The question of "97%" scientist's climate change concensus.

[bexrbetter]

Certainly raises some eyebrows, first watch this to understand where the 97% figure came from , it's not posted to be confrontational, it's posted to offer information relative to the 2nd video below ..

 

 

... and here in the 2nd video is one of the "97%" Scientists named, hear what he has to say about that ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kotqWXZkZS0

 

 

[Marty_d]

Dr Tim Ball: co-authored a commentary arguing that "spring air temperatures around the Hudson Bay basin for the past 70 years (1932–2002) show no significant warming trend," and that, as a result, "the extrapolation of polar bear disappearance is highly premature."

 

This paper was not peer-reviewed and was funded by Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute. Later debunked.

 

Dr Roy Spencer: Religious nut job who believes in "Intelligent Design". A signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" which basically states that god created a self-regulating environment for humans to flourish in. (The conclusion of which is, of course, that god couldn't f*ck it up so it can't exist.)

 

Is that really the best you have? Two discredited scientists, each with their own anti-climate change axe to grind (petro-dollars and religion). Meh.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

On the question of polar bears. A friend recently travelled to various Arctic locations and concluded that polar bears will be gone within fifty years. The cause is hunting using Inuit permits..they are granted permits to shoot polar bears but generally sell the permits to USA hunters, which is legal. The hunters are wiping out the bears. They get a nice white bearskin rug for the den. And a head if they want to mount it.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Cheepracer you aren't going to win because what would you know how could you believe that bull

 

Takes a lot to make sheep change direction especially when I have lived a very sheltered life and I don't have uni degree

 

new that was going to happen two examples no way have you read what those two said 97% of what scientists are they like flanery look again neil

 

 

[Bruce]

Cheepracer, are you a creationist? All my life I've been looking for one.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

All over the world, from the Arctic to hot deserts, peoples who live closest to nature are noticing major changes in weather. Glaciers have retreated miles in a few decades, and not just in the Arctic. A huge proportion of humanity depends on melt water from the Andes, the Alps, the Himalayas...and it's drying up fast.

 

Global warming may have already passed the tipping point: as predicted, permafrost in Siberia is melting and thousands of craters are now releasing methane- a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. (Thawing ice is also releasing microbes and diseases our species hasn't encountered in thousands of years.)

 

We humans love to clutch at straws, so we ignore the patient research of scientists and give our attention to anyone who tells us it's not happening.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

We humans love to clutch at straws, so we ignore the patient research of scientists and give our attention to anyone who tells us it's not happening.

What are you talking about? The above 2nd video is one of those scientists. That is the point.

 

Apparently you didn't bother to watch? The irony there is Scientists don't work on assumptions, they use evidence, like the video.

 

The point here is not if there is climate change or not, as you assume the point is, the point is that the claim of "97% of all Scientists" is a flat out lie.

 

All over the world, from the Arctic to hot deserts, peoples who live closest to nature are noticing major changes in weather. Glaciers have retreated miles in a few decades, and not just in the Arctic. A huge proportion of humanity depends on melt water from the Andes, the Alps, the Himalayas...and it's drying up fast.

Umm yes, what's your point? Climate changes all the time, it's cyclic.

 

Laurentide Ice Sheet - Wikipedia

 

The woolly mammoth coexisted with early humans, who used its bones and tusks for making art, tools, and dwellings, and the species was also hunted for food. It disappeared from its mainland range at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 years ago, most likely through climate change and consequent shrinkage of its habitat, hunting by humans, or a combination of the two.

 

You know they discovered frozen Wooly Mammoths under the ice, let me draw you a map here why ...

 

[ATTACH]48738._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Global warming may have already passed the tipping point: as predicted, permafrost in Siberia is melting and thousands of craters are now releasing methane- a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. (Thawing ice is also releasing microbes and diseases our species hasn't encountered in thousands of years.)

 

.

Yep, and as the ice melts, the soil uncovered absorbs the Methane/Co2 and goes towards reversing the cycle, bet you haven't read that anywhere, funny about that. Or the other self repairing balancing tricks the Earth has taught itself over the eons of constant climate change.

