I believe that the ‘greedy’ coal mine owners and the miners of all fossil fuels and minerals are favoured by the ‘greedy’ polititions in all of the approvals given. These folk can only think about their bank balance today and they don’t really give a stuff about the future. I certainly don’t envy the young and future generations, while this current generation of greedy, money hungry and self satisfying bunch of pollies and their corporate cohorts wreck everything for the future. In a way I’m glad that I will never have any grand children to have to cope with the current grovelling mess. Our country being sold out to the highest bidder and the pollies sucking up to all and sundry for the sake of money and more money.

“Germany on the other hand has committed to becoming 100% renewable by 2050 and their renewable energy sector currently employs over 380,000 people and generates the equivalent of $11 billion a year.”

Alarming heatwaves aside, Germany has said that building new coal power stations is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable (from Peter Altmaier, environment minister). Actual productivity of German wind was 16.3%. Also, AFTER SPENDING BILLIONS ON SUBSIDIES, solar amounted to 0.084% of Germany’s electricity generation.  Worries about importing electricity led to approval of TWENTY THREE new coal-fired power stations, currently under construction. In fact, Germany is and is planning on shutting down its nuclear power, but is using climate fund monies to build coal and gas power stations.

Germany’s most widely read news publishers print sceptical articles and refer to CO2 lies and pure fear mongering.

Green energy development has led to 40c/kwh in Denmark, highest in the world, and Germany a close second.

The reality of the green miracle wonderland:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/germanys-green-energy-supply-transformation-has-already-failed/

Oh, don’t forget about the gas industry expansion in Australia too, mimicking north American success.

Like the silence of the US national Rifle Association the climate deniers appear to be taking a holiday in relation to fires and the changing climate.

MF may like to point to this and that but the physics of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere are inevitable heating and subsequent changes everywhere.

As a young fella in Hobart in 1976, I was inspired by the vision to build space settlements and the key to that happening was to undertake a major change of energy source on Earth, from fossil fuel to sunlight, by building solar power stations in space.

Sadly for us now, the carbon energy industries won that power debate and now the consequences are coming home to roost with a vengeance.

That the space option was affordable can be amply demonstrated in one expenditure alone in the dramas of the 1970s, with 7 million tons of bombs being dumped on Vietnam, plus all the resources and fossil fuel required to make that happen.

What use in blaming the coal barons for our total failure to keep a safe Earth?

We, the people, collectively choose to benefit from the use of fossil fuel.

Unfortunately, a whole lot more damage is going to happen before we turn our stampede into catastrophe.

Appreciating the size of the crisis is not hard, when the CO2 level of the last ice age (around 180 ppm) is compared to that of the past 10,000 years (around 280 ppm).

Only a 100 ppm CO2 the difference and we lose an ice age.

Now CO2 is 400 ppm and set to jump into the future with our own increased emissions and the release of greenhouse gases from a fast warming Arctic.

We are now staring down the barrels of 600 ppm CO2, or even a 1000 and with that, an extremely dangerous future that will put our survival on the edge.

We are creating a new heat age.

Could we win back a safe Earth, by getting back to the future, building solar power stations in space and use stellar energy to extract excess carbon from the air and sea?

In the process we will make the change in energy that should have begun in the 1970s.

Politicians and the carbon energy industries are not dreaming of energy change.

If we want a safe Earth, then we the people must now demand it.

We must also have a plan that will actually work.

Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/

Actually the heating is meant to be caused by water vapor feedback from CO2, as CO2 has very little additional warming effect, logarithmic curve and all, not linear. All this talk but the details are wrong.

Many papers coming out these days which indicate climate sensitivity is much much lower than initially thought and much lower than corrupt agenda driven IPCC “fundings”.

Kim CO2 levels have been in the thousands of ppm prehistorically, and yet the earth never boiled. Funny, maybe there is another temperature lowering feedback mechanism, or CO2 is not driving temperature. Re the ice core discussions months ago. CO2 LAGS temperature increases by 400 years, that’s only a driver if time is in reverse, and your body’s chemical reactions don’t allow that.

You are preaching hard there Kim.

Ok MF. Lets have a look at a couple of things there.
Firstly the rest of the world has moved on from specifically talking about CO2, to now include other more potent GHG’s (e.g. Methane) but to simplify things we now talk in CO2 equivalents or CO2e. Yes water vapour is included in these calculations.
Secondly when we all understand that the GHG layer is what keeps the earth warm, I’ve still not had anyone adequately explain to me how pumping extra into the atmosphere can possibly not lead to increased warming? Would you like to have a stab at it?
I would be most interested to read the article regarding the 400 year lag time of raised CO2 levels behind temperature rises. Would you kindly reference please?
Thirdly, who said anything about the earth boiling? Though there is ample evidence for the earth completely freezing in the past. Either way life or the planet does not end but humans and some 90% of the current species present are out of the picture which is what we are essentially talking about in our ususal egocentric way, the general comfort and possible demise of the human race.
What was going on when levels were in the 1000s ppm? Massive consecutive volcanic eruptions? Were humans or any other species around then? How do we know it didn’t boil?
Yes there are cooling feedback loops suggested such as photo blocking particulates or gases in the atmosphere that counteracted the warming effects of the extra atmospheric carbon (essentially the reason why ‘volcano’ quoting deniers have been debunked).
Another theory is the oceans absorbed the carbon, creating cooling that froze the surface locking up GHGs under icesheets that were only broken by subsurface volcanic eruptions through the ice. Perhaps the earth didn’t ‘boil’ everywhere because when the sub-ocean temperature conveyor belt shut down, the polar ice-caps actually increased.

