The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

Have any of the CC scientists worked out this calculation?

 

One of the original climate models by Hanson from NASA produced a graph with 3 scenarios from memory there was the A scenario which assumed a large increase in co2 and methane etc. A  B scenario which assumed midest cuts and a C scenario with aggressive cuts. One of the tricks climate contrarians use is to criticize only the A scenario which makes assumptions about emmusions that have not occured. Here is an article that includes 3 scenarios. Also a search for scientific papers that address the question you pose are not hard to find.

 

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/?q=book/export/html/141

 

 

[spacesailor]

And if the warming is a natural occurance, will mans puny attempt make any difference in the long term?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

And if the warming is a natural occurance, will mans puny attempt make any difference in the long term?.

 

spacesailor

 

When considering whether has the ability yo alter the atmosphere we have to consider that in 2017 there were 7.53 billion of us and this figure is predicted to slow and stabilize at  22 billion. There is hardlg a place on earth thst we have not altered.  Pesticude residues are found in the shells of birds eggs in polar regions.  The oil and coal that we burn formed over millions if years. Consider spacey how many tonnes of coal and litres have been burned in your and my lifetime.  There are no free lunches in this universe every thing we do gas benefits and cost.

 

 

[Yenn]

If you think that we could not affect climate by changing our use of coal, just think back to the fifties in Britain.

 

In those days London used to have several severe smogs every winter. These were so bad that you could not see the ground in front of you.

 

The burning of coal fires was banned and the smogs do not occur, plus all the old buildings I knew as a child have now been cleaned up, changing from black to a golden colour.

 

 

[octave]

Yenn thst reminds me of the peppered moth. During the industrial revolution these light coloured moths started to stand out on the coal blackened trees. The lighter coloured  variants became easy prey but the ones that were darker gained a survival advantage thus newer generations became dark coloured.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

 

 

[spacesailor]

Yes we changed from coal to coke and we ended up with respiratory problems.

 

First they said Bronchitis the two or more years later it's suddenly asmha, that is the lucky ones, lots of others respiratory desease

 

SO coke is stinking, just like gas in unventelated homes.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Australian government report:

 

Fossil fuel sources contributed 212,066 GWh (81%) of total electricity generation in 2018, a decrease of 3% compared with 2017.

 

Coal accounted for the majority of electricity generation, at 60% of total generation in 2018.

 

Renewable sources contributed 49,339 GWh (19%) of total electricity generation in 2018, an increase of 25% compared with 2017.

 

The largest source of renewable generation was hydro (7% of total generation) followed by wind (6%) and solar (5%).

 

What would the alarmists have us do differently, how would we make the changes they want faster than at present? Who would pay for that? What would the consequences be? There is no magic wand.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Australian government report:

 

Fossil fuel sources contributed 212,066 GWh (81%) of total electricity generation in 2018, a decrease of 3% compared with 2017...

 

If you trust government reports, then you must also be concerned that Australia is clearly not going to meet the pollution-reduction targets we agreed to. The rest of the world is already disgusted with this government's blatant attempts to cheat, as the COALition take us even further out on an economic limb.

 

The next step will be a global movement to ostracise Australia because we make one of the largest contributions to greenhouse gases per capita, especially when you include our coal exports. Then comes trade and cultural sanctions followed by a push for Australia (seen as large, rich and empty) to take in climate refugees, whose numbers will soon climb into the tens of millions. 

 

Given our dependence on global trade and the good will of the international community (tourism and education are major exports) we'd be crazy to alienate other countries.

 

...What would the alarmists have us do differently, how would we make the changes they want faster than at present? Who would pay for that? What would the consequences be? There is no magic wand.

 

The LNP government is trying to protect their mates in the coal industry from changes the market is already making. If they got on board, within a decade Australia could be a world leader in exporting renewable energy products.

 

 

[facthunter]

Probably because they were UNIONISED rather than any other real reason. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

his predictions were only modestly correct in the area of air pollution, and 100% wrong on the horse manure problem.

 

Pretty much a load of sh|t, eh?

