The climate change debate continues.

[Yenn]

We may go the way of the wooly mammoth. All the scientists or whatever they are keep predicting dire events. We seem to have to expect massive storms, rising sea levels, droughts and just about anything we don't want.

 

In Qld we are getting less cyclones, but maybe the one we do get is stronger. We are getting floods, but some of the damage they cause is really man made, by us building railways across flood plains.

 

Our pollies seem to want to increase the population, but the real effect I see of climate change is lessening of water. We didn't get a wet season this year. I have just finished cleaning out one of my dams, the other one I will leave for the wildlife.

 

It could be March before we gat rain again, going on past experience, but I really need a good storm tomorrow, to be able to keep my fruit trees alive. I have given up on my Lychees and they look very sad.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I very much doubt humans will due out any time soon; our species is very adaptable and resilient. To this extent I agree with Scomo and others that the climate controversy is scaring the kiddies. 

 

What is certain (and already underway) is massive migrations. Climate change isn't the only reason, but worsening weather like droughts creates enormous stress on communities. Their resilience worn down, it doesn't take much for people to head off in search of greener pastures.

 

Our species may not be in imminent danger of extinction, but our civilization is.

 

Over half of us now live in urban areas and depend on reliable global trade. It won't take much to upset that delicate apple cart.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"BUT this started a few year's after the big rock wiped out the Dinosaurs.

 

The poor cave man is copping a lot of flack for starting the BIG thaw, after Snowball earth.

 

spacesailor"

 

Which part is wrong ?.

 

No asteroid !

 

No Snowball earth !.

 

And the Earth's not warming since the time of it being covered in snow & ice !.

 

I only repeat what I read or heard, So yes I could be wrong !. 

 

I also read that the whole of North America, was covered in a Huge blanket of ice & snow, & that the runoff caused the Grand Canyon, & the Niagara falls IS the remains of that event.

 

BUT

 

I could be wrong.

 

I believe the Moon was stuck & smashed Billions of years ago. one third lost to space AND one third fell onto a watery twin planet, That lump called  Rodinia and was formed during Precambrian time.

 

BUT all that could be wrong, because its only what I read.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Here is the latest Tony Heller video on sea level rise, released this morning. I find it hard to pick fault with his data, the charts and photos can be verified. If they are faked then they would easily be disproved but they are ignored by the alarmists.

 

 

 

 

[Bruce]

My problem pm is that I would like for you to be right. Who wants the planet to become uninhabitable?

 

But what about insurance companies? They would be pragmatic for sure and only interested in profits.

 

Are they charging higher premiums for the effects of sea-level rise?  I think they are. And what about that island near PNG where the population have already left because they get inundated? Were they insured?

 

And, if there was no sea-level rise, why are Tuvalu etc getting so worried? Why not just  tell them to take out insurance?

 

I know that tectonic effects can be involved, but surely not for so many places.

 

What evidence would you personally find compelling one way or the other?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have read about the islands that claim to be inundated. There seems little evidence for it, and good evidence that some of the islands are growing. The inundations relate to storm surges. 

 

I would just just like to get to the bottom of all the claims, by sourcing reliable data. To the extent that I do, I find the skeptic data more credible.

 

The consensus of scientists story is not true, there are

 

many dedicated scientists who remain skeptics.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I looked at what the IPCC said about the islands. Seems we still rely only on computer models and not on data.

 

IPCC FAQ 29.1

 

 In the last 2 or 3 decades many small islands have undergone substantial changes in human settlement patterns and in socioeconomic and environmental conditions. Those changes may have masked any clear evidence of the effects of climate change. For example, on many small islands coastal erosion has been widespread and has adversely affected important tourist facilities, settlements, utilities, and infrastructure. But specific case studies from islands in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans and the Caribbean have shown that human impacts play an important role in this erosion, as do episodic extreme events that have long been part of the natural cycle of events affecting small islands. So although coastal erosion is consistent with models of sea level rise resulting from climate change, determining just how much of this erosion might have been caused by climate change impacts is difficult. Given the range of natural processes and human activities that could impact the coasts of small islands in the future, without more and better empirical monitoring the role of climate change-related processes on small islands may continue to be difficult to identify and quantify

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Seems to be the measured response of ethical science.  As the quote says, lots of factors are at play here. 

 

Sea level is affected by tidal movements, storm surges, atmospheric pressure, etc. Land can also sometimes move up or down. Therefore, we need more funding for science so that we can find what's really happening.