The real question is even if all the anthrpogenic climate change theory is rubbish, why do we still dig up fossil fuels and pollute and scar the earth when we can harvest endless (essentially) free energy from the sun once the infrastructure is set up. Who cares if its not that efficient, when its free?
Answer, pre-established fossil fuel mining vested interests have the money to lobby government and quash alternatives. Period.

Re: 5 ~ MF

As this article is called ~‘The desperate need for action’ ~ there is an open invitation for strong comments.

If there is a matter in my comment that you question or object to, address it, rather than using the “preaching” accusation.

The current escalation in CO2 is not historically a problem to the health of life on Earth, as CO2 has been high in the past.

It is the speed of the current increase that is of grave concern, as this is changing plant biology and turning the oceans acidic.

We already have an escalating loss of species of life from current human caused pressure on Nature.

The CO2 crisis is adding to this stress very swiftly and evolution is unable to keep pace with such rapid ecological change, which will result in many more species being dispatched into oblivion.

The koala is at risk through starvation, because with accelerating levels of CO2 in the air, its gum leaf tucker is becoming more toxic and less nutritious.

The 30% increase in ocean acidity and rising, is already impacting on sea creatures, affecting the seafood industry on the North American west coast.

It is the speed of change that presents the greatest threat to life on Earth, which will open the way for Nature to have less control of our planet’s life support system and chaos to run riot, toward a much hotter world.

Kim Peart

I am unable to post full comments…

No, not without violating known physics laws. One cannot say it cools the atmosphere, however, it is not technically correct that it warms the atmosphere either.  CO2 (or CO2e as you like) will cause some warming, but per my reference to sensitivity, as you damn well realise (or misunderstand), is that the amount is not a 3 times 1˚C for CO2 doubling, it’s more like 1 times. Saying CO2 increase cannot lead to temperature increase is putting words in my mouth. Saying it again, it’s about feedbacks and sensitivity, not the greenhouse effect. Don’t leave the room yet, like you did last time.

Water keeps the earth warm. The greatest green house gas. Energy is radiated into space, otherwise we would be in a run away greenhouse. Yes the energy is absorbed on the way, but it is eventually reradiated. Energy is not stored by greenhouse gasses (textbook material). However, this does not mean that CO2 has no impact.

Anyway, what you want… as GHG increases, collisions increase, longwave radiations path is more tortuous and to maintain equilibrium, temperature increases. However, higher temperature means higher energies, which increases the frequency of emission events, and the incoming and outgoing balance is maintained.

BUT this is too simple. The uncertainties in earths radiation balance outweigh the largest predicted temperature forcing of CO2. If CO2 is doing anything, WE ACTUALLY CAN’T EVEN TELL!!
Current knowledge on earths energy radiation balance/energy budget: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/abs/ngeo1580.html

CO2 lags temperature: http://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.pdf from our very own UTAS, and http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.7/rise_in_temperatures_and_co2/ from the Copenhagen coauthor. Caveat for CO2 preceding temperature increase included. It is worth noting that the longest, best ice core record has been withheld. If it held data supporting the CO2 consensus it should have been rushed out years ago.

There is not ample evidence for earth completely freezing in the past, this is still disputed. “Snowball earth” was an early coined phrase that stuck. The current idea is that earth was mostly glaciated with open water around the equator, and ocean circulation will never stop as long as the earth keeps spinning.

The last time you asked me about carbon dioxide concentrations in the past and a range of other things, I never heard back form you. I addressed all you asked and you went quiet. Had time to rebuild your faith again? So here it is again incase you missed it:
  http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/here-comes-the-sun-chilling-verdict-on-a-climate-going-to-extremes/

In the Jurassic (dinosaurs) CO2 was around 1800ppm (higher and lower), during the Cambrian (start of hard bodied life), 7000ppm. The “average global temperature” NEVER WENT ABOVE 25˚C. There have also been ice ages when CO2 was at >4000ppm. Wow. There must be other factors.

There are plenty of other things going on in the world that will wipe out 90% of animal life, not CO2.

I didn’t know there was such a thing as a cooling gas. Sure, particles blocking incoming radiation, but cooling gasses…? I told you before how we know it didn’t boil, mass dependent isotope fractionation and mathematical modelling.

What do you mean with gibberish “volcano quoting deniers have been debunked”? I’m one of those (holocaust?) deniers, It would be appreciable if you didn’t use that term ever again, because I deny less than yourself, and the effects of volcanoes are far too short lived to have an important impact. As I said in our previous conversation.

Why do we dig up fossil fuel. Nothing is free. That sunlight, to power the world as you say, requires vast quantities of materials from the earth, far more damaging to the environment than coal, gas and oil, and when manufactured, also producing toxic byproducts, will cover an enormous portion of earths surface. We need more efficient solar technology, which we need our toxic economy for. Better yet would be wind kite power. A far more effective use of space that you’ve probably never heard of.

How are the people who can’t feed their families and themselves in this world going to pay the taxes to build your solar panels? This is happening in our own country, let alone other countries. We need a redistribution of our current tax, not new tax. Why should we pay for our politicians to drive around in european luxury cars?

The real answer to why we dig up fossil fuels is because THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISN’T SETUP, and incase you weren’t aware, