Global warming is real and its happening now



John Coook and skeptical science, eat your heart out.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 2:20pm:


the severe storms in the UK have not happened SINCE 1934  FFS       

skippy. wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 2:28pm:

Thanks for your input skip.

So the AGW isn't a church, a religion of loons, it is one big wank fest.

Interesting take there skip. Ill keep it in mind.

This discusses a short, but very effective and dramatic demo to show the effect on temperature of increased levels of carbon dioxide.




sorry greenhouse gas deniers, well that's not true …  here to burst your bubble of ignorance.

Humans can and are driving the climate through our activity.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Hehehe PL.  You keep posting these. Like the guy in the video you come across really desperate to convince yourself.

Living in Sydney by the end of the century will be like living in Rockhampton, subtropical Queensland, if global temperatures are allowed to rise by four degrees - the current trajectory of climate change.

Melbourne's climate will be akin to Griffith in regional NSW and Canberra will feel like outback Cobar.

Alice Springs will mirror modern-day Sudan, while Darwin will be like no other city on earth in 2013. The Top End would be virtually uninhabitable, with more than 300 days a year of 35-plus degree heat.

The downside to warmer winters on the eastern seaboard in 2100 is the prospect of "anarchy" in our region prompted by the dislocation of 250 million people from the Asia-Pacific, climate refugees who will need to be resettled in part in Australia.

The "profound" shift in living conditions as a result of climate change is raised in Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a hot world, a compilation of climate science literature to be launched in Melbourne on Wednesday.

The book explores the dire changes that are likely to accompany four degrees of warming on 1990 levels, including Australia becoming reliant on food imports as a result of a 90 per cent decline in agricultural production in the Murray-Darling food bowl.

Other consequences include:

250,000 coastal properties inundated by rising sea levels at a total cost of $63 billion
17,200 heat-related deaths a year - up from 5800 today
Snow will disappear from all but the highest alpine peaks
250 million people in the Asia-Pacific will be displaced.
The mass exodus from low-lying Bangladesh and coastal cities of China, Indonesia and India poses perhaps the biggest challenge for Australia, which could face a wave of climate refugees on a scale that would dwarf the current asylum seeker crisis.

In a chapter written by Professor Ross Garnaut, the prospect of "anarchy" and the breakdown of nation states is raised.

"Warming of 4 degrees celsius and more would precipitate such large change in global politics as to force the reshaping of national boundaries," Garnaut writes. "It may lead to a small number of more effective states combating anarchy by absorbing others.

"The survival of states with anything like the current boundaries and roles would be one of the less likely eventualities."

Professor Garnaut believes there is "still a chance that global mitigation efforts will hold global warming to two degrees" as long as countries are willing to turn up to the Paris climate change conference in 2015, prepared to commit to deep emissions cuts post-2020.

The book's main author, Peter Christoff, an Associate Professor at Melbourne University said Australia would need to swap its five per cent emissions reduction target to 38 per cent within 10 years to keep warming under two degrees.

"It's inappropriate for us to wait for a global agreement. Delaying is going to be more costly and less efficient. There's no point in delay," he told Fairfax Media.

"We have about a decade."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/stifling-heat-anarchy-refu...

This is the path climate denialists like Abbott want for Oz.

Abbott isn't only an economic illiterate, he is a science illiterate as well. One thing people can say about him, he is consistent in his ignorance.

woody2014 wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

Those storms, blizzards etc are due to weakening of circumpolar winds, changes in jetstream all due to AGW. England’s supercold winters are an effect of AGW, not a refutation of it!

skippy. wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 3:07pm:





gees has anyone told Gore and Flannery,Rodd Garnaut.that skippoo says it aint got a fing to do with Warm.. or desserts.. or Sydney being to hot to live in.. or MDB never having water in it again..and and and the Sandy Mountain River  Hydro.. .

so all that crap they have been feeding us.. icebergs melting..ha...talk to SKIPPOO:..he knows more than you lowclass mundane monkeys  will ever know.

Yeah yeah Skip we all know how it goes...

The fact that AGW is now considered real is a victory for truth and reason. The carbon tax was always a terrible idea that can only work in an Orwellian world. If we have a world in which a carbon tax can be upheld, we have more things to worry about than AGW. All isolating AGW has achieved is forcing the polluters to admit they don't care, rather than pretending anymore.

St George of the Garden wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:


which is a stupid comment since UKs cold ISNT record cold just colder than the last 70 years despite the predictions of hysterics to the contrary.

you really sound rather silly and fanatical when you claim cooling, heating, drought, rain etc all as proof of the same thing.

cods wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

Exhibit  A, a "special" person with no idea of the difference between climate and weather, even though it's been explained hundreds of times.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

Yes dear,  we all know you think the gulf stream is a fish pond on the eighteenth hole of your local golf course.

muso wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:


The current crop of corporatized puppet politicians are the last people you'd want to take hold of the reigns on this important issue

Genuine leaders are needed - leaders who understand what is at stake and the global time frame available for humanity to respond.

