Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Corpuscles]

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

View attachment 801086

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

Feck! $12.5 million?

The fireworks new years eve in Sydney cost $6mill!

Piss weak! Throw $ 100 mill for trees and another $200mill for better waste water capture!

Tokenism and politics

 

[Snake_Baker]

Feck! $12.5 million?

The fireworks new years eve in Sydney cost $6mill!

Piss weak! Throw $ 100 mill for trees and another $200mill for better waste water capture!

Tokenism and politics

Yes, it can be, and should be, doubled with the stroke of a pen.

 

[Corpuscles]

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?

More than half of Australia's high quality export coal is used for coke in steel production!

Are you old enough to remember Fred Flinstone's car.? If not googleate it!
Stop coal = stop steel = You will be 'yabbadabba doing!' in your rock and timber vehicle all the way to work!

 

[Kwality]

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?

A post like this does SO much damage to the climate change movement & those silly enough to pursue it are recognised as having contributed (big time) to the loss by Labor in the unloseable election.

So I'll answer the poster:
WINNERS : it'd make no difference, coal be sourced elsewhere, so nil effect on emissions, arguably greater use of brown coal resulting in increased emissions, aka NO WINNERS.

So tell us about the LOSERS Hawk, the economy, the workers & their families ..... what benefits you receive would you give up: education, health, or will someone else wear your folly?

Whilst you are it Hawk tell us why China & India are going with coal not renewables, they'd be cheaper - they could use wind & the sun not buy coal. Are they stupid?

Am I being uncharitable to call out such a naive proposal?

 

[Corpuscles]

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.

Crikey! I am no scientist.

But surely given there are scientific nutters who want to build eco friendly human habitations on the Moon and even Mars (I kid you not!)

Surely there would be a simple experiment where such "dome" could be built that is specially neutrally cooled (I am anticipating glass dome) and they demonstrate that replicating their ideal Co2 mix is left out in the sun, side by side with one with extreme ppm Co2 replica, they could prove an increase in temperature?

Nah! Too hard. Too many variables and they prolly, would need $billions, to develop the software and play scientist, to do it?
Won't?! If it doesn't work.....????

BS!

 

[Snake_Baker]

We are now terraformers, whether people like it or not.

By utilizing our best minds and engineers, I believe we can accomplish the goals easily.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Crikey! I am no scientist.

But surely given there are scientific nutters who want to build eco friendly human habitations on the Moon and even Mars (I kid you not!)

Surely there would be a simple experiment where such "dome" could be built that is specially neutrally cooled (I am anticipating glass dome) and they demonstrate that replicating their ideal Co2 mix is left out in the sun, side by side with one with extreme ppm Co2 replica, they could prove and increase in temperature?

Nah! Too hard. Too many variables and they prolly, would need $billions to develop the software and play scientist to do it?

BS!

Climate is far too complex to be modelled accurately.

But the moonbase is a goer. 2028, bookmark it!

 

[Marcel Proust]

46 in Rutherglen tomorrow

wat

 

[Marcel Proust]

Climate is far too complex to be modelled.

and yet the modelling has been accurate?

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming - Carbon Brief

Some 14 out of 17 climate models published since 1970 were accurate in their projections of the warming that would take place after they were first published, reports Science, picking up a new study from Geophysical Research Letters.

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[Corpuscles]

Climate is far too complex to be modelled accurately.

But the moonbase is a goer. 2028, bookmark it!

Good luck Ronnie! There will definitely be no Oranges at half time!

I am used to stripping to my undies with just a fan on (resisting the air -con switch jus as my loyal duty)
So , I'll take my chances, that it is all overblown BS!

Make sure you save all your poop (crap in hand) to fertilize the yummy alfalfa spouts!

"Moon piss tea' is very trendy according to NASA!

Edit: Sorry I realise you were likely being sarcastic !

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

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.

It has been proven. It's not an assumption.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Climate is far too complex to be modelled accurately.

But the moonbase is a goer. 2028, bookmark it!

We've had one since 1999, I saw it on a documentary series...

 

[mcnulty]

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.

If you accept that then you need to propose a mechanism. Solar, orbital...something, as the planet doesn’t just wake up one day and decide to start warming.

The science is of the opinion that CO2 concentrations are the current driver, and that the current rise in these concentrations is due to human activity.

If it’s something else, make a case.