 

The problem with these predictions is that 

 

a vast amount of the information produced by the IPCC is predictions, based on calculations, that are fuzzy in many areas, and carried out on baselines that are over a very short period of time in relation to climate history - and which keep shifting, as the scientists find new factors affecting the climate, and adjust measurements accordingly.

 

 

 

The meteorologists can't even get the next day's forecast right. They said yesterday that a strong southerly change would pass through southeast Australia with embedded thunderstorms and rain. The change came through and blew for a while. Not a drop of rain, and today we are back to last week's smokey and still air.

 

It's all well and good to enter meteorological data into simulation programs and let the software churn to numbers, but the results are still only conjecture. It's the law that insurance companies provide customers with Product Disclosure Statements. Climatologists should do the same.

 

 

[octave]

Pretty much a load of sh|t, eh?

 

The problem with these predictions is that 

 

The meteorologists can't even get the next day's forecast right. They said yesterday that a strong southerly change would pass through southeast Australia with embedded thunderstorms and rain. The change came through and blew for a while. Not a drop of rain, and today we are back to last week's smokey and still air.

 

It's all well and good to enter meteorological data into simulation programs and let the software churn to numbers, but the results are still only conjecture. It's the law that insurance companies provide customers with Product Disclosure Statements. Climatologists should do the same.

 

My understanding is that most of these models have been quite accurate.  The Hanson model provides 3 scenarios one of which is quite dramatic however it is based on no mitigation of greenhouse gases.  

 

Many people parrot the "climate change models have proved to be inaccurate" but seldom present evidence. If you cant name the prominent models or if you font know what they actually predict then maybe all you can provide is your opinion. 

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-s-long-term-climate-predictions-are-accurate-to-within-1-20th-of-a-degree

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/

 

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

 

My question to you is what do the models predict (not you have heard they predict, but the actual predictions)  and how do they match the evidence. 

 

 

[octave]

Australian government report:

 

Fossil fuel sources contributed 212,066 GWh (81%) of total electricity generation in 2018, a decrease of 3% compared with 2017.

 

Coal accounted for the majority of electricity generation, at 60% of total generation in 2018.

 

Renewable sources contributed 49,339 GWh (19%) of total electricity generation in 2018, an increase of 25% compared with 2017.

 

The largest source of renewable generation was hydro (7% of total generation) followed by wind (6%) and solar (5%).

 

What would the alarmists have us do differently, how would we make the changes they want faster than at present? Who would pay for that? What would the consequences be? There is no magic wand.

 

 

 

What may be more interesting than what I thinks would be what people running large companies think.  Once we move past the science of climate change it also becomes a political and economic problem.  

 

https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/ceos-election-wish-end-to-climate-policy-paralysis-20190301-h1bvrb

 

"Chief executives from across the economy have issued a plea for the next federal government to get to grips with energy and climate policy and end the paralysis that is hindering investment, pushing up prices and dividing communities."

 

"Certainty around carbon policy was named top of the policy wish-list of many business leaders this reporting season, in sectors as diverse as consumer retail, securities trading and manufacturing, as well as those more directly affected such as energy producers and transporters."

 

"

 

Wesfarmers chief executive Rob Scott called for the debate to move on from the question of whether a carbon tax was imposed or not.

 

"We need to move on that, and accept that there is a cost of carbon, it is a cost we're all going to pay over time and in fact our children will pay the heaviest price and we need to start creating the price signals and the policy settings to enable us to start making a transition," Mr Scott said."

 

"Woodside Petroleum's Peter Coleman also said "carbon needs to have a price", with several mechanisms possible, not just a tax.

 

"By 2050 there will be 1 billion more people on this planet," he said. "As their economic prosperity increases you want them going to lower carbon products and the only way to do that is to make sure carbon is appropriately priced."

 

"Viva Energy wants more clarity around emissions and energy policies, not just so the refiner can manage risks but also to identify new opportunities for investment, chief executive Scott Wyatt said."

 

All that was needed was the target set from the top to guide the rate of transition to cleaner energy, which was happening anyway, Spark Infrastructure's Rick Francis said. "A clear policy target at the top is probably what's needed, then let the industry get on and move forward with a sound set of principles that we can rely on for the longer term," he said."

