The climate change debate continues.

[pmccarthy]

In 2011, senior UN climate official, German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III, explained:

“Basically, it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit (that one was in Cancun) is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War ... one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

[Jerry_Atrick]

13 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. 

I have no idea of the authenticity of this picture, but let's assume it is authentic... This would be equivalent to the Somerset levels, which is a flood plain not too far from me. In centuries gone by. the flooding recorded there was more frequent and much worse that it is these days. The last major flood of the 'Levels was in 2014 and there hasn't been anything since as far as I am aware.  Does it dispel  the theory that increasing CO2 levels, largely caused by man are contributing to increased flooding?

 

Of course it doesn't.. the reason is the same as the reason for why much of Europe floods less harshly and frequently than earlier centuries - flood defences being built on industrial scales over the last 150 years.. and they are constantly being upgraded. I can't tell for certain with this village/town, but the reason a lot of London doesn't flood is robust flood barriers along the Thames for miles.

 

I think if you argue the recent floods where over 250 people (from memory) were killed in Germany and whole villages/towns were wiped out were not the worst in living memory (and on record for a long time), given where the country has a propensity to flood there are defences in place, you may come up with a contrary view (and some pitchforks as well).

 

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

In 2011, senior UN climate official, German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III, explained:

“Basically, it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit (that one was in Cancun) is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War ... one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

I am not sure what your point is. A supposed conference on climate change is about how to best profit from it.. Sadly, that is human nature.. It doesn't in prove of disprove whether or not accelerating climate change is the result of human's contribution to CO2 (and other greenhouse gases for that matter). It just shows that there are people who are opportunistic. It's sort of the Durban conference on human rights, or the UN human rights council itself - did you know they investigated Australia for human rights violations against women I think at the request of a Saudi commissioner? Just because there is a conference or commission and one person makes an accusation doesn't prove or disprove anything.. In other words, the facts could not give a rats arse about what anyone's opinion is.

[Marty_d]

Here's what SfM would have said if he were a real prime minister.

 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/08/10/scott-morrison-ipcc-remarks/?utm_source=pushengage&utm_medium=pushengage&utm_campaign=pushengage

[Bruce Tuncks]

Near Edenhope, there is an old fence which is now usually inundated. Some people take this as evidence that the climate was drier in the past. BUT the land was changed ( cleared) in a way that runoff was increased in the meantime.

You have to be very careful about assuming too much... 

However, a great story was told by Burt Rutan ( who is a climate change denier but also a  great aircraft designer ) about how in the old Soviet Union, you got more heating oil if you posted record low temperatures. Since this no longer applies ( I think they just freeze now if they are poor ) then of course the temperatures have gone up.

[pmccarthy]

Climate Change Denier is a pejorative term derived from the term Holocaust Denier. The Holocaust happened, human-induced climate catastrophe is a hypothesis.

[Jerry_Atrick]

And the atomic theory? This was unproven for a couple of hundreds of years (and some of it is still unproven), yet all the evidence stacked up for most of the theory.. There were (pardon the pun) elemenents that were wrong (early laws of mass conservatiom, for example), but generally, the laws refined as the evidence and observations, and technology allowed.

 

The reality is, every year, credible evidence increasingly points to man made CO2 and other effects (e.g. unlocking methane reserves as a result) as evidence of accelerating climate change - there are only few that point the other way and are usually at odds with the evidence or come from a background of gain to deny it. No one is denying the climate doesn't naturally change... Apart from external events (e.g. craters hitting earth, creating dust clouds), there is little evidence of marked climate change over short periods of time.

 

That is not to say all conclusions from those who say climate change are correct. We are humans after all, and scientists from both sides make mistakes. However, the mistakes are from data misinterpration/error rather than denial. Climate Change Denier in this context seems to be denying the facts or evidence that human activity is having a disproportionate impact on rate of climate change - holocaust deniers are denying the facts that the holocaust took place.. much the same, to me.

 

Even if it turned out that humans aren't the cause and there is some long lost natural CO2 emitter like an invasive tree species or something.. Why would we wait, anyway and not act tto buy ourselves time to discover the cause and ultimately address it?

 

The IPCC report is out.. It is inter-governmental.. I have downloaded it but not yet read it. A widely claimed facet of the report was the 2 degree watershed was going to come 10 years earlier than predicted. They did not include it as they realised the data was not comprehensive to support it and the probability didn't weigh up. In the report they acknowledged errors in the last report, which human driven climate change deniers latched onto.. However, of all of the facets contained in the report, one or two things wrong doesn't invalidate the core findings. The atomic theory had many facets that were later disproved oir subsquently discovered (like protons the nucleus wasn't theorised, if I recall, fpor soome 75 years or so after the initial theory).. Yet, no one waited for the whole theory to be proved before acting on it.. or we would be no where near where we are today (including the impending climate emergency).

