The climate change debate continues.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Interesting take on carbon capture (try using private mode in browser):

https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-s-giant-carbon-capture-project-fails-to-meet-key-targets-20210719-p58b3i.html

 

 

 

 

[Dax]

Can't understand why anyone could have thought this bizarre approach would work, seems to be it was just clutching at non existent straws hoping they would materialise and save the planet from the destruction humans ares causing.

 

When you see the number of gas wells around the country, all emitting carbon draining qualifiers and polluting water ways. It makes you wonder at the logic of ideological humanity, if they have any that is.

 

The only logical way to mitigate climate change is to remove ideological humanity, then we may get some positive results.

[pmccarthy]

The paper below is a challenging read but well worth it. I accept 100% the science that it presents. Finally, a research report that does not deal with "models" but with real world observations. 

 

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/05/State-of-the-Climate-2020.pdf

 

Octave, your response to this will be of interest. It is hard to see how anyone could take issue with the balanced contents of the report. However, I expect the alarmists (not Octave!) will try to attack the credibility of the authors as they usually do. I invite comments...

[octave]

18 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

 

Octave, your response to this will be of interest.

That is a long read but I will work my way through it,    I should point out though that I make no claim to be scientifically qualified in all of these areas. There are are points of data and then there is an interpretation of just what that means. What I can do is treat it like I would tread medical information. I can look at the range of information out there and weigh up the different sources of information and  interpretations.   

I have to weigh up this organizations state of the climate report with CSIROs state of the climate report.

 

 

Being thorough, this is a big homework assignment but I will attempt it.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Haven't got time to go through it this morning, but apparently Humlum has some form (from 10 years ago): https://skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html

 

I can't find a critique in favour or against his work, so, like Octave, will work my way through it - again not suggesting I have any expertise in the areas per se.

 

It should be an interesting read.

[Dax]

8 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

The paper below is a challenging read but well worth it. I accept 100% the science that it presents. Finally, a research report that does not deal with "models" but with real world observations. 

It's a far right organisation dedicated to denying climate change, like the sensational left, their veracity could be questioned. Did read it through and a number of its claims differ from what I've read from recognised scientific institutions. However we won't know the truth until it unfolds around us and still have my gumboots and "dri as a bone".

 

I think it's happening, as to what extent or time line, wouldn't have a clue. It's getting to the point where who do you believe when there's so many opposing viewpoints and all claim scientific support.

[spacesailor]

Denying the inevitable is a bit silly ,.

BUT

I deny humans are responsible for what started when they were living in caves.

When Earth was a frozen planet, who was to blame for that ?.

The Sun Is expanding, so it must get warmer, who can stop that ?.

Unless you can ever cool or shrink our Sun, we will get fried, just like Mars.

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

Spacey, worrying about the sun death at 4.5 billion years in the future while ignoring the current threat in the next 20-50 years, is like worrying about dying of old age when you're playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the cylinder.

[spacesailor]

I,m not worried about 4.5 billion years.

I,m just saying, it,s not just the ' modern  ' human that made this problem,

It,s has started at the end of the ICE AGE.

AND were still melting.

I don't like the cold ! .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

Some of the bigger asset managers and banks are piling pressure on coal being used for generation: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/exclusive-citi-hsbc-prudential-hatch-plan-asian-coal-fired-closures-sources-2021-08-03/

 

Black Rock bought a second tier consulting firm (can't think of their name at the minute) because they had the most advanced climate risk model - to predict the economic and societal risks with accelerated climate change.

 

Let's face it, for all those policies that don't exclude losses from climate events, acts of god won't get insurers out of having to pay out because, well, it isn't an act of god (accelerated climate change, that is; not just climate change).

 

Banks will suffer losses as defaults rise to a) their exposure to insurers, b) businesses where it is easy to declare bankruptcyu, and c) people, who lose lots of stuff; not fogetting wars that will start: https://www.iatp.org/news/leaked-pentagon-report-warns-climate-change-may-bring-famine-war.

 

None of this proves that man is accelerating warming o fthe planet (well, actually, the Blackrock acquired models do)...

 

Yet SFM/Scomo still carry on as the LNP's sponsors, ahem, political donors arse lickers...

[Old Koreelah]

Across Siberia and North America, permafrost is now melting at an alarming rate, releasing methane trapped over thousands of years. That gas has many times the greenhouse effect of CO2. 

 

To our near-north, several hundred million poor people live a smidgeon above sea level. Tens of millions of them suffer regular flooding. They know that Australia, as the world’s biggest exporter of coal, can be blamed for this. They also know this country is a safe, wealthy destination.

 

Is Australia’s government looking after the future of our children, or the short-term profits of it’s corporate sponsors?

[onetrack]

No Australian politician of the last 5 decades plans anything beyond next month, or at the best, the next election.

And the plans are all based on what's best for the party, and what can be done to ensure re-election of their party.

[pmccarthy]

Anyone who thinks that the frequency or intensity of flooding here or around the world has increased, has not lived long enough and has not read historical reports.

 

The climate alarmists have not tried to argue this as they know it cannot be demostrated. But they say "the modelling suggests it is higly likely that (choose your disaster) has been made more likely by climate change".

[Old Koreelah]

38 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Anyone who thinks that the frequency or intensity of flooding here or around the world has increased, has not lived long enough and has not read historical reports.