 

A coherent coherent energy policy seems to be what people and indeed business (including fossil fuel and resource companies want)

 

one of my concerns is that Australia may be left behind technologically speaking.  I am still holidaying in NZ 86% renewable energy, yes it does have natural advantages but it manages to exploit those advantages. many more EVs on the road and the infrastructure to support them.   I fear are style is more fatalistically  wave lumps of coal in parliament.  

 

I accept that these problems are not easy to fix in the short term but first it the problem must be acknowledged and quantified.   I also believe that it is too late to avoid negative consequences so it would be nice to see more government action on adaption.

 

I actually have more faith in private enterprise than government. Say what you want about capitalism but if you define the problem and set parameters business will find a way.

 

 

[Yenn]

We have advantages for renewables. Wall to wall sunlight!

 

We cannot really be affected by trade embargoes as we don’t produce anything except coal and iron ore. We will be left on the sideline if our government does not change it’s ways.

 

 

[octave]

We have advantages for renewables. Wall to wall sunlight!

 

We cannot really be affected by trade embargoes as we don’t produce anything except coal and iron ore. We will be left on the sideline if our government does not change it’s ways.

 

 

 

This is why I remain with a mild tendency towards optimism.  

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/billionaires-invest-in-massive-solar-farm-to-supply-power-to-singapore-20191120-p53cf7.html

 

Whilst politicians are waving around lumps of coal in parliament businesses are moving forward.   

 

 

[spacesailor]

The PUSH to renewable energy is lost if thd people who want solar, are having their feed in tariff removed,

 

Let this government put solar on any house or business that says go for it.

 

It can only help, if it gets the greenies less vocal. LoL

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

The PUSH to renewable energy is lost if thd people who want solar, are having their feed in tariff removed,

 

Let this government put solar on any house or business that says go for it.

 

It can only help, if it gets the greenies less vocal. LoL

 

spacesailor

 

The feed in tariff is still there. I am getting solar installed 2 weeks time.  It may be less generous than it was however I will receive 13 cents per kWh   Rooftop solar installations are increasing dramatically.  We have had to wait for several months because our installer is flat out.   Regardless of how generous or not the the feed in tariff is, it still makes economic sense. 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/blown-away-rooftop-solar-pv-installations-surge-by-almost-half-20190414-p51e0u.html

 

 

[octave]

From a study by CSIRO  2007 

 

 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.115.9902

 

As I read this study and look at it's predictions I do not see the hysterical rubbish that some of you portray when discussing scientific predictions. Are fire seasons starting earlier, yes they are.   Is this study hysterical nonsense, it doesn't appear to be, well not at least to me. 

 

"Concluding Remarks In this study,  Simulations from two CSIRO climate models using two greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions scenarios are combined with historical weather observations to assess the changes to fire weather expected by 2020 and 2050. In general, fire weather conditions are expected to worsen. By 2020, the increase in ΣFFDI is generally 0-4% in the low scenarios and 0-10% in the high scenarios. By 2050, the increase in generally 0-8% (low) and 10-30% (high). The largest changes are expected in northern New South Wales. Little change is expected in Tasmania. With this increase in ΣFFDI, a larger number of days with a Fire Danger Rating of ‘very high’ or ‘extreme’ are also expected. The number of ‘extreme’ fire danger days generally increases 5-25% for the low scenarios and 15-65% for the high scenarios. By 2050, the increases are generally 10-50% in the low scenarios and100 300% for the high scenarios. The seasons are likely to become longer, starting earlier in the year. These results are placed in the context of the current climate and its tendencies. During the last several years in southeast Australia, including the 2006-07 season, particularly severe fire weather conditions have been observed. In many cases, the conditions far exceed the projections in the high scenarios of 2050. Are the models (or our methodology) too conservative or is some other factor at work? Examining longer-term observations at eight stations, back to the early 1940s in many cases, reveals considerable inter-decadal variability. Periods of increasing and decreasing fire weather danger are apparent in the record. The peaks of these ‘cycles’ occur roughly every 20 years and the time series might suggest that we are at (or near) a peak, although there is no physical basis on which to estimate when or to what extent a decrease might occur. There is also evidence for anthropogenic climate change being a driver of this upswing. The current peaks in ΣFFDI are much higher than observed in past instances. There are also a greater number of VHE days at many locales. There is also the suggestion that the fire season is starting earlier. Finally, the severity and length of the recent drought [e.g. Nicholls 2006] and the associated fire danger has not been seen in the available records. The hypothesis posited in this study is that the naturally occurring peak in fire danger due to interdecadal variability may have been exacerbated by climate change. The test of this hypothesis comes over the next few years to decades. If correct, then it might be expected that fire weather conditions will return to levels something more along the lines of those suggested in the 2020 scenarios. If fire danger conditions stay this high, then the conclusion must be that the models used to make these projections are too conservative. Whatever the case, continued observation, as well as improved modelling are required to resolve this question."