 

So, yes, Climate Change Denier (in the context of human driven climate change) is becoming pejorative, because it is an increasingly difficult position to hold in increasing evidence to support it. And resisting to fail to act on it, even if it turns out not to be true, allows the acceleration and reduces the time and chances of us finding and addressing or being able to better manage life knowing the real cause.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

34 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

(e.g. craters hitting earth, creating dust clouds)

Ahem.. asteroids hitting earth; creaters hitting earth would be an interesting sight!

[red750]

Cop that, young Harry!

 

Did you see this?

[Dax]

Read that the other day, it's the typical direction we are being forced into, paying for everything even what we produce. They are determined to stick to the profit growth approach and the economic strangulation of society, just to keep their vested interests happy.

 

This is another interesting article and one which really shows where we are at. Climate change deniers, like all deniers of reality always look for anything to support their argument and mostly that's local events or condition that don't represent the overall picture.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-14/july-world-hottest-month-on-record-noaa/100377260

"The past seven Julys, from 2015 to 2021, have been the hottest seven Julys on record, said NOAA climatologist Ahira Sanchez-Lugo.

Last month was 0.93C warmer than the 20th-century average for the month."

May not sound a lot, but it shows the planets climate is changing and warming much faster that science predicted. Down here in Aus, most of us live by the sea and being an island north of a massive refrigerator, means cooler winds can provide a false impression of what is actually happening.

Been keeping weather records here for over 20 years and they show a slow but steady increase in temps, particularly at night and in winter. Hasn't been one day where temps have been below zero other then early morning in the last 5 years, in the past we had a number of days with temps below zero around the property. Nor any snow for 11 years and we used to get few days of snow every winter, even on the wharf.

The constant sea breezes in summer and warmer sea air means we have a warmer climate than 20 years ago. Think we are way further down the track of disaster than many hope or think and could be on the brink of a house of cards effect in the very near future.

The very hot temps in the Nth hemisphere could collapse the ice sheets there very soon and only over a year or two, rising the seas by about 8m which would totally destroy the majority of human towns and cities. Most are situated on oceans or rivers, 8m rise in river levels would create an unbelievable flooding event that would not dissipate, just keep rising.

There are also signs Antarctic ice sheets are moving faster and faster towards the sea, when you add the drying up of glaciers around the planet, which most nth hemisphere populations mostly rely upon for water. There is another catastrophe ahead that nothing is being done about, other than build more dams and in the process destroy the natural flow of natural waterways and all the benefits they bring to the land and life on their journey to the sea. Just about all are just human created sewers now and almost dead, another example of the deranged stupidity of ideological humanity and it's never ending greed.

[pmccarthy]

https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57234610.amp

 

The numbers quoted are simply for  the UK. If the rest of the western world were added, the maths is staggering.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Above the farm here, there is now over 2,000 tonnes of CO2 in the air.

Yep, a cubic km of air contains 400 tonnes on CO2 at 400ppm.

So reducing this to 300ppm would be a massive job huh.

I really worry about the fate of the kids. I think that my generation has enjoyed the best of times to be alive.

[spacesailor]

Bruce.

You must be a generation or more younger than l.

Itsagetting better Getting warmer.

Less people are dieing from house fires.

And monoxide poisoning.

spacesailor

 

[willedoo]

We need a big pipe that goes from the atmosphere into space. With a one way valve to let the CO2 out.

[Jerry_Atrick]

And another to let all of the methane out - not sure how to connect that one to 6bn+ people, though 😉

 

[Marty_d]

57 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

And another to let all of the methane out - not sure how to connect that one to 6bn+ people, though 😉

 

Ah, if only we'd invented matter teleportation.  You have a couple of little one-way gates inserted - voila!  No more toilets required.  

Teleported straight to large tanks, with methane powering power plants.  All farm animals could have these gates inserted too - not only good for the environment, but enjoyable work for Kiwi farmers.

[Old Koreelah]

12 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

…I really worry about the fate of the kids. I think that my generation has enjoyed the best of times to be alive.

Bruce I often think like that and certainly share those fears.

I grew up with stories of pioneering forefathers clearing forests and building new farms and towns. The land frontier was endless.

 

Now is very different. We have so many new types frontiers to conquer. Some of them may save our civilization.

 

All this assumes current trends continue without interruption, but many things could come from left field. A meteorite could clobber us (like 12,000 years ago) and civilization would have to begin again. A big volcanic eruption could plunge the planet into another cooling phase.

 

If we get our act together, we might transform our world in time to give our grandies a decent chance. This decade could be a boom time if we invest in new technologies. What we really need is visionary leaders, not corrupted governments.

 

[Marty_d]

20 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

Bruce I often think like that and certainly share those fears.

I grew up with stories of pioneering forefathers clearing forests and building new farms and towns. The land frontier was endless.

 

Now is very different. We have so many new types frontiers to conquer. Some of them may save our civilization.

 

All this assumes current trends continue without interruption, but many things could come from left field. A meteorite could clobber us (like 12,000 years ago) and civilization would have to begin again. A big volcanic eruption could plunge the planet into another cooling phase.