 

On warmer Earth, most of Arctic may remove, not add, methane (ISME Journal)

 

It's not called "Global Warming" anymore, because the warming stopped. It's now called Climate Change. In fact we are currently in a record period of non-warming of 19 years since records started 220 years ago.

 

But yes, overall we are warming anyway, it's in that historic cycle of warming, plenty of evidence to show it, 600,000 years of evidence in fact, and way before the alleged human interference.

 

So what if all the oceans rose 2 or 3 meters, your elevation is 320, a few people might have to move house, usually wealthier people along coastlines mostly who won't be much affected, and it would happen over centuries if it did happen. The oceans have risen on average 150 mm over the last 100 years by the way. I'm packing the car tomorrow and heading for the mountains to be sure.

 

Again, what's your point? What's your solutions?

 

Important question, how does it affect you personally? The answer of course is it doesn't.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think we all get that climate changes all the time and it is cyclical. In fact, I was listening to a radio show in which it was stated that ice ages were fairly common until man started larger scale farming and by clearing the land caused a general shift to warmer temperatures, thereby mitigating the ice age. Well done, I say.

 

However, my concern (as I think is a lot of the scientific community) is both the rate of change - or the magnitude of change over a relatively short period of time and the longer term impact that will have. As the earth has shown, no successful species has had divine right to survive for eternity and no doubt humans (and other current mammal life) will fall victim to some event be that catastrophic or gradual, but the point is, are we accelerating or needlessly bringing it on by adding enough to the problem to be the straw that breaks the camel's back?

 

It's late and I can't be @r$ed researching it; any research for or against will contain some confirmation bias anyway. However, whether one believes it is 97% of scientists or simply the vast majority of scientists believe, based on evidence and/or extrapolation/interpretation that man is contributing to global warming/climate change, is semantic really. Of course, everyone thought the earth was flat at one stage. Stephen Hawkins has been somewhat hawkish in his prediction of the death of humanity, bringing it down to something like 100 years.

 

I am not quite sure where you get the data that the earth has not been warming for the last 19 years. Almost every country continually reports it's warmest weather every couple of year and the graph here shows an upward trend in the 5 year mean and states that the 10 warmest years occurred since 2000... Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

What are you talking about? The above 2nd video is one of those scientists. That is the point.

Apparently you didn't bother to watch?…

Guilty as charged. I've been following this topic for decades and wasted a lot of time listening to people with little to offer. Did I miss a good one this time?

 

Umm yes, what's your point? Climate changes all the time, it's cyclic…

Yep, and I've been explaining that to people for years. Trouble is this time, looks like we are a major cause of these changes.

 

I'm well aware of what happened to wooly mammoths (their tusks yielded much of the ivory for the world's snooker balls).

 

So what if all the oceans rose 2 or 3 meters, your elevation is 320, a few people might have to move house, usually wealthier people along coastlines mostly who won't be much affected, and it would happen over centuries if it did happen. The oceans have risen on average 150 mm over the last 100 years by the way...

A pretty simplistic analysis. Most humans live within a few metres of sea level. A trivial few cm sea level rise on river deltas translates to vast areas of farmland lost to erosion and salinity. People adapt by moving away, setting off a cascade of migrations. The global flood of refugees is only just beginning. It's due to several factors but climate change is a major one.

 

I'm packing the car tomorrow and heading for the mountains to be sure.

 

Important question, how does it affect you personally? The answer of course is it doesn't.

Are you serious? We're all in this together, whether we believe it's happening or not.

 

In the 1980s I built my house on a hillside 385m above sea level and 200km from the coast, yet climate change affects me personally.

 

For the growing tide of displaced persons, Australia is a beacon of stability and plenty. We have recently shut the gate to boat people, but there are hundreds of millions more who may soon come looking for a better place to live.

 

Again, what's your point? What's your solutions?

Solution: pull our heads out of our bums and look at the way we live. Our grandparents would be amazed at our laziness, and our grandchildren will not thank us for leaving them a world worse than the one we inherited.

 

Waste less. Recycle more. Phase out our dirtiest fuels. Invest in renewables. Stop the destruction of the natural world to prop up our wasteful lifestyles.