 

Unfortunately, right-wing governments have been cutting back on science funding.

 

Meanwhile, we do know for certain that ice is melting at an alarming rate at both poles.

 

On high mountains like the Andes, European Alps and Himalayas, melting is already threatening water supplies for a couple of billion people. The meltwater ends up in our seas and oceans.

 

By the time skeptics accept that sea level is rising due to melting ice and ocean warming, it will be too late to do anything about it.

 

The millions of climate refugees will have heard about Australia's role in this. Interesting times ahead.

 

 

[Yenn]

Sco Mo is just an updated version of Jo B Jelke Peterson. His buzz word was "Don't you worry about that"

 

Meaning you are too stupid to know what to do , so leave it to me.

 

Sco mo means I am so wonderfully bright that I will fix everything. We mustn't let the kiddies worry, because they may grow up voting for the opposition.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The debate remains political rather than scientific, wherever you try to debate.

 

 

[octave]

The debate remains political rather than scientific, wherever you try to debate.

 

I dont think I have ever raised it as a political issue, in fact I suspect that the only mention of politics has come from the denier side. If you look at Goddards twitter account it is full of political statements. I dont find this occurs at all on CSIRO sites or NASA sites.

 

I am at a disadvantage at the moment because I am interstate and only have my phone which makes it hard to read long articles or watch videos. I am working my way through a site that critiques Heller/Goddard's assertions and as soon as I have thoroughly read it I will post a link.

 

It is somewhat frustrating that dealing with denier  assertions is like playing whack a mole, critique one assertion and it is not mentioned again but another one is raised.

 

Heller/Goddard asserts  that the global average temp is getting lower. 

 

I think this is at odds with Bom records. The legth of the fire season at least in this country starts earlier.

 

I note that many deniers are geologists. It must be difficult to critisize an industry from which you earn your living.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Octave I wasn't referring to you. I find a lot of people politicise the scientific debate. Am happy to learn anything new in this area. And I don’t believe the world is getting cooler, if that’s what Heller says.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

In this week’s New Scientist (page 44) it reports that the Ballina hydro dam in Brazil is nearly ten times as bad for the environment as a coal fired power station of the same capacity. It says:

 

“So why did the IPCC reports give tropical dams a clean bill of health? A lot of the authors were from hydroelectric companies”

 

 

[Bruce]

The only bad thing a dam would obviously do is take a lot of drowned trees out of the oxygen business.  I find it hard to believe that this could be 10 times worse than a coal station.

 

What am I missing here? Are they counting the carbon cost of all the concrete?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

the forest used to absorb CO2. Now it is rotting under water producing methane and CO2. There is enough dead matter to continue this indefinitely. The Balbina dam has been described as “ the worst hydroelectric power plant in the world” but the others in Brazil are still three times more polluting than a dirty coal-fired generator.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

There is a bit more to dams than you’d think:

 

https://www.internationalrivers.org/problems-with-big-dams

 

 

[willedoo]

Octave I wasn't referring to you. I find a lot of people politicise the scientific debate. Am happy to learn anything new in this area. And I don’t believe the world is getting cooler, if that’s what Heller says.

 

pm, here's an example I'd say is neither scientific nor political. Just bad journalism. This Guardian article states in it's opening statement that the beach erosion at Stockton beach is caused by man made sea walls and the effects of climate change. The locals and a couple of professors with expertise in these fields say it's due to the Newcastle sea walls interrupting the sand flow. Marine geologist Professor Ron Boyd, who has been in the area for 60 years said it hasn’t been a tale of constant woes due to the climate cycles, but there has been a consistent pattern of erosion at Stockton Beach since the installation of the breakwaters at Newcastle Harbour in 1900s.

 

I wonder if the Guardian has used any scientific data to come to the conclusion that climate change has washed the beach away. No one else seems to think so. Statements like this from the press rarely go unchallenged, particularly if it's a one liner like this one.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/29/its-heartbreaking-a-coastal-community-watches-its-beach-wash-away

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/stockton-beach-newcastle-erosion-091827899.html

 

 

[facthunter]

All of Stockton is sand and not far above sea level and erosion could/ will be a real problem. Breakwaters have a big effect on sand depositing or eroding depending on prevailing currents and positioning of the walls. Nobby's extensions could be a part of it. Sand is probably increasing on the south sides of the Nobby's breakwaters. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The latest from Heller on the data scam.

 

 

 

 

[octave]

14 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

 

The latest from Heller on the data scam.

 

So to be clearPM do you believe there has been no warming at all?

 

Do you also believe  that organisations like NASA are deliberately committing fraud and conspiring with other organisations to produce corrupt data? I used the word conspiracy in reply to  one of your posts and you took exception to it and pointed out that you had never used that word but none the less this is what you seem to believe.  Do you believe CSIRO is corrupt and pushing fraudulent data?   

 

Heller is no expert and there are plenty of fact checkers pointing out his cherry picking. 

 

All too often I spend considerable time watching the videos you post and pointing out problems with them but usually you don't address my points but raise a different point. 

 

So Peter is the earth not warming as Tony says? 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I'm sure I have said before that we are in a post-glacial period so of course the earth is still warming and the sea is still rising. Sooner or later it will revert to cooling and an ice age, perhaps thousands of years away still. I don't accept that either is accelerating at a dangerous rate and am reading what I can to find out more. I don't believe in any conspiracy, but I know from history that science can be corrupted by politics and dogma so that honest people come to believe things that are not true. I don't know whether Heller has the qualifications he claims on his website but have not found them refuted elsewhere.

 

Here is an example of the complexity of the problem. Up and down the WA coast near Perth, beaches are eroding rapidly and properties are under threat. My friend has one such property. The problem is attributed by the authorities and the press to sea level rise.  A timber groin eroded to the bottom of the posts. Then further erosion revealed the tops of an earlier groin that had been installed in the 1930s. So the sea was then much further inland, the beach was where houses have since been built, and we are seeing a cyclic advance and retreat of the beach line. Is it caused by human activity along the coast or is it a natural cycle? We don't know, but the alarmists are quick to use it as evidence.

 

 

[facthunter]

The denialists seem to be able to jump on a single statement (often out of context) far quicker than anyone else, in my observation and get the headlines more easily.  Our problem is not what will happen to the world in the next 1,000 years. It's how to get through what appears to be changes for the worst in a relatively short term(perhaps 50 years). and things like ice melting in Tibet where water to about 1/2 the world's population is affected. Farmers are now realising that it's happening as they keep records over what is now significant periods.  We are getting EXTREME EVENTS more often, which was predicted 40 years ago but we have a constant supply of people arguing that all of that is not connected to global warming, on the technicality that any individual WEATHER situation is not  (necessarily) a climate event. and ignore what to most rational  and science trained people would be real evidence of a predicted TREND. When EVERYONE knows it's a fact will be far too late. People who are profitting from the current Status Quo can hardly be trusted to advise us of the facts if it's costing them money. BHP must be a mob of deceivers also and many of the Insurance companies who have to deal with real risks are just making it up.???? They survive by assessing risks. Superfunds also are long term, not the next couple of years which seems to the timespan for most investments by "Equity" Groups.  Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

There does appear to be a change in the climate. We are getting less rainfall and our usual wet season failed this last season. We are told to expect more cyclones, more fires and all sorts of other problems.

 

What is really happening is that statistics point to a change in climate, but scientists can't really say what is likely to happen. We must prepare ourselves for climate change, but don't listen to government, they have an agenda to keep us all scared and believing how wonderful they are at protecting us.

 

Even if burning coal was not causing a problem it would be a very good idea to stop burning so much. Making solar or other environmentally friendly electricity must be good.

 

Using solar power to pump water up hill so that it can later run down and generate power, just points out how expensive coal powered electricity is.

 

The ongoing problems we have with fires, burning down houses should not be happening because over the last few years there has been governmental control of fires. Where we used to burn excess fuel off before it could become a hazard, we now have to get a permit , and by the time we have it the time to burn has passed. Also Qld has handed forestry land to National Parks and there fore management system is a poor joke.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The trouble with subjective assessments of climate change is that we don't live long enough to experience the trends. We think that changes over our own lifetime are significant. For example, people near me are saying it is drier than ever. But I took the BOM monthly rainfall data for Raywood, a nearby station with data since 1898, and added a best-fit line. The line is perfectly horizontal, so there has been no trend change in 122 years. I will look at a couple of other stations in other parts of the country.

 

[ATTACH]50370._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[pmccarthy]

Here is Townsville rainfall. It looks flat, but the trend line has fallen a total of 16mm in 148 years, a fall of 0.108mm per year. The average rainfall over that period has been 96mm per month or 1150mm per year. I would argue the change is not significant.

 

[ATTACH]50371._xfImport[/ATTACH]