In today's Sunday Times, a report that Carnegie Wave Energy is building its first commercial operation off Perth.

The report also mentions a desalination plant as a complementary adjunct. I'm not too sure about desalination, I think it is too early to tell the effects of super-saline water.

There is an update on a dive web-page

http://cdiver.net/2013/12/06/carnegie-provides-perth-project-offshore-construction-pipeline-update/

skippy. wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 3:07pm:

Climate Change means the addition of HEAT CONTENT to the climate system causing change.

Winston Smith wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

?

lee wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 2:20pm:


The technology has been around before 2011

Many years of research and development.

And remember, the site of the proposed wave energy plant is near a Military facility/naval base I believe.

Hence the government involvement and funding.

(I just happen to know one of the project engineers working on this project - The valving and controls systems are ironically sourced from the standard OIL and GAS industry)

Soren wrote on Dec 9^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Southern hemisphere is colder than Northern!

My ROFLMAO moment:

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:


Correct. Maybe Soren can hire you to give him lessons in Environmental Science.

A little bit thicker CO2 blanket over the globe comes just in time as the sun goes a bit less furious. Beautiful.
And by the time the next cycle of more intense sun activity comes around in a few decades, we will be ready with our solar cells and whatnot.
Perfect timing, boys.

And the bonus? OPEC will become China's problem as America and the West get energy self-sufficient and get off the OPEC oil dependency. Beautiful.
The U.S. has reached a significant milestone in its journey toward energy self-sufficiency, producing more oil than it imported last month for the first time in nearly two decades. This achievement comes as the International Energy Agency this week released its annual World Energy Outlook, which predicts the United States will surpass Saudi Arabia to become the world’s top oil producer by 2015. The once unthinkable goal of ending American reliance on foreign energy is now becoming a reality, with IEA forecasting that the U.S. could become energy self-sufficient by 2035.
https://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/us-oil-production-tops-imports-am...

"Climate change" is, after all, as much a political issue as it is scientific, if not more so.
(More so. Ed.)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:


If carbon is to blame it doesn't mean jack if it's not a universal global price on all CO2 emissions from all sources not just fossil fuel. Otherwise stop wasting everyone's time by making out it will make a difference globally.

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

Ay, you get votes for consistency! We all know these hardcore twofaces who reckon they know business is business rationale on the one handbut cant back up their own talkie talk talk talk talk squarky squark squark squark private school disgusting habits

Lol, go # i say!!!! 

namnugenot wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

Entropy means you lose relevancy! Sorry spark spark once was a bright sparky spark but now looking for meaning in the irrelevant abysss 

muso wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

The miserable science indoctrinated at 13... go humanity! Especially go the boers or something?!???! 

Oi, muso, did soren really make that quote?  ... or did i just forget smoking crack?????? 

Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 9^th, 2013 at 11:35pm:


Well, he emulates ignorance extremely well.

If he's not ignorant, that must imply dishonesty. Is that what you're saying about Soren, DRAH ?!

Perish the thought. 

He's ignorant.

namnugenot wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:
I'll take that as a "no".

muso wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 7:59pm:

Dishonesty, yes! Sowing the lie and drinking the tears of children: he is but one of the vampires jah jah sent us to catch!!

A propos 'we need carbon tax':

Labor’s $6 billion carbon tax reduced Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions by just 300,000 tonnes over 12 months. Next year’s soccer World Cup will generate nine times that amount:
FIFA says the 2014 tournament, which will require huge amounts of air travel to venues across Brazil, will produce the equivalent of 2.72 million metric tons of carbon dioxide …

The World Cup runs for only one month.

Clouds say what?????

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:15am:




Every dollar the government administers, cost 20 cents, so it is a tad more than a couple of million to redistribute a pointless tax.


Regardless of the reality of AGW, we only produce less than 2% of the world's CO2 output, if we did absolutely nothing it would make not a rat's arse worth of diffference, the sooner the hysterics realise that the better off this country will be.


If the goverment wants renewables, then pay for them out of the budget, but don't p1ss on me and tell me it's raining.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:49am:


The country will be much worse off if we dont reduce carbon dioxide emissions here and abroad.

Quote:


Governments are wasteful, tend toward pork barrelling, and open to corruption. We only need look back and Howard and Rudd pumping millions into "clean" coal.
Market based mechanisms such as a carbon price, naturally find equilibrium at the most efficient point.
[/quote]


Really if we don't reduce our 2% how exactly are we going to be worse off; we may be worse off if the rest of the world's 98% doesn't get reduced, but you're deluding yourself if you think our 2% is doing anything at all?