 

 

[kgwilson]

How Roy Spencer got his "evidence". Roy Spencer

 

And someone here actually takes him seriously?

 

 

[octave]

Yep, and as the ice melts, the soil uncovered absorbs the Methane/Co2 and goes towards reversing the cycle, bet you haven't read that anywhere, funny about that. Or the other self repairing balancing tricks the Earth has taught itself over the eons of constant climate change.

On warmer Earth, most of Arctic may remove, not add, methane (ISME Journal)

Yes I have read of this research before, it is not suppressed information, it is easily found on the net.

 

"The researchers project that should Arctic temperatures rise by 5 to 15 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years, the methane-absorbing capacity of “carbon-poor” soil could increase by five to 30 times."

 

The claims in this study are not as big as you seem to be suggesting. The study only suggests this:

 

“At our study sites, we are more confident that these soils will continue to be a sink under future warming. In the future, the Arctic may not have atmospheric methane increase as much as the rest of the world,” Lau said. “We don’t have a direct answer as to whether these Arctic soils will offset global atmospheric methane or not, but they will certainly help the situation.”

 

and

 

“If these bacteria can still work in a future warmer climate and are widespread in other Arctic permafrost areas, maybe they could regulate methane for the whole globe,” Lau said. “These regions may seem isolated from the world, but they may have been doing things to help the world.”

 

But yes, overall we are warming anyway, it's in that historic cycle of warming, plenty of evidence to show it, 600,000 years of evidence in fact, and way before the alleged human interference.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

 

Mark, i read the link you posted and I would like to think you will read my link.

 

So what if all the oceans rose 2 or 3 meters, your elevation is 320, a few people might have to move house, usually wealthier people along coastlines mostly who won't be much affected, and it would happen over centuries if it did happen. The oceans have risen on average 150 mm over the last 100 years by the way. I'm packing the car tomorrow and heading for the mountains to be sure.

So if I owned a house on the coast and the sea began to encroach on my house I could move inland. This would entail selling my coastal house in order to buy another house further inland, I wonder who would buy my property that I am selling because it is becoming unlivable?

 

It is not quite so straight forward for the average Bangladeshi or Pacific islander to just moved somewhere better.

 

As for solutions, it is often asserted that those who accept the science want the world to go back to the 1850s as if that is the solution. This is illogical. I would suggest most people who accept the evidence are more interested in going forward not backwards.

 

No one is seriously suggest that humans should not produce any co2. The point is the earth produces and absorbs co2 all the time but the important thing is that co2 should not be produced at a rate in excess of the absorption rate. For a historical perspective of the PPM levels of co2 - Climate Change: Climate Resource Center - Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

 

All I would like to see is a concerted effort to get new technologies online. This does not mean the immediate dismantling of society as we know it, but perhaps something along the lines of the Apollo program with the costs and benefits shared worldwide.

 

What if it turns out that you can burn all the worlds coal liberating the co2 that was stored over millions of years, it wont go off you know, it would just mean that we have gifted it to our grandchildren.

 

Although I am enthusiastic about new technologies I do not think we could immediately move totally to returnables or Nuclear fusion but I see no huge problem with money and effort into moving to the next phase.

 

 

[storchy neil]

so new technologies is the way to go 2 questions

 

how many wind turbines would you need to supply Victoria with power ?

 

how big of solar would you need ?neil

 

 

[Yenn]

Does it really mater if climate change is happening or not? Either way it seems to me that we would be better off if we used less fossil fuel and wasted less resources.

 

In my working life i built several chimneys to push the pollution of fossil fuel further up and away from it's source.

 

Now those chimneys are being de commissioned as we get rid of coal firing. We can manage with less power, by making better use of what we have, for example LED lighting reduces power needs greatly and solar electricity could produce enough to keep us going.

 

 

[octave]

so new technologies is the way to go 2 questionshow many wind turbines would you need to supply Victoria with power ?

 

how big of solar would you need ?neil

 

I have never said that the future of energy supply will only be confined to solar (photovoltaic) and or wind. I am not sure why you would assume that that is what I am saying. I suspect that in the shorter term we will be using a mix a generation sources. What I am saying is that the success of humans depends on innovation. I actually did say:

 

This does not mean the immediate dismantling of society as we know it, but perhaps something along the lines of the Apollo program with the costs and benefits shared worldwide.

