The Climate Change Thread

[Scotty]

Cyclo,

I guess you didn't read the rules when entering the politics forum - 'thou shalt not agree with Scotty'?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I was reading an article in Wired this morning about Israel looking into trying to go 90% renewable. The comment thread linked to the following article about the possibility of Australia pursuing a largely renewable energy target:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/

The author gave some fairly comprehensive analysis and concluded that it would be nigh on impossible at current technology levels.

I've stated before that I'm a mild skeptic, in that I don't believe the catastrophic predictions of a sub set of commentators on this subject. A lot of these people are running around saying in effect "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!". Now I always treat that kind of carry on with a healthy amount of disdain, as we've had nearly every kind of environmental and moral panic foisted upon us since the Industrial Revolution and plainly we are all still here.

It's interesting that when I talk to people in the actual scientific community about this, most of them are reasonably conservative on the consequences, but all agree on the need for cleaner energy sources. I can go with that, but unless we start looking at more hydro and nukes, we won't reach any kind of target absent a couple of fairly substantial technology breakthroughs.

Tim Flannery has next to no credibility in my eyes. He's made all sorts of outlandish claims and mostly been proven wrong. He is one of the hysterical ranting brigade I was referring to earlier.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

As far as severe weather events, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence supporting an increase over the last generation or two:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/


Even the CSIRO are apparently not projecting an increase:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-csiro-research/story-e6frg6xf-1226033322365

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclo,

I guess you didn't read the rules when entering the politics forum - 'thou shalt not agree with Scotty'?

This place has rules? I thought we were a semi-autonomous collective?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

 

[Ash]

This talk is doubleplusungood.

 

[Scotty]

Cutter,

Firstly, not sure you do your side of the debate any favours by calling someone a ‘Mad Monk’, and secondly, you clearly prefer to lecture rather than debate, as you seem intent on ignoring at least 50% of what I write about carbon dioxide taxation (we would do well to remember it is a carbon dioxide tax, not a carbon tax). I have previously suggested the way I would go forward in a few different posts, the fact that you ignore this and instead choose to question my attack on this particularly carbon tax plan says more about your inability to consider other options!

I have a question for you – Do you honestly believe that this carbon tax plan is going to make any real difference to the carbon dioxide output of this country?

Waiting for a response Cutter - you seem to either like ignoring anything I write that you can't attack, or you are just ignoring the post because you agree with me.

 

[Scotty]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

It is still very difficult to know who to believe.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

 

[liquor box]

Scotty in answer to your question about +3C or -3C, its better that neither happens. I'm no scientist, but a material change to any system upsets the equilibrium. A system responds to those changes by finding a new equilibrium but then its a new system. This is, I believe, the Gaia to which Scarfy refers. The new equilibrium will still be fit for life, it might just be a more difficult environment for humans to survive, for this number of humans to survive or for humans to survive (in the long term) at all. We don't know. The earth's climate is a complex system and the response to changes is extraordinarily difficult to model.

As far as I'm aware, no modelling has been done as to what would happen if the earth cooled by 3C because no one believes that is happening or is likely to happen. The modelling that has been done (to account for warming) suggests the new equilibrium would bring more extreme weather events, more droughts, floods, bushfires, rising sea levels and all the other things we've heard about.

I have always wondered who we think we are as humans to decide what is the ideal temperature, Evolution moved a lot faster when the earth was warmer millions of years ago.

As people in the first world and in a warm climate it is very easy for us to want to staop warming, but imagine the millions of people who live in colder climates, surely they are better off with a warmer environment, they would be able to grow crops faster and also might be able to get 2 crops in a year due to the lack of frost/ice. They would also need less fuel for warming which will reduce their CO2 outoput. Instead of 1st world scientists deciding todays temp is the best, why not ask a homeless person or the millions of thrid world people without a nice house?

Humans are trying to control an environment that is far more powerful than we will ever be, the world has had far higher concentrations on CO2 in the past and remedied itself, and it will do so in the future.

Barely a week goes by where we dont hear of a new animal that is threatened by the changes in the environment but the articles never talk of the possibility of a natural solution called evolution where a new or better species could take over the same environment and be succuessful.

Planning for a -3degree temp would have probably been completed about 30 years ago when we were told by climate scientists that we going into an ice age.

If the world warms and ice melts it will certainly make countries like Australia lose farming land, but it will open up a lot of frozen tundra to farming and as a global proposition this is a lot better, areas like northern canada, alaska, siberia, lap land, greenland etc will now become food producing areas. For every negative that scientists come up with there are positives in other areas of the world

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

I have always wondered who we think we are as humans to decide what is the ideal temperature, Evolution moved a lot faster when the earth was warmer millions of years ago.