 

If we get our act together, we might transform our world in time to give our grandies a decent chance. This decade could be a boom time if we invest in new technologies. What we really need is visionary leaders, not corrupted governments.

 

I think we often thrive in spite of leaders, not because of them.

[Old Koreelah]

3 hours ago, Marty_d said:

I think we often thrive in spite of leaders, not because of them.

Leadership can come from anywhere;

this is an encouraging story: 

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/get-out-of-the-way-kean-calls-out-canberra-over-climate-20210816-p58j5j.html

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Ah, if only we'd invented matter teleportation.  <snip, but the kiwi farmer jibe made me larf>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/scientists-successfully-teleport-beam-of-light-1.326722

 

[pmccarthy]

Abstract: It has been discovered that there appears to exist a close relationship between relative differences in total solar irradiance and the atmospheric temperature, at a pressure of 1 bar, on all three terrestrial-type bodies which possess thick atmospheres. The apparent relationship is through the quaternary root of total solar irradiance at 1 bar, and applies to the planetary bodies Venus, Earth and Titan. The relationship is so close that the average surface atmospheric temperature of Earth can be easily calculated to within 1 Kelvin (0.5%) of the correct figure by the knowledge of only two numbers, neither of which are related to the Earth’s atmosphere. These are; the atmospheric temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1 bar, and the top-of-atmosphere solar insolation of the two planets. A similar relationship in atmospheric temperatures is found to exist, through insolation differences alone, between the atmospheric temperatures at 1 bar of the planetary bodies Titan and Earth, and Venus
and Titan. This relationship exists despite the widely varying atmospheric greenhouse gas content, and the widely varying albedos of the three planetary bodies. This result is consistent with previous research with regards to atmospheric temperatures and their relationship to the molar mass version of the ideal gas law, in that this work also points to a climate sensitivity to CO2 - or to any other ‘greenhouse’ gas - which is close to or at zero. It is more confirmation that the main determinants of atmospheric temperatures in the regions of terrestrial planetary atmospheres which are >0.1 bar, is overwhelmingly the result of two factors; solar insolation and atmospheric pressure. There appears to be no measurable, or what may be better termed ‘anomalous’ warming input from a class of gases which have up until the present, been incorrectly labelled as ‘greenhouse’ gases.

 

Robert Ian Holmes. On the Apparent Relationship Between Total Solar Irradiance and the Atmospheric Temperature at 1 Bar on Three Terrestrial-type Bodies. Earth Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 6, 2019, pp. 346-351. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20190806.15

[octave]

22 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Robert Ian Holmes

• Department of Applied Science
• Ballarat, Australia

Position

• Lecturer in Mining Engineering

Description

• Teaching mining engineering to 3rd, 4th year and masters students.

Peter how come most of your quotes on this subject come from experts in a different field?

 

Recently you posted a document by Ole Humlum is former Professor of Physical Geography and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

 

I did start looking at this report in detail.  Whilst many of the charts and graphs appear in the CSIRO report the conclusions drawn are different.   The CSIRO report ocean acidification whereas this report dopes not.

 

 

It seems to me that the most reliable source of information on cancer is an oncologist not a cardiologist.      Are the places I would go for reliable science information in general incorrect on this one area.  Would you recommend avoiding CSIRO as a source of information and if so just on this subject or on all subjects?

 

  

[pmccarthy]

Octave, I am a geoscientist and mining engineer so I receive a lot of material from my peer group. I have said before, I believe that geoscientists are the best people to opine on climate. That is their profession. Geo = Earth. They study the planet earth. I don't argue the same for mining engineers, though  they are good at planning from limited data. I don't claim to be any sort of expert, but I rely on the geoscientists who do study climate.

 

I was looking forward to your views on Humlum's report, as it seems to me to be a fact-based summary of the subject matter. 

 

I don't undertand why you (and many others) go straight to attacking the credibility of the  author of these reports instead of saying how or why they are wrong.

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by pmccarthy

[Yenn]

Pmc C Attack is the best form of defence. Especially if you have no real defence.

The current method of getting your point of view accepted is to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you.

Just watch how our pollies do it

[octave]

PM the qualifications of the author are relevent. As a non scientist I need to look to reliable sources. I believe CSIRO to be well respected. 

 

My opinion  on that report is that of an amateur.  What you are suggesting is that this report from a self addmitted lobbying group is more reliable than the state of the climate report from CSIRO. Isnt that what it comes down to?

Perhaps you could critique the CSIRO document?  

 I did start putting together a spreadsheet comparing each area in terms of data presented and conclusions drawn. 

 

Still willing to have a go although

 I dont imagine I could ever change your mind however.

[octave]

31 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Pmc C Attack is the best form of defence. Especially if you have no real defence.

The current method of getting your point of view accepted is to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you.

Just watch how our pollies do it

It is not about denigrating but advice about medical matters carries more weight when it comes from someone with expertise in that area. Even within medicine advice from a cardiologist is more relevant to a heart attack patient than advice from an ophthalmologist.