 

[Ron The Bear]

and yet the modelling has been accurate?

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming - Carbon Brief

Some 14 out of 17 climate models published since 1970 were accurate in their projections of the warming that would take place after they were first published, reports Science, picking up a new study from Geophysical Research Letters.

www.carbonbrief.org

A fair chunk of discussion has been given to discussing retro-fitting of data so that models can replicate it.

As for the models themselves, there is no other field of science or engineering in which such levels of inaccuracy would be used for major decisions. Some produce average weather fairly well, but in predicting actual "climate change" their performance is poor; they simply cannot simulate change. Performance is worse again when confined to a region - the BoM's long-range rainfall outlook is notorious among farmers. There was an article last year showing most of the forecasts were wildly wrong, with one farmer describing them as "worse than useless", but the article appears to have been pulled.

Models cannot replicate climate, yet are configured with a range of human-induced variables. The results are held up as "proving" that only humans can cause climate change. The results are replicating the assumptions. It's classic circular reasoning.

As one person said, "The only thing more useless than a model pretending to predict a complex, non-linear, chaotic system, is a model steeped in religious zeal pretending to do the same".

 

[Snake_Baker]

and yet the modelling has been accurate?

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming - Carbon Brief

Some 14 out of 17 climate models published since 1970 were accurate in their projections of the warming that would take place after they were first published, reports Science, picking up a new study from Geophysical Research Letters.

www.carbonbrief.org

17 models over a period of 47 years?

17?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Here's the BoM article referred to above.

Farmers dismiss BOM rainfall outlooks as worthless (paywalled)

The Bureau of Meteorology’s three-month rainfall outlook is grossly inaccurate, with farmers dismissing it as delivering little, if any, value, despite massive taxpayer investments in new forecasting technologies.

A comparison by The Weekly Times of the BOM’s forecast outlook versus actual rainfall, shows in most years the forecast bears little resemblance to reality.
Of the 14 outlooks examined over the past seven years, only three were close to the actual rainfall recorded over the forecast period.

Victorian Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said gaining an accurate outlook was at the top of his wish list, but as things stood it was a toss-up between the BOM’s outlook or watching the chooks, to work out what the weather was going to do.

“These long-term forecasts’ accuracy is pretty ordinary,” Mr Jochinke said. “I don’t know who or what to believe.”

Fellow grain grower Ian Hastings labelled the BOM outlooks “absolutely hopeless”.

“Rainfall is critical to us and they (the BOM’s forecasts) are critical failures,” he said.

It appears little has changed since a team led by University of Melbourne veterinarian Andrew Vizard and his colleagues published a damning critique of the BOM’s rainfall outlooks in 2005.

VFF Livestock president Leonard Vallance said he could not run a business on the back of the BOM’s outlooks. “If I did, it’d be the same as going down to Southbank and throwing my money on the (casino) tables”.

 

[Westerberg]

We've had one since 1999, I saw it on a documentary series...

View attachment 801145

Can bushfires melt steel beams though?

 

[Ron The Bear]

It has been proven. It's not an assumption.

The whole lot is theory based. The theory is accepted; the mechanisms in practice are not proven.

As Spencer says, "All of the accumulated warming of the climate system since the 1950s, including the deep oceans, was caused by a global energy imbalance of 1 part in 600; yet modern science does not know, with a precision approaching 1 part in 100, any of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system. It is simply assumed that the tiny energy imbalance - and thus warming - was caused by humans."

 

[This Is Anfield]

Can bushfires melt steel beams though?

Mmmm... bushfires on the moon!
Damn those Green Astronauts!!

 

[Snake_Baker]

Whoops, this wasn't in the script!

 

[Blue1980]

Look at the most very basic stages of history eg past heat and ice ages!
the sea levels have always been changing and current flow always shifting

Tasmania travel - Lonely Planet

Explore Tasmania holidays and discover the best time and places to visit.

www.lonelyplanet.com

Then do some reading about police charging people with arson

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

The things we need to take action on is arsonists and funding to fire fighting services & the leftist councils refusing back burning!

I mean bush fires have only been part of the Australian landscape for several thousands of years as noted in the most basic of aboriginal history!

one would hate to be so ignorant

Yes but things which changed over thousands of years are changing over decades.

I’m not claiming that arson or the fact we live in a country where these things would happen (with less regularity) without climate change.

