Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Kwality]

Yep, and it's those Greens who have been in control of NSW Parliament.

Who calls the shots here?

Local Govt doesnt control national parks.
Wasnt it Bob Carr that locked up NSW forests ?

Bob Carr's speech - 21st Century Wilderness

Alex Colley Symposium - Key Note address by Bob Carr 'Without Alex, there would be little wilderness protected in the state' Bob Carr UWS Hawkesbury Foundation Alex Colley Memorial Symposium '21st Century Wilderness' Keynote speaker - the Hon Bob Carr The historic NSW Wilderness Act had its...

www.colongwilderness.org.au

 

[Kwality]

The NSW government do.

We didn't have a wet winter, that was the reason. More chance of reduction burns being out of control

State Govts, yes !!!

 

[Kwality]

Who's fault is it?
Why don't you do something first?
How can we be sure pollution is that bad?
Why should we care about plants and animals, do they care about us?
Does a mass extinction event even matter to the smartest species on the planet?
I will be dead anyway before things get really bad, that's all that matters isn't it?

Whats fault, why do you want someone to blame ... try & bring people with you.

 

[Kwality]

You do realise reduction burns are rolling and not just a single season measure?
Victoria 5% = 20 year turnaround, WA 8% = 12 year turnaround.
10% - 10 year turnaround is what many bushfire experts recommend as optimal

Blaming one or two innefective seasons is ridiculous

My understanding is that local government are involved in rural areas, no permit, no hazard reduction.

Got a link for the %s ?

 

[Deliverance]

1967. Not a Greta, Greenie or any other type of "alarmist" to influence their thinking. Sadly they were right.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C. Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller.

 

[Kwality]

1967. Not a Greta, Greenie or any other type of "alarmist" to influence their thinking. Sadly they were right.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C. Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller.

Greta is a marketing tool*, crisis/emergency/rebellion are no different in the face of a failed marketing campaigns, rebrand & go again.

I'd suggest blaming is at the core of these marketing failures as is the reality of China & India.

* who is going to pick up the peices?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Everyone at the IPCC is on the same page. Contrary perspectives just don't get published; they're career suicide. And from these reports comes the insistence that drastic action must occur "or else".

Why would you expect anything else to be the case? Science isn't about giving air time to both sides of a debate, it's about taking a hypothesis and proving it. The research making up the IPCC reports proves anthropogenic climate change to a high degree of certainty. Perhaps if somebody identified a specific issues with the research that the IPCC bases it's reports on there would be a reason for somebody to fund a paper examining those issues but as far as I know, there are no major, systematic issues with any of the research which the IPCC employs.

The explanation for why contrary perspectives just don't get published is because they're wrong. The same reason why you don't see scientific papers on young earth creationism.

 

[Fadge]

Apologies, I like "Walls of Text" and it saves space.

I'm sure 'saving space' is beneficial to the environment somehow...

 

[Ron The Bear]

Why would you expect anything else to be the case? Science isn't about giving air time to both sides of a debate, it's about taking a hypothesis and proving it. The research making up the IPCC reports proves anthropogenic climate change to a high degree of certainty. Perhaps if somebody identified a specific issues with the research that the IPCC bases it's reports on there would be a reason for somebody to fund a paper examining those issues but as far as I know, there are no major, systematic issues with any of the research which the IPCC employs.

The explanation for why contrary perspectives just don't get published is because they're wrong. The same reason why you don't see scientific papers on young earth creationism.

There is barely any funding for research on natural causes of climate change. Why do you think most skeptical scientists are older? They're in retirement, or closing in on it. You want to build a career as a climate scientist, and you know that global warming is roughly consistent with man-made causes, but also possibly consistent with natural causes (while believing some combination is involved). You don't ask for a grant to research the latter. Not if you want to stay in the field.

It's hardly an outlier belief, as shown by this pre-Trump survey.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

There is barely any funding for research on natural causes of climate change. Why do you think most skeptical scientists are older? They're in retirement, or closing in on it. You want to build a career as a climate scientist, and you know that global warming is roughly consistent with man-made causes, but also possibly consistent with natural causes (while believing some combination is involved). You don't ask for a grant to research the latter. Not if you want to stay in the field.

It's hardly an outlier belief, as shown by this pre-Trump survey.

Of course there isn't, why would anybody provide funding to test a hypothesis which has been proven incorrect with all but absolute certainty? And if you'd read the IPCC reports, you'd know that proof also extends to knowing that human impacts are responsible for the majority of the rise in global temperatures from pre-industrial periods.