As people in the first world and in a warm climate it is very easy for us to want to staop warming, but imagine the millions of people who live in colder climates, surely they are better off with a warmer environment, they would be able to grow crops faster and also might be able to get 2 crops in a year due to the lack of frost/ice. They would also need less fuel for warming which will reduce their CO2 outoput. Instead of 1st world scientists deciding todays temp is the best, why not ask a homeless person or the millions of thrid world people without a nice house?

Humans are trying to control an environment that is far more powerful than we will ever be, the world has had far higher concentrations on CO2 in the past and remedied itself, and it will do so in the future.

Barely a week goes by where we dont hear of a new animal that is threatened by the changes in the environment but the articles never talk of the possibility of a natural solution called evolution where a new or better species could take over the same environment and be succuessful.

Planning for a -3degree temp would have probably been completed about 30 years ago when we were told by climate scientists that we going into an ice age.

If the world warms and ice melts it will certainly make countries like Australia lose farming land, but it will open up a lot of frozen tundra to farming and as a global proposition this is a lot better, areas like northern canada, alaska, siberia, lap land, greenland etc will now become food producing areas. For every negative that scientists come up with there are positives in other areas of the world

This might possibly be a tad simplistic.

 

[liquor box]

and if the scientists and economists tried to simplify things into terms the average person understands then they might be listened to.

 

[Scotty]

This might possibly be a tad simplistic.

Simplistic, but not necessarily incorrect. 'Scientists' like Flannery lose a huge amount of respect with their doom and gloom predictions that never come true.

I think one of them was 'Britain will never see snow again'. As soon as they had a big snow dump the 'scientist' changed their rhetoric to call it climate change, not simply warming, and now the latest tack is to blame any extreme weather event on humans causing climate change.

The bar moves and suddenly they move with it.

 

[Cutter]

Scotty you started this thread, not to suggest that Government policies could be improved, which we all know (and, incidentally, I don't disagree with your suggestions), but to reignite a discredited scandal about what you titled "Climategate". You're most recent link above is another which attempts to throw doubt on the concept of climate change. So, we're not arguing about Gillard's policies or the Mad Monk's (I'm not seeking credibility on the topic from posting here so I'll call him what I choose), we're arguing about whether, in fact, climate change is happening and is being contributed to by humans. I say it is a fact that there is no serious peer reviewed paper which disputes the theory. It is not a question of "belief" or "disbelief". There is no believing. Either you accept the science or you demonstrate that it's incorrect. There is no other option.

If you ignore the science (which you are) and seek counterpoints, you'll find them. But I suspect I could find a view on most things on the internet. The more people have to lose from a particular view the more likely, irrespective of the evidence, that I'll find strong views to the contrary. Strong, but not necessarily credible.

If you want to couch it in terms of "belief", who do you believe: Tony Abbott or the CSIRO? Tony Abbott or the BOM? Or, if the Australian scientists are all in bed with Bob Brown, what about Tony Abbott or NASA? And before you say Tony Abbott does accept the science, we both know he thinks climate change is "crap". He's the biggest policy flip flopper since Kevin Rudd.

Although it is clearly an attempt to distract from the main thrust of this discussion, to answer your question directly, will the carbon tax reduce carbon emissions? I hope so and in the long term I think it will. I know it is more likely to reduce them than the coalition's proposals. If you do nothing, you do nothing.

To seek to discredit climate change by suggesting Tim Flannery is not a credible commentator is like saying rugby is a joke because Grumbles has no credibility.

 

[Cutter]

and if the scientists and economists tried to simplify things into terms the average person understands then they might be listened to.

What about if they just said: "Listen to me, I'm an expert, I know what I'm talking about, we need to do something about this."? Do you really need to understand why something is happening to believe it? Do you ask your doctor why, as you age, your hair greys? Or do you just believe it because you can see it and because even if he explained, we don't have time to try to understand everything that happens to us and around us? Why are climate scientists any different? They've demonstrated the earth is warming, so we can see the changes. What more do you want?

 

[cyclopath]

What about if they just said: "Listen to me, I'm an expert, I know what I'm talking about, we need to do something about this."? Do you really need to understand why something is happening to believe it? Do you ask your doctor why, as you age, your hair greys? Or do you just believe it because you can see it and because even if he explained, we don't have time to try to understand everything that happens to us and around us? Why are climate scientists any different? They've demonstrated the earth is warming, so we can see the changes. What more do you want?

It is a dangerous premise to accept as gospel the opinions of experts just because one may not understand the underlying reasons for something, if that's what you are saying. You give doctors as an example - from my experience, there is as much self interest, bias and vested interest in medicine as anywhere else, and I do not believe climate scientists are any purer of principle than anyone else. I am always concerned when patients say they'll do whatever I tell them, rather than show some interest in their condition and in making an informed decision. I'm happy if they ask (sensible) questions about why this treatment is better / worse / the same as that. Of course, in this day and age, there is access to a wealth of "information", which has its own problems.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

Scotty you started this thread, not to suggest that Government policies could be improved, which we all know (and, incidentally, I don't disagree with your suggestions), but to reignite a discredited scandal about what you titled "Climategate". You're most recent link above is another which attempts to throw doubt on the concept of climate change. So, we're not arguing about Gillard's policies or the Mad Monk's (I'm not seeking credibility on the topic from posting here so I'll call him what I choose), we're arguing about whether, in fact, climate change is happening and is being contributed to by humans. I say it is a fact that there is no serious peer reviewed paper which disputes the theory. It is not a question of "belief" or "disbelief". There is no believing. Either you accept the science or you demonstrate that it's incorrect. There is no other option.

If you ignore the science (which you are) and seek counterpoints, you'll find them. But I suspect I could find a view on most things on the internet. The more people have to lose from a particular view the more likely, irrespective of the evidence, that I'll find strong views to the contrary. Strong, but not necessarily credible.

If you want to couch it in terms of "belief", who do you believe: Tony Abbott or the CSIRO? Tony Abbott or the BOM? Or, if the Australian scientists are all in bed with Bob Brown, what about Tony Abbott or NASA? And before you say Tony Abbott does accept the science, we both know he thinks climate change is "crap". He's the biggest policy flip flopper since Kevin Rudd.

Although it is clearly an attempt to distract from the main thrust of this discussion, to answer your question directly, will the carbon tax reduce carbon emissions? I hope so and in the long term I think it will. I know it is more likely to reduce them than the coalition's proposals. If you do nothing, you do nothing.

To seek to discredit climate change by suggesting Tim Flannery is not a credible commentator is like saying rugby is a joke because Grumbles has no credibility.

Absolutely. There is a massive body of evidence, but any predictive science is going to continually evolve. There will always be inconsistencies for skeptics to use as political wedges.

 

[matty_k]

According to this Prof Muller has done his own study on the data.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/07/3184554.htm

Professor Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley has for some time been critical of the techniques used by some of his colleagues.

Last year, he gave a lecture in which he claimed he would no longer read papers authored by certain researchers, due to the Climategate scandal.

Several months ago, he announced he would chair the newly-formed Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) team.

BEST's aim is to examine data from all 39,390 available temperature stations around the world, regardless of their quality, to test the results of previous studies by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

In February, Watts threw his weight behind BEST by announcing he would share his methods for analysing temperature data.

Last week, Muller presented BEST's preliminary findings to a US congressional hearing. The results weren't what he, or the sceptics, expected.

"In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in the figure. It is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise of about 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957," says Muller.

He went on to say: "Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.

"Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important."

Now it is important to note that this is preliminary findings and they haven't been peer reviewed yet but still it is interesting.

 

[Ruggo]

What about if they just said: "Listen to me, I'm an expert, I know what I'm talking about, we need to do something about this."? Do you really need to understand why something is happening to believe it? Do you ask your doctor why, as you age, your hair greys? Or do you just believe it because you can see it and because even if he explained, we don't have time to try to understand everything that happens to us and around us? Why are climate scientists any different? They've demonstrated the earth is warming, so we can see the changes. What more do you want?

So the quest for knowledge is good for some but not for others? Call me cynical but it is unwise to follow blindly as every man has his self interest.

 

[Scotty]

Scotty you started this thread, not to suggest that Government policies could be improved, which we all know (and, incidentally, I don't disagree with your suggestions), but to reignite a discredited scandal about what you titled "Climategate". You're most recent link above is another which attempts to throw doubt on the concept of climate change. So, we're not arguing about Gillard's policies or the Mad Monk's (I'm not seeking credibility on the topic from posting here so I'll call him what I choose), we're arguing about whether, in fact, climate change is happening and is being contributed to by humans. I say it is a fact that there is no serious peer reviewed paper which disputes the theory. It is not a question of "belief" or "disbelief". There is no believing. Either you accept the science or you demonstrate that it's incorrect. There is no other option.

If we aren't talking about policy, then why are you asking my opinion on it?

I've heard you supporting The Bald Monk's anti carbon tax rants. He has no plans to do anything meaningful though so how is it that you propose we should reduce carbon? Someone has to move first. It will be something of a pyrrhic victory for the economic conservatives if, worried about the economic cost of acting first, we wait for everyone else to move on climate change and then, based on the only serious modelling as to the consequences of not acting or delayed action, it costs us far more than it would to act now.

 

[Scotty]

Absolutely. There is a massive body of evidence, but any predictive science is going to continually evolve. There will always be inconsistencies for skeptics to use as political wedges.

The politics is wedging both ways. Clearly scientists from both sides are having fun with 'facts'. Doesn't it concern you that this is occurring?