The climate change debate continues.

[Bruce]

Me too nomad, there are 3 bonfires I don't dare to light, for the same reasons.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF there is a "new normal ", that would have to be a CHANGE surely. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The heat wave of 1896

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4221366/Heatwave-January-1896-hit-49-degrees-killed-437-people.html?fbclid=IwAR3HJiwXEF7bTWC6qVBk6K4D9wTKRDkS63iBCcJ_M8SgJbrX8aZlZexnS38

 

 

[Yenn]

I have talked to the local firies, in fact I know the chief well. They have helped me a couple of times do  burn off, although I put the fire break all round and got everything prepared, The last time I pointed out to the deputy chief that a dead tree just alongside the fire break was burning. He had the truck with pump and water about 6m away.

 

His comment was "Oh, do you want me to put it out?"

 

I can't say I was very impressed. the tree could have burnt and fallen across the fire break.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

The heat wave of 1896

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4221366/Heatwave-January-1896-hit-49-degrees-killed-437-people.html?fbclid=IwAR3HJiwXEF7bTWC6qVBk6K4D9wTKRDkS63iBCcJ_M8SgJbrX8aZlZexnS38

 

A resilient lot, our recent ancestors. Note the blokes wearing double-breasted suits next to the pool.

 

I knew a nun who spent years working out west in a black habit. Cheap labour.

 

 

[onetrack]

Re the battery question from about 10 pages back - All batteries can be recycled, and somewhere between 85% and 95% of lead acid batteries are recycled (depends on location).

 

The biggest problem as regards battery recycling is trying to get enough used batteries to make the recycling economic.

 

The greatest single factor that works against recycling batteries here, is the vast distances in Australia.

 

Batteries that are taken a long way from major cities are seen to be uneconomic to recycle, because of the transportation cost getting them back to central locations, where they can be processed.

 

Bruce, you got cheerfully shafted by the battery supplier. Take your old batteries with you, then take them to a metal recycler. I get 60c kg for used L-A batteries, an average car battery weighs 13-15kgs, that's $8 to $9 each.

 

https://www.batterysolutions.com/recycling-information/how-are-batteries-recycled/

 

 

[pmccarthy]

For CO2 to be considered a driver of Earth’s temperatures, changes in CO2 that uni-directionally correlate with temperatures should not be an exceptional occurrence. Yet a causal link from CO2 radiative forcing to temperature changes could hypothetically be inferred for just 2.6% of the last 425 million years.

 

 

A detailed analysis (Davis, 2017) of temperature and CO2 proxies over the Phanerozoic Eon by environmenalist Dr. W. Jackson Davis  finds that for 77.9% of the record there was a non-discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature.

 

On the occasion there was a correlation between CO2 and temperature, most (60%) of the correlation instances were negative. In other words, when a correlation could be discerned, temperatures fell as CO2 rose or CO2 fell as temperatures rose more often than CO2 and temperature rose and fell with a semblence of synchronicity.

 

If we assume temperature changes are radiatively forced or amplified by CO2, this cause-effect link could be correlationally established for just 2.6% of the 4.25 million-year record.

 

As Dr. Davis concludes, “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.

 

 

[octave]

For CO2 to be considered a driver of Earth’s temperatures, changes in CO2 that uni-directionally correlate with temperatures should not be an exceptional occurrence. Yet a causal link from CO2 radiative forcing to temperature changes could hypothetically be inferred for just 2.6% of the last 425 million years.

 

 

A detailed analysis (Davis, 2017) of temperature and CO2 proxies over the Phanerozoic Eon by environmenalist Dr. W. Jackson Davis  finds that for 77.9% of the record there was a non-discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature.

 

On the occasion there was a correlation between CO2 and temperature, most (60%) of the correlation instances were negative. In other words, when a correlation could be discerned, temperatures fell as CO2 rose or CO2 fell as temperatures rose more often than CO2 and temperature rose and fell with a semblence of synchronicity.

 

If we assume temperature changes are radiatively forced or amplified by CO2, this cause-effect link could be correlationally established for just 2.6% of the 4.25 million-year record.

 

As Dr. Davis concludes, “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.