Lots of people in this thread like to say something along the lines of "CO2 might cause climate change but we don't know how much of it is human related" and it's bogus. It has been comprehensively proven that the dramatic rate of change in global temperatures observed over the last 100 years is predominantly due to human activity; if you want to know how and why then confer with the information in the IPCC report.

Again, science is not about giving both sides of the debate air time. There's what you can prove and what you can't.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Is there evidence of this?

Heat on Bureau of Meteorology over data records rewrite (paywalled)

The Bureau of Meteorology has rewritten Australia’s temperature records for the second time in six years, greatly increasing the rate of warming since 1910 in its controversial homogenised data set.

Rather than the nation’s temperature having increased by 1C over the past century, the bureau’s updated homogenised data set, known as ACORN-SAT, now shows mean temperatures have risen by 1.23C.

Homogenisation of temperature records is considered necessary to account for changes in instrumentation, changes in site locations and changes in the time at which temperatures were taken. But the bureau’s treatment of historical data has been controversial. In recent years there have been claims that the organisation was treating temperature records in such a way that left it exposed to accusations that ideological pursuits had trumped good scientific practice.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott unsuccessfully pushed for a forensic investigation into the bureau’s methods.

How does the Bureau measure temperature?

The temperature is measured every second, it is not recorded every second by the Bureau. Rather for each one minute temperature it only records the highest one-second temperature, the lowest one-second temperature, and the last one-second temperature – in that one minute interval. The Bureau does not record every one-second value. In the UK, consistent with World Meteorological Organisation Guidelines, the average temperature for each minute is recorded.
...
The [WMO] guide clearly states on page 540 (Part 2, Section 1.3.2.4) that atmospheric air temperature be reported as 1 to 10 minute averages. Therefore, the Bureau’s procedures are not compliant with WMO guidelines.
...
The use of these one-second extrema (rather than averaging over one minute) will contribute to more record high daily maxima temperatures.

I have no problem accepting that global temperatures are rising, as measured by untainted satellite observations, but I don't have absolute trust in the BoM's messaging.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Of course there isn't, why would anybody provide funding to test a hypothesis which has been proven incorrect with all but absolute certainty?

Please post this proof. Much of the science is based on assumptions.

Again, science is not about giving both sides of the debate air time.

When paid to find evidence of X, researchers do their best to find it. Just as with studies the likes of you deride that are sponsored by fossil fuel interests.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Please post this proof. Much of the science is based on assumptions.

Roylion posted it on the last page for the whole forum. In fact you even posted a link to that report yourself.

What, specifically, in that report is based on assumptions? Again, I feel like this is something else gets said in this thread quite a bit without anybody actually clarifying what assumptions they are and why they're erroneous.

When paid to find evidence of X, researchers do their best to find it. Just as with studies the likes of you deride that are sponsored by fossil fuel interests.

Really? I remember when the Koch brothers funded a study aimed at disproving climate change and ended up proving it by mistake. If a scientific report is based on flawed methodology, premise or analysis, it's actually quite easy to identify. If you're proposing that thousands of researchers have deliberately falsified investigations into AGW because the funding source wanted a specific answer then surely you have evidence of this occuring?

I feel like you're doing your best to make this into a conspiracy when the most obvious and plausible answer is that the contrary perspectives are wrong.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Victoria 11 months ago.
Sadly, he was 100% correct.

Appaling- After 3 years State Government abandoned the royal commission recommendation dumping its annual 5 per cent target in favour of a "targeted risk reduction" program.

Former fire chief calls for more planned burns as fuel loads reach Black Saturday levels
By Ben Knight
Updated 7 Feb 2019, 1:29pm

A Victorian forest fire chief who quit following Black Saturday is warning a combination of fear about planned burns and increasing forest fuel loads is putting the state at risk of deadly bushfires.

When the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission handed down its report in 2010, it was sharply critical of the Victorian Government's lack of prescribed burning, where patches of public land are deliberately set alight, to reduce fuel and to create firebreaks.

"The amount of prescribed burning occurring in Victoria is inadequate," it said.

"[The commission] is concerned that the state has maintained a minimalist approach to prescribed burning despite recent official or independent reports and inquiries, all of which have recommended increasing the prescribed-burning program."

As a result, Victoria's forests had been allowed to continue building up fuel loads, "...adding to the likelihood of more intense bushfires and thereby placing firefighters and communities at greater risk".