PM I grant you that floods have always been with us and measurements of their size and frequency may not be comparable, but that’s totally academic to the victims. They want someone to blame and Australia has been stupidly maneuvered into their sights by our government’s blatant support for obsolete fossil fuel industries.

38 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

…The climate alarmists have not tried to argue this as they know it cannot be demostrated. But they say "the modelling suggests it is higly likely that (choose your disaster) has been made more likely by climate change".

At least some of their computer modeling has been proven wrong: the Arctic is warming and thawing much faster than predicted.

[spacesailor]

Now the Artic is thawing.

NO ONE is investing in, using the gas produced, for a useful purpose !.

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

3 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Anyone who thinks that the frequency or intensity of flooding here or around the world has increased, has not lived long enough and has not read historical reports.

 

The climate alarmists have not tried to argue this as they know it cannot be demostrated. But they say "the modelling suggests it is higly likely that (choose your disaster) has been made more likely by climate change".

So bushfire seasons aren't getting longer and the fires bigger?  You might want to chat to the fire chiefs about that one.

[spacesailor]

Wet & favorable growing seasons will make more fuel for those fires !. Then a hot summer, plus a few fire bugs, & hey presto it,s fire season.

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

You don't need firebugs - lightning strikes start many bushfires including the ones here in Tassie a few years back which burned 1,000 year old trees. 

https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/tassie-fires/11016426

[Dax]

16 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Anyone who thinks that the frequency or intensity of flooding here or around the world has increased, has not lived long enough and has not read historical reports.

The difference between now and the past is, back then floods were a regular thing every winter, caused by steady rain over days and could last for many days. Now they are mostly caused by flash storms that drop huge amounts of water in very short times, creating much more damage. 

 

Years ago floods used to rejuvenate pastures, now they wash them away. Same with bush fires, they used to burn at much slower rates and were controllable. Now they are ferocious, creating fire storms and tornadoes, making them very deadly. 

 

That's what climate change is doing, you can't judge climate change by the number of events, but by the ferocity and damage they cause.

[pmccarthy]

In contrast to alarming claims about rare, 100-year flood events now occurring every few years due to global warming, scientists have determined the exact opposite is more likely true. Not only have flood frequencies declined globally in the last 50 years, but the probability of a 100-year flood event is now so rare it has only been occurring once every 358 years on average since 1970.

According to the IPCC, there has been no clear evidence of a global-scale increase in flood magnitude or frequency in the last century (Hodgkins et al., 2017).

Edited August 5, 2021 by pmccarthy

[pmccarthy]

SMALL TOWN IN GERMANY. History shows that high water levels and flooding have occurred many times over the centuries. To attribute current flooding to CO2 emissions is nonsense. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

My problem,PMC, is that I would like for you to be right, but alas the evidence of my own eyes tells me differently.

I have trekked up to the Fox glacier in NZ . If your version was correct, half of all glaciers would be growing. Instead, they are nearly all shrinking alarmingly. The Mekong river will be in big trouble when the Himalayan glaciers disappear, as they are well on the way to doing.

Of course some measurements will buck the trend, as is inevitable where signal-to-noise ratio is high.

Mind you, we of the older generation will never be around to see the results of our madness, which is why I like Dick Smith's idea that only the votes of under 30's should matter in climate change.

[spacesailor]

Derby in the UK has that same wall chart for ' flooding' . it's highest is the oldest date. receding to the latest date .

I could not believe how high that first flood was, way beyond my reach. ( in the centre of town ).

spacesailor

 

[Marty_d]

5 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

SMALL TOWN IN GERMANY. History shows that high water levels and flooding have occurred many times over the centuries. To attribute current flooding to CO2 emissions is nonsense. 

They haven't repainted since 1799??  That's some good paint!

[Dax]

6 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

In contrast to alarming claims about rare, 100-year flood events now occurring every few years due to global warming, scientists have determined the exact opposite is more likely true.

Not really, they class 100 year flood events by the ferocity of the flood, not the number of floods. Of course actual flooding events have decreased, but massive floods they only expected every 100 years, have become common, even though there is less of them.

 

One always has to take into account the sensationalism of the press, who will dramatise anything to get more viewers, no matter what the subject and climate change is no different.

 

That doesn't mean climate change is not happening, all the science says it is and increasing temperatures, fire storms and massive downpours are ample proof of that reality.

 

It would be lovely if climate change was a hoax and had no effect on life, but that is not that case, the opposite is true. It's starting to have a big effect on land sea and atmosphere. We have made extinct so many species already, but climate change caused by humans is going to make extinct thousand more species, including emperor penguins and many birds, animals and sea life. This will break the food chain, which we rely upon to survive and when you add we are using more and more chemicals, burning more and more fossil fuels, clearing millions of hectares areas each day. What other outcome can there be but disaster after disaster and when you add unstoppable massive population human growth, demanding more land for food and bigger ships for fishing, whilst we are almost at the point of denuding the oceans of life. Only the deeply deluded would deny we have a problem.

 

There is no other outcome than disaster and it matters not what we think or say, the results are already set in stone and can't be reversed except by removing ideological humanity from the planet. Even doing that may not make much difference for a century or two and none of us will be around to see the final outcome.

 

Denial is the biggest problem humanity faces, everyone is in denial of the reality of their lives and the planet, even if they believe in climate change. They still live in denial during their daily lives by what they eat, use and throw away. Even those marching and demonstrating to try to get something done, live their lives in denial and continue to support by their lifestyles, environmental destruction and consumerism.