Climate change deniers always go the straw man argument.

Climate change is like having a boost on your engine, this fire season the factors which combine to make things bad have been exacerbated by climate change.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yes but things which changed over thousands of years are changing over decades.

.........and things which changed over decades are changing over thousands of years.

We have never existed on a planet where the chemistry was set at any particular equilibrium.

Climate change is like having a boost on your engine, this fire season the factors which combine to make things bad have been exacerbated by climate change.

Climate change in and of itself is neither "bad" nor "good", as far as we're concerned.

It's all about what we do with it.

 

[Blue1980]

Feck! $12.5 million?

The fireworks new years eve in Sydney cost $6mill!

Piss weak! Throw $ 100 mill for trees and another $200mill for better waste water capture!

Tokenism and politics

How many hundreds of years have we had fireworks? Surely with the technological advancements we could have a really awesome laser show or something instead.

I mean I see people who get some vantage point 12 hours in advance to see the fireworks, wtf?!?!

 

[Blue1980]

.........and things which changed over decades are changing over thousands of years.

We have never existed on a planet where the chemistry was set at any particular equilibrium.



Climate change in and of itself is neither "bad" nor "good", as far as we're concerned.

It's all about what we do with it.

It’s more rapid change that is the issue, if it was getting colder at this rate it would be an issue too.

Humans are contributing to it, but one thing I do think is we need to get smarter at managing things like bushfires, rather than our current do as little backburning as possible and hope for the best.

Plant some non gum trees as well, fire prone country with flammable trees isn’t a great mix.

People conflate the debate to be all one thing or the other, which ends up with nothing being done.

On one side you have extremists who say it’s nothing to do with climate and all to do with natural variability and how we have always had bushfires etc.

On the other you have people almost claiming it’s all man made, and basically it’s Australia’s fault, and if we stop our own emissions the bushfires will stop. In reality if we stopped all emissions we’d still have the same problems but be able to be smug and blame the rest of the world.

In saying that we should do all of the following:

1. Ramp up the switch from coal to renewable energy.

2. Do more backburning and management of our forests

3. Ramp up desalination plants, build at least one in every state.

4. Plant as much vegetation as practically possible in and around city centres, this will help air quality and regulate temperate somewhat (more shade etc)

5. Replanting of non gum trees in other forest areas (can’t think of specifics but there has to be other hardy non gum trees which can survive here)

I’ll think of more but willing to see what other suggestions you or others have.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It’s more rapid change that is the issue, if it was getting colder at this rate it would be an issue too.

Humans are contributing to it, but one thing I do think is we need to get smarter at managing things like bushfires, rather than our current do as little backburning as possible and hope for the best.

Yes.

Plant some non gum trees as well, fire prone country with flammable trees isn’t a great mix.

You are messing with the natural ecosystem.

People conflate the debate to be all one thing or the other, which ends up with nothing being done.

On one side you have extremists who say it’s nothing to do with climate and all to do with natural variability and how we have always had bushfires etc.

On the other you have people almost claiming it’s all man made, and basically it’s Australia’s fault, and if we stop our own emissions the bushfires will stop. In reality if we stopped all emissions we’d still have the same problems but be able to be smug and blame the rest of the world.

Agree.

In saying that we should do all of the following:

1. Ramp up the switch from coal to renewable energy.

Nuclear energy is more realistic.

2. Do more backburning and management of our forests

Indeed. Forest management has been found out with the current scenario.

3. Ramp up desalination plants, build at least one in every state.

Dunno much about this. I'd personally looking at federalizing the water systems, so the the idiocy could become centralized and more accountable.

4. Plant as much vegetation as practically possible in and around city centres, this will help air quality and regulate temperate somewhat (more shade etc)

Absolutely, and not just in the cities.

5. Replanting of non gum trees in other forest areas (can’t think of specifics but there has to be other hardy non gum trees which can survive here)

I’ll think of more but willing to see what other suggestions you or others have.

There's an environmental cost at play here.

If we were to go nuclear/renewable across the board AND double our vegetation, then Australia alone could displace ~/> 20 gigatonnes of CO2 per annum in 30 years time.

This number would sequester ~60% of the current world anthropogenic CO2 production (37 gigatonnes).

As you can see, the solutions are not difficult, but it's the politics which gets in the way. We must learn to become better terraformers.