The commission recommended a doubling of the prescribed burning program, and set an annual target of 5 per cent of public land — up from less than 2 per cent before Black Saturday.

Ten years later, fuel loads in some parts of the state are now back to what they were on Black Saturday and there is still deep concern about how much planned burning is being done.

Victoria's former chief fire officer Ewan Waller said burning was a big, but necessary, task.

"The forest fuel loads are very high.

"After the big fires, the scrub came back very heavy, and we have now got very high fuel loads throughout those burned areas.

"It has to be on such a large scale — to stop the run of fires coming out of the high country, for example — that it's an immense task."

Three years after the royal commission recommended doubling the amount of land being burned off, the State Government changed its approach — dumping its annual 5 per cent target in favour of a "targeted risk reduction" program.


More - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/black-saturday-fire-fuel-threat-planned-burns-needed/10787050

Whoops.....................anyway...............SCOTT MORRISON IS A DISGRACE!

 

[Snake_Baker]

As one scientist recently said, ''We are going to find out if human beings are smart enough to save ourselves from extinction politicians''

 

[Snake_Baker]

There are no zero emissions countries on the planet!

Well, it's impossible.

Funding that could be assisted by sacking all the Climate Change Scientists and taxing anyone (like a swear jar) who says or writes anything about Climate Change who , apart from breathing, is not fossil fuel free absolutely entirely ie lives like a hunter gatherer caveman.

A-MEN!

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Snake_Baker]

Now they're turning on each other.

'Greens betrayers of the environment': Labor, Greens at war over climate policy

Ten years on from a bitter battle over a rejected emissions trading scheme, Labor and the Greens are still fighting each other over who got it the most wrong on climate change policy.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Corpuscles]

Corp: "There are no zero emissions countries on the planet! "

Well, it's impossible.

LOL! Bhutan apparently claim to be! But they base that on they got lots of trees?
How does that work they import food and drive some cars!

Norway has made it Law! I have read here and elsewhere they claim neutral , they do have lots of Hydro electricity, BUT their whole economy relies on EXPORT of oil and gas! and IMPORT heaps of stuff made from all over the world.

Then there is a whole list of countries & California AND Sweden! who wannabe soon but they base that on getting international credits!? WTF is that???? Who has the most trees wins?

Snakey, you seem to be heavily invested in this subject. So......

With all the Aussie Bushfires (loss on millions of acres of trees) does that mean Australia has lost massive ground on their targets? Do they go around and count how many got burned for the official figuring?

Should I be responsibly reporting to someone who is doing the count, that I planted two trees and one dope plant this last year to help out with the national target for Paris or Chile or whatever?

We all should plant more trees if we can water them. But we aren't even making a dent on replacing the ones cleared for agriculture in the last 200 years so planting is starting from a negative way behind mark.

Now, can you answer me.

If I become a uber super dooper greenie! How much carbon can I individually consume? What is the acceptable limit on petrol, gas , & food which has been transported and packaged? How do I become NEUTERED ?

Do I plant a crop of plants?..... "Just doing my duty your honour!!!!"

 

[Hawk_francais]

Why is there not more discussion about Australia mining a third of the world’s coal? Or is it still not time to talk about climate change policy?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Snakey, you seem to be heavily invested in this subject. So......

I am invested in targeting the propaganda attached to this.

With all the Aussie Bushfires (loss on millions of acres of trees does that mean Australia has lost massive ground on their targets? Do they go around and count how many got burned for the official figuring?

I suspect that estimates & varieties are tabulated by rangers. There's software packages to assist this.

Should I be responsibly reporting to someone who is doing the count, that I planted two trees and one dope plant this year to help out with the national target for Paris or Chile or whatever?

Variance in atmospheric CO2 readings.

Now, can you answer me.

If I become a uber super dooper greenie! How much carbon can I individually consume? What is the acceptable limit on petrol, gas , & food which has been transported and packaged? How do I become NEUTERED ?

Do a plant a crop of plants? Just doing my duty your honour!!!!

Yes, you can offset your own carbon footprint with plantings.

It's reported that the average Australian contributes around 17 tonnes (https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2) of CO2 per year. Typical tree mass is calculated at 2 tonnes, and the estimate of carbon sequestration of this plant mass is ~ 7 tonnes of CO2 per year (1 tonne of dry tree biomass carbon = 3.67 tonne CO2).

However, the tricky factor is TIME. You need to factor the time it takes for those trees to reach ~2 tonnes to begin their 7 tonne capture (~30 years).