 

 Here is the afternoon sun in Wellington NZ where I am holidaying. No that is not sunset it is Aussie smoke and it is much worse on the South Island

 

[ATTACH]50536._xfImport[/ATTACH] 

 

Here is the house I built and lived in from 1990 to 2011 and only recently sold. This video was taken yesterday apparently the house was saved.  

 

 

[ATTACH]50537._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The house I lived in prior to that although it is 360 km away is also threatened by fire.

 

My sister lives in Quaamo near Cobargo on a property and we cant get in contact with her. My parents are frantic.   

 

Now I am not drawing a direct line and suggesting that these fires are caused by climate change but the science back in 2007 did predict earlier starts to the fire season and more intense fires.  Has this happened, it seems so to me.

 

I just humbly ask one thing of people who think it is all nonsense and that is this, could you possibly be wrong.  I run through my mind the possibility that I am wrong and what the implications of that might be.   Please just consider the possibility. 

 

Anyway probably not much more to say about this subject. 

 

KGn4MiLee2MTmHAZ.mp4

[old man emu]

I think that the consensus is that the climate is indeed changing. The argument is over the cause and if Mankind has played a significant hand in the change.

 

Quoting the results of climate predictions  reminds me of the saying, "Statistics don't lie, liars do so with statistics."

 

I wonder if those living in the Future will look back on our time as a time of primitive technologies when people turned solid carbon into gas when it could have been used to make recyclable materials. It's a shame that to be able to use metals, we have to use up our stores of carbon.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It starts “ simulations from two climate models” and that is where reality ends. Fire conditions have been the same as now on several occasions since white settlement. What is different are:

 

density of settlement

 

failure to burn off in winter

 

media coverage.

 

Lack of historical insight.

 

The Aboriginal burning management was adopted in part by the white settlers.it is only in the last 20-30 years that it ceased, due to misguided greenie opposition, lack of local involvement and the takeover of decision making by city based land management bodies. I saw an interview today with someone whose family grazed public land and burned off every winter until their land was taken by the Croajingalong national park about 20 years ago. That land was a part of the recent blaze.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Where we live in central Victoria, the areas of most concern are those densely planted by the landcare groups in places that were historically open. Good people, misguided. We can look up newspapers from the 1850s and 1860s advising people to clear and burn firebreaks around their properties.

 

 

[Bruce]

We should be comparing the costs of inaction ( all the current fire costs for example ) with the costs of taking action. The least worst should be the way we go and I am sure that this would be to minimize co2 production.

 

I would like to see Australia phase out coal mining and start paying farmers to make charcoal.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Why on earth would you trade those costs? Nothing we do will change Australia's climate from what it always has been. It’s like King Canute turning back the tide. He was showing his followers that it is impossible.

 

 

[robinsm]

The current crop of bushfires tends to stuff up your arguments about reduction of carbon dioxide doesnt it.   One volcanoe and boom, back to square one.  

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

[ATTACH]50538._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[octave]

The current crop of bushfires tends to stuff up your arguments about reduction of carbon dioxide doesnt it.   One volcanoe and boom, back to square one.  

 

Actually co2 from volcanos has been quantified.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

 

The thing is it is like a burst water main spectacular but most water us lost through the millions of leaky taps. Volcanos as well as contributing to atmospheric co2 have a cooling effect due to particulate matter increasing the albedo This cooling effect is temperary. 

 

https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/how-volcanoes-influence-climate