If the government takes money off the main polluters and consumers and then gives back most of it, how is that going to make them spend billions and billions to manage their output; a child will tell you that small impositions don't produce large changes in behaviour.


It was just another labor wankfest and nothing more; something the hysterics failed to realise.


It's the big polluting countries that need to make changes not us.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:08am:


Your last comment is the comment of the lazy man.
If you think America, China and Europe are going to cut emissions and let Australia keep increasing emissions, you are a fool.


Lets make two things clear.
1) The anticipated 4 degrees warming by 2100 is not the end. If the burning of fossil fuels continues it will also increase. 8 degrees by 2200, 12 degrees by 2300 ?

2) Mankind is not going to send itself into oblivion. which is what you'll get at 8 and 12 degrees.

So based on that, at some point, probably at the last minute, the world will dramatically stop burning fossil fuels. Australia needs to prepare for that outcome by transitioning off fossil fuels now, so we dont cope an economy destroying mandate from the rest of the world in the future.

Capitalist economies do not respond well to abrupt changes of fortune, but do repsond well to transitional changes.

Sadly, not many people realise Australia is a carbon sink.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:43am:



Lies

Damn  lies, and

Chimp logic


Yes we are very bad and we only produce 2% of the entire world's CO2, you can present all the dodgy stats you want, but 2% is bugger all in any mathmatical formular.


To be honest, even you deliberately misrepresented my statement as a "demand" rather than its intention as an 'observation'. Ill happily recinde it and replace it with.


"Other countries can do what they want and we'll do what we want and if they reduce the 98% of the CO2 that they produce then great, if they don't, then nothing we can do about that, even if we remove all of our 2%"


Also I have pointed out previously, we are nothing on the global stage and we will never be anything on the global stage; we are not a military, economic or any power of any description. This has been my point and if you weren't so limited, you may have grasped that

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:23am:



Lazy, lazy man.

We may have minor "issue" of carbon emissions, but we also have a minor population to fund the mitigation of this minor issue.  If we wait until the "world decides" we could face crippling sanctions very rapidly which our small economy will break under.

Smart people plan for the inevitable future. Are we a smart country still ?

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:


Actually, a carbon price is a capitalist invention, as it involves the market pricing of a comodity. Users still have choice.

Socialism is the government "doing" everything like Tony Abbott's direct action. Forcing the people to act a certain way.

# wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:


'Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]. '

'The amount of carbon taken up every year by dry forests in Australia depends on the weather conditions and age of the trees.  Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare.  Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees. '

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/

'The country emitted 577.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent over the 12-month period, the Department of Climate Change said Friday,'

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/australias-co2-emissions-rise-despite-power-fade-20121026-28bli.html#ixzz2paTcmizq

So if we use a conservative 1.0 t/ha?

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:54pm:


Socialist.

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:46am:


Identify all mechanisms that characterise this carbon sink.

what proportion of Australia's natural tree cover has been cleared since the British invaded in 1788?

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:48pm:
Considering the amount of carbon that we dig up and send off to be burnt, I don't.

# wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:



So now we are responsible for what the rest of the world does with our products? Does that extend to wheat?

#. You forgot - 'Does that extend to wheat? '

Unless -'I reckon so.'  applies to it and all transport costs to feed the world etc.

Are you a Kiwi? They reckon they should be treated like computers. Punch the information in.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 2:53pm:


Well I wouldnt. What they do with it is there problem.

But I wouldnt rule it out once the world get serious about climate action as a way to price coal out of the electricity generation business.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:



See bold above.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 2:53pm:
I'm with Doctor Jolly: Quote:

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:


right.... so you don't know.

you gallop in here like a parroting right wing freak fascist emitting foul odours and the putrid stench of your own deranged clown maggot decay.

why bother debating this issue if you enter these rooms intellectually defenceless ??

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 11:01pm:


WOW - what a supremely witty and intellectually sublime interfering come back

There is no way ANYBODY in the known Universe can counter that.

See what happens when you forget to take your daily medication?

You are my 7th favourite deranged lunatic deceiver in this forum

Keep up the great work in here you film of de-crystallised putrid weasel urine

Chimp Logic, Just for you-

'It has been estimated that in 1788, forests (according to the current definition) covered about 30% of the country. This suggests we have lost about one third of the forest area (84 million hectares) since European settlement.'

https://theconversation.com/australias-vast-and-dynamic-forest-cover-a-birds-eye
-view-6404

Carbon is stored in the biomass of the living plants, sequestered into the soil and also stored in the dead remnants.

The report from The Chief Scientist only gives an estimate for the soil storage.

The report from the ANU paper showing above and below ground storage is here-

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0717-forest_carbon.html

What were you wishing to debate?