 

 

 

 

 

Good to see you are posting real peer reviewed papers rather than the Heller rubbish.   This is of course but one of many papers. There are  in most areas papers produced that vary in the results they produce and I could post numerous papers that come to different conclusions however let me assure you that I accept this paper as being rigorous and most importantly peer reviewed.  The author seems to be open to further accepting further data.  I have read the whole study and a few points stand out here is just one of them

 

I have made the most interesting part bold 

 

I report here that proxies for temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration are generally uncorrelated across the Phanerozoic climate, showing that atmospheric CO2 did not drive the ancient climate. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a less-direct measure of its effect on global temperature than marginal radiative forcing, however, which is nonetheless also generally uncorrelated with temperature across the Phanerozoic. The present findings from the Phanerozoic climate provide possible insights into the role of atmospheric CO2 in more recent glacial cycling and for contemporary climate science and carbon policies. Finally, I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators. This finding suggests an urgent need for research aimed at quantifying the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and past mass extinctions. I conclude that that limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity.

 

So lets say that this study is correct (although we have to consider this against many other studies)   doesn't it still suggest a pressing need to sensibly carbonize our society,  achieving this in a staged way whilst considering the economic effects.    Of course there will be some disruption as there was during the industrial revolution but this will pass.

 

Again thanks for posting actual science (although one paper among many)   By contrast the Heller videos among other thing suggest that Bill Gates, Andrew Forrest et al oh and me are mentally deranged people who are trying to destroy the economy which I suspect is not what you think.

 

 

[old man emu]

The Last Glacial Period (LGP) occurred from the end of the Eemian to the end of the Younger Dryas, encompassing the period c. 115,000 – c. 11,700 years ago, or roughly 100,000 years. This most recent glacial period is part of a larger pattern of glacial and interglacial periods known as the Quaternary glaciation extending from c. 2,588,000 years ago to present.  An ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which year-round ice sheets are present near one or both poles. Thus, the end of the last glacial period, which was about 11,700 years ago, is not the end of the last ice age since extensive year-round ice persists in Antarctica and Greenland. Over the past few million years the glacial-interglacial cycles have been "paced" by periodic variations in the Earth's orbit via Milankovitch cycles. In the 1920s, Milankovitch hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic patterns on Earth.

 

So what does that mean? Simply that the atmosphere has been warming naturally (with some help from major volcanic episodes) for about 10% of the time that it was frozen. 100,000 years is the blink of an eye in geological terms, so we can expect things to continue to warm for a while yet. Also, reliable records of atmospheric conditions from various places around the world are only available since about 1850 when the aneroid barometer was invented. This barometer could be transported easily, not like the previous mercury-filled type.

 

Scientists mark the start of modern global record-keeping at roughly 1880. That’s because earlier available climate data doesn’t cover enough of the planet to get an accurate reading. However people have been measuring temperature since Galileo’s time, and the modern thermometer was invented in the early 1700s. Formal weather stations, which before the mid-1800s were mostly in Europe and the US, became ubiquitous enough by 1880 to provide a robust picture of global temperature. But the vast majority of other, older climate data still isn’t digitized. Millions of weather records, for example, are sitting in old weather offices and in ships’ logs around the world. 

 

 

[facthunter]

Deep ice corings in the Antarctic have yielded good information just recently as record of past climate /atmospheric conditions. If there had been good info refuting hothouse theory  rising sea temps and acidification and all the rest, do you really think the majority of Climatologists are deceitful dishonest or stupid, and would just ignore it?. Also why would one trust the Minerals council for unbiased info or Heartland Institute,  Breitbart or Koch brothers?  Plimer saying carbon is black is certainly a non scientific comment relating it to the compound CO2. There's a lot of effort being put into denial at the moment by powerful interests with the making of money at the top of the list. Not the state of the planet.  Saying WE   lack humility " thinking" that humans can affect the planet on a grand scale when there's plenty of evidence that we can and DO affect if badly  with heavy metals, Plastic,  smog,  acid rain, Glyphosate traces in everything soil salinity. fertiliser runoff. Ocean acidification affecting the shells of crustaceans and plankton the basis of the entire marine life food chain . Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

All are bad effects of human activity, but we don’t have to conflate them with global temperature which varies naturally. It would be silly to say humans have no effect on temperature, but most variation is natural, so let us apply ourselves to fixing all those other problems you mentioned.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

All are bad effects of human activity, but we don’t have to conflate them with global temperature which varies naturally. It would be silly to say humans have no effect on temperature, but most variation is natural, so let us apply ourselves to fixing all those other problems you mentioned.

