth. There is no exact place where the atmosphere ends; it just gets thinner and thinner, until it merges with outer space.

So effectively we only have 10 miles of dense atmosphere but what have we been doing since the Industrial Revolution - filling it up with poisonous gases. We have over a billion cars belching out pollution every year, probably many thousands of cubic miles of pollution every car. Of course the atmosphere is going to be effectively killed within a short time frame of a few hundred years. Only a dodo does not understand or appreciate that - dodos please raise your hands.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4244
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 7:08 am

Earl, just as selfish people don't have the right to deny gay marriage or voluntarily euthanasia they also don't have the right to pollute other people's atmosphere. The clean and green deserve to have their rights protected.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17207
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 7:49 am

Earl, have a gander at this.

It's a graphic showing the growth in average global temperature since 1850. Based off historic data the planet has warmed about 0.8°C since 1880 (around the period of the second industrial revolution.) While this animation shows relatively consistent patterns until the mid 1940's, it's not a surprise that it has increased rapidly since then, which would make sense as the world's population has almost tripled since 1945 and as such our demands for energy, manufacturing and HVACR will have exponentially increased also.

Image
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17207
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 7:57 am

Interestingly enough, the southern hemisphere may not experience the same effects simultaneously as the northern hemisphere. Given the industrialised population concentration is in the north of the planet, the southern hemisphere acts a sponge of sorts. There is an animation that NASA released, I'll try to find it.
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4244
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 8:17 am

It is a simple issue and can even be explained and understood without any graphs - by an analogy.

I moved back to Sydney about 25 years ago leaving my fishpond, surrounded by baby palm and gums, unattended. After about 5 years I returned finding about 8 inches of vegetative sludge on the bottom - decayed leaves and seeds but the fish were perfectly fine. I got into the pond to clean out and guess what happened, all the sludge got stirred up and the fish all rose to the top to get oxygen. Well that is exactly the same as our atmosphere. Those fossil fuels of coal and oil took billions of years to form through decay of vegetative matter but we are digging them up and messing up our atmosphere within a very short period of a few hundred years - exactly the same as me churning up the muck in the fishpond. We and all animal life will suffer exactly the same as those fish in my pond did - we will be clasping for oxygen.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
hammertime
Member
Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: Sat 26 Sep, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Rozelle, NSW

Post by hammertime » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 8:33 am

Earl wrote:
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 11:18 pm
I'll give some names as a counter point that aren't buying it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn - a left winger. The brother of labour party leader in Britain Jeremy Corbyn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry -- a well respected climatologist. Her viewpoint is completely aligned with mine. Piers is extreme in that he calls it outright crap. Judith states CO2 affects the environment but there is massive uncertainty about the impact.

There have been lots of scams by climatologists that state that this is a foregone conclusion. One of the worst is John Cook (an Australian cartoonist by trade I believe) who basically falsified the data to state that 99% of climatologists believe in global warming. Another one is the hockey stick graph.

The reality is that we don't understand the Earth's climate mechanism that well and the data is running closer and closer to statistically invalidating the climate change models. The models are basically running hot - the predictions are a lot hotter than the actual temperatures.

It may turn out to be true but anyone stating that it's 100% verifiable and we know what is going to occur is living in la la land.
Fair enough you have some counter-points Earl. Maybe it's not concrete. The problem with it is mate, is that would you not take any action until it's 100% verifiable given the up and downside of each scenario? based on that too, would you also give airtime to people who may cast doubt in peoples minds?

To give a comparable - Maybe the police should have waited till they had 100% of the evidence before they busted down the door of those school kids wanting to commit a massacre?

Sometimes it's a risk-weighted call based on the two possible outcomes.

The way I see it, there is no downside to building renewables besides lost employment in mining and maybe higher electricity prices. So why would we do anything else? Do you want to keep digging up the ground and using resources? Maybe we'll find a need for those in the future beyond electricity generation.

At the end of the day, the odds are that we are destroying our planet and we've got nowhere else to go! Spouting the alternative when there is no discernable advantage to doing so is a bit reckless.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17207
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 8:38 am

When China are actively taking note of the situation you would think it's probably a good idea to take notice.
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...

Earl
Member
Member
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat 18 Feb, 2017 9:21 am

Post by Earl » Thu 30 Nov, 2017 9:09 am

You need to think in terms of the effects of various actions and the verifiable risk of the AGW concerns occurring.

The real problem is and this is reality the models are running hot. Statistically they are close to being invalidated (outside of the range of statistical significance - i.e. outside the 5%-95% range and on the downside) and the data has been amended multiple times to try and get the result that is politically palatable which is that we are heading for disaster.

I think we can safely state now that we are not heading for disaster. The facts that we have in my opinion appear to point out that the likelihood of the extreme events occurring are basically non-existent.

I remember also studying peak oil. We were meant to be out of oil by the year 2000 or so. Of course it didn't happen.

Post Reply