 

I agree that we cannot close all the coal fired power stations overnight and replace them with one particular technology however that does not mean that we should not work towards cleaner and better ways of generating energy.

 

The holy grail of power generation is of course nuclear fusion and whilst this remains impractical at this point in time research continues and breakthroughs are being made. In 100 years we will not be generating energy by burning lumps of carbonised rock, one way or another we will progress to the next stage.

 

 

[storchy neil]

yenn octave I am not saying we don't need either or nuclear the thing I am on about is what is the cost

 

just have a look at SA and their white elephant

 

there is no way in hell off persons cutting back on the consumption of power with the idiotic consumer want the latest gadget the biggest house no way should I and you have to pay for some ones house

 

I use on average 7 kw of power per day it does go up when doing welding

 

so back to the question hey neil

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

so new technologies is the way to go 2 questionshow many wind turbines would you need to supply Victoria with power ?

 

how big of solar would you need ?neil

Wind turbines have their role, but there are lots of ways to generate power. If every new building was roofed with PVs that would produce most of the power we'd need. (I've been saying that for decades, after learning about Prof Green's solar roof tiles. Sadly, few in Oz see the potential, but people overseas have become billionaires by adopting his technology.) Solar panels don't have to go on the roof; energy-generating materials are being developed for the surface of roads, car parks, etc.

 

There's so much promising technology being developed that future cites might be almost self-sufficient in energy and fresh vegetables.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

You beat me to it Old Koreelah - in fact its also a Tesla vision as well,...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

You beat me to it Old Koreelah - in fact its also a Tesla vision as well,...

Jerry I must read up on that Tesla bloke, he's also launching rockets and developing a high speed air tube transport system that might leap frog bullet trains. So many of the most productive people are immigrants.

 

As Octave said, we need a global push like the Apollo Program, but any politician showing signs of having "vision" gets tossed out.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I was looking at self-contained home power systems, but battery storage capacity is a issue and one of the problems is the higher density storage systems contain a risk when things go wrong - the more power packed into a small space - the bigger the boom...

 

That said, with the reducing cost of PV cells and the mini-wind tunnels at the side of houses (though haven't measured their strength and capacity to support top up supply), with battery storage to continue eves and low sun/wind days should be viable. Politically, the impact to existing power companies will be enormous, but thee would be a transfer of employment to installers, maintenance, etc. (and manufacture if Aus/UK pollies had the foresight to support it).

 

 

[Marty_d]

CSIRO study recently said that Australia can have fully renewable energy with current technologies. All we need is the political will to implement a transition scheme.

 

Roll it out piecemeal, without storage, and you'll get a situation like SA. Not the fault of the technology, but of the implementation.

 

The simple fact is that the existing power stations need replacing anyway. What are we replacing them with? More of the same old polluting coal burners, or will we get a clue and go with renewables?

 

 

[storchy neil]

in between that great nbn debarcle and climate change oh goble warming millions spent on crap scare mongering

 

what renewables still using steel concreat rare earth that is dug up using fosil fuels

 

my take on wind power is they would cover vic and the rivereinea to power vic where would you have farming land

 

them towers don't absorb carbon but sure put carbon out in the making off them

 

how mutch carbon is produced in the making of your towers neil

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Ask the Americans, Danes and other Europeans. They seem to like wind turbines.

 

Neil you protest about money being spent on energy solutions, but have you ever objected to Australia spending billions importing weapons of questionable value?

 

 

[storchy neil]

Yep subs yep ships only because being built over seas

 

The unions had a lot to explain on that Neil

 

 

[storchy neil]

Wind 0.46 world energy tidal solar 0.36 world energy did I read it righ Neil

 

 

[octave]

Wind 0.46 world energy tidal solar 0.36 world energy did I read it righ Neil

How much of the world's energy comes from renewable sources?

 

In 2012, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.2% of its total primary energy supply. In 2013 renewables accounted for almost 22% of global electricity generation, and the IEA Medium-Term Renewable Energy Report 2015 foresees that share reaching at least 26% increase in 2020.