 

Yes, and let's stop the primitive wasting of our great reserves of coal, oil and gas; they have enormous potential as  plastics, medicines, building materials, carbon fibres, lubricants, medicines, hair shampoos, soap, aspirins, solvents, dyes, plastics and fibres, such as rayon and nylon.

 

Our grandchildren will be outraged that we simply burned this treasure to keep our houses cool.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just burning stuff for energy is selling it's usefulness short. Hydrogen is SO clean. It took over 100 years to get the ICE  to where it is now .Fuel cells and electric etc .Who knows what possibilities are there for the future? A small % of the Sahara could power all of Europe. WE will also avoid a WAR over carbon fuel availability. Some crude oil is 7% sulphur. Coal has other heavy metal and active chemicals in it from the sediments it was formed/stored in and stays in the ash to leach out as it is doing near Lake MacQuarie making the fish unsuitable to consume. . Nev

 

 

[robinsm]

In the 1980's there was a large drought in NSW.   Goulburn ( a city of 28000 people) just about ran out of water (weeks remaining and the dam totally dry)- no usable rain for many many months, cattle being shot because of no feed, farmers suiciding and being driven off the land.   Does this sound familiar???   Nothing to do with climate change then, just a cyclic weather pattern that seems to have recurred now.   Dust storms on the eastern seaboard.  reaching many thousands of feert into the air.   I remember the dust building up against fences because of no grass.   I defy anyone to claim climate change for that.   What is so differnt now?  

 

Darwin 1974, increaserd hurricanes, flooding....climate change...I dont think so.   Wake up people, follow the money, thats who is driving the myth of climate change.   You follow like lemmings over a cliff...WAKE UP

 

 

[Marty_d]

Follow WHAT money??

 

The money is on the other side, as Nev mentioned the Koch brothers, Minerals Council and its members.  These are the vested interests that don't want any change to the status quo and will put out all sorts of propaganda to retain their profits.

 

 

[Methusala]

How do we make those with bovine like reticence realise how small the Earth is in the scheme of things? The photos taken by Apollo astronauts, looking back at our blue jewel of a home planet were a revelation to some of us. Imagine not being able to comprehend that the Earth is, in fact, tiny on the scale of cosmology and time. Man is not Dog's instrument; more like the film on a petri dish in the high school biology experiment. The rapture is waiting for those who can't accept the logic of scientific method.

 

 

[old man emu]

the Quaternary glaciation extending from c. 2,588,000 years ago to present. Scientists mark the start of modern global record-keeping at roughly 1880 - 140 years ago.

 

Fact: The Earth's atmosphere is warming, leading to change in climatic patterns.

 

Fact: Mankind has caused the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the past 200 years.

 

Fact: Mankind has kept retrievable climate data for 140 years. (The time period will be extended unofficial sources such as ship's logs and personal journals have been brought to light)

 

Hypothesis: Mankind is at fault for change in climatic patterns.

 

Just looking at the statistical reliability of that hypothesis.

 

Let's look at statistical reliability. Say there was a city of 2,500,000 people. If you pose a question, it is pretty clear that to get a reliable response to the question, you would need to ask a whole lot more than 140 people. Relying on 140 items of data, especially if that data was obtained from only one particular part of the city, is not good statistical practice.

 

 

[robinsm]

ok lemmings 1, common sense and the scientific community 0.

 

 

[spacesailor]

The Earth,s been warming for millions of years. Not just hundreds.

 

As the  Abriginals were here, say 50,000 years ago, I sumize They are the culprits. LoL

 

spacesailor

 

 

[nomadpete]

Well, the arrival of the Aboriginies in Australia coincides with a mass extinction of fauna. 

 

But that does not guarantee that they actually caused that.

 

 

[old man emu]

The cause of the extinction is an active, contentious and factionalised field of research where politics and ideology often takes precedence over scientific evidence, especially when it comes to the possible implications regarding Aboriginal people (who appear to be responsible for the extinctions). It is hypothesised that with the arrival of early Australian Aboriginals (around 70,000~65,000 years ago), hunting and the use of fire to manage their environment may have contributed to the extinction of the megafauna.