30 years x 17 tonnes p.a. = 510 tonnes produced = ~73 trees planted to reel in your footprint @ 30 years and to then set a person in to a climbing deficit.

If every person just made it a mission to plant 10 big natives per year (250,000,000 p.a.) then it would be reeled back in very quickly. However, it's better to go bigger earlier.

2019 emmissions = ~540,000,000 tonnes CO2, requires 80,000,000 30 year old trees (~2 tonnes)

However, we just lost a shit load of trees and this sets the entire exercise back, but it's definitely very achievable.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The government has committed to planting 1 billion trees in 11 years.

Australia will plant 1 billion trees in the next 11 years

The project is part of the country's campaign to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, and will require around 400,000 hectares of land.

www.weforum.org

 

[Corpuscles]

I am invested in targeting the propaganda attached to this.



I suspect that estimates & varieties are tabulated by rangers. There's software packages to assist this.



Variance in atmospheric CO2 readings.



Yes, you can offset your own carbon footprint with plantings.

It's reported that the average Australian contributes around 17 tonnes (https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2) of CO2 per year. Typical tree mass is calculated at 2 tonnes, and the estimate of carbon sequestration of this plant mass is ~ 7 tonnes of CO2 per year (1 tonne of dry tree biomass carbon = 3.67 tonne CO2).

However, the tricky factor is TIME. You need to factor the time it takes for those trees to reach ~2 tonnes to begin their 7 tonne capture (~30 years).

30 years x 17 tonnes p.a. = 510 tonnes produced = ~73 trees planted to reel in your footprint @ 30 years and to then set a person in to a climbing deficit.

If every person just made it a mission to plant 10 big natives per year (25,000,000 p.a.) then it would be reeled back in very quickly. However, it's better to go bigger earlier.

2019 emmissions = ~560,000,000 tonnes CO2, requires 80,000,000 30 year old trees (~2 tonnes)

However, we just lost a shit load of trees and this sets the entire exercise back, but it's definitely very achievable.

I appreciate the effort you put into that reply.
I will digest it carefully. Thanks.
The figures per capita surely do not mean just householders consumption though?

One thing that irritates me is a major fire raged through the mountains a few years ago, and most trees were ARE dead but still standing and could be lopped and burned for fuel. But it is a park NO ACCESS. So it is still a relatively dead stand seriously limiting new growth !

The "work for the dole" (if such must be) ought be training people to lop them and make fire wood and replant hundreds of thousands immediately!

 

[Snake_Baker]

I appreciate the effort you put into that reply.
I will digest it carefully. Thanks.

Wait, there's more.

Here's some interesting numbers.

It's reported that Australians emit ~540,000,000 tonnes of CO2 from March 2018 to March 2019 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-30/emissions-drop-but-year-long-trend-on-the-rise/11464816).

The Australian Department of Agriculture informs that there's ~134,000,000 hectares of forest in Australia (2016) (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/australias-forests).

The Carbon Neutral website reports, "Carbon sequestration is measured on a per hectare basis. That may vary from 100 to 300 tonnes CO2-e per ha at year 30 depending on site and rainfall. Tree density also varies from 500 to 2000 stems per hectare." (https://carbonneutral.com.au/faqs/)

Based upon the lowest number of 100 tonnes of CO2 per hectare, Australian forests are sequestering 13,400,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum, which is ~ 25 freakin' times our annual output!!!!!!

Now, I get that this is related to 30 year old forests, and this would not apply to all 134,000,000 hectares, but based upon these figures, I don't believe for one second that this country is an overall CO2 polluter!

 

[Ron The Bear]

Roylion posted it on the last page for the whole forum. In fact you even posted a link to that report yourself.

What, specifically, in that report is based on assumptions? Again, I feel like this is something else gets said in this thread quite a bit without anybody actually clarifying what assumptions they are and why they're erroneous.

Really? I remember when the Koch brothers funded a study aimed at disproving climate change and ended up proving it by mistake. If a scientific report is based on flawed methodology, premise or analysis, it's actually quite easy to identify. If you're proposing that thousands of researchers have deliberately falsified investigations into AGW because the funding source wanted a specific answer then surely you have evidence of this occuring?

I feel like you're doing your best to make this into a conspiracy when the most obvious and plausible answer is that the contrary perspectives are wrong.

The science is based on the assumption that climate change is a result of increased CO2, with the implication being that if man ceases his 3% contribution to 0.04% of the atmosphere then the world will be transformed into a tranquil paradise. That hasn't been proven and can't be proven.