 

Cuddie Springs is a notable archaeological and paleontological site in the semi-arid zone of central northern New South Wales, (near Brewarrina). Cuddie Springs is located within the semi-arid zone, but palynological evidence indicates that 40,000 years ago there was a large permanent lake surrounded by open shrub land suitable for supporting megafauna. The excavators of Cuddie Springs reject humans as the primary cause of megafauna extinctions. They conclude that the 10,000 years of co-habitation of humans and megafauna at Cuddie Springs suggests that climate changes that began before the human colonisation of Australia were responsible for the megafauna extinctions.

 

They cite the staggered extinctions that have been occurring since at least 130,000 years ago and the fact that megafauna in Tasmania do not occur after 46,000 years ago but people only arrived across a land bridge at 37,000 years ago. This staggered decline, mostly occurring in contexts independent of humans, is linked to environmental evidence for increasingly arid and erratic conditions since 400–300,000 years ago. The large body size of the megafauna suggests low fecundity and low population densities which have been argued to have made them susceptible to extinction due to habitat loss from increasing aridity.

 

 

[onetrack]

It was the climatic temperature increase of 2°, coupled with the big drought of 43000BC to 42498BC that done all the megafauna in.

 

And that was all caused by Abo's carrying out too much bush-burning in that time frame, to flush out their favourite mega-fauna.

 

The additional heat added to the atmosphere by all the bush being burnt, was what caused the 2° temperature rise. You know, just like when you like up a fire, to heat up a house.

 

 

[nomadpete]

evidence indicates that 40,000 years ago there was a large permanent lake surrounded by open shrub land suitable for supporting megafauna. 

 

Well there ya go!

 

That's when Aborigines arrived in Australia.

 

Lake gone!

 

Megafauna gone!

 

More proof that the Aborigines caused extinctions and also climate change.

 

Thanks for showing research that proves it!

 

And then the fight started.......

 

I was just pointing out that crafty editing of peer reviewed science can be used for feeding the misinformation mill.

 

 

[octave]

Follow WHAT money??

 

The money is on the other side, as Nev mentioned the Koch brothers, Minerals Council and its members.  These are the vested interests that don't want any change to the status quo and will put out all sorts of propaganda to retain their profits.

 

 

 

I tend towards optimism because although governments are slow and vested interest are happy to fund misinformation more forward looking companies are getting on with the business of innovation.  The old industries that do not adapt or change their business models will fail  Even leaders in a particular industry are not immune to failure if they fear change. Think Nokia and of course Kodak.  Kodak invented digital photography but was reluctant the change.

 

"Steve Sasson, the Kodak engineer who invented the first digital camera in 1975, characterized the initial corporate response to his invention this way:"

 

 

"But it was filmless photography, so management’s reaction was, ‘that’s cute—but don’t tell anyone about it.’"

 

 

 

"Kodak management’s inability to see digital photography as a disruptive technology, even as its researchers extended the boundaries of the technology, would continue for decades."

 

At the moment we have companies like BP who whilst downplaying climate change are none the less getting into the renewable energy area.   We have Shell and BP, companies that sell petroleum products building an running EV charging networks, why? They can see the writing on the wall, in fact Shell in particular did some of the earliest research on climate change.   

 

We have Saudi Arabia a country with no shortage of energy building enormous photo voltaic and thermal solar power plants.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/mbr-solar-park-dubai-desert-intl/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1Q1NpRtdXhGqxFKAHbwdUPFGUMaiyss4zLR_kkL52vkmwtmu2VGSSsHlY

 

What I believe will happen is that hard core deniers will not change their opinion but as technology improves at the rapid pace it has been the cleaner technologies will be the cheaper option.   Whilst I am here on my holidays I have had the pleasure of driving my sons Tesla.  As a vehicle even discounting  it's environmental cleanness it is just simply a more advanced and better piece of technology.

 

In 2 weeks time I am having a solar power system installed. This system is predicted to produce 6200 Kwh per year. I use about 4000Kwh a year. Of course there is the matter of when I need power and when it is available. I have looked at battery storage and it is almost economically viable but not quite yet, I am expecting it to become viable in the next few years.   It is interesting to ponder how the electricity generation companies and retailers will have to adapt in order to stay in business.  History would suggest that some will embrace change and adapt and flourish and others will fail.

 

The world mostly run by conservative older people but of course the younger generations will bring their new ideas and ways of doing things. 

 

 

[facthunter]

Not all older people are conservative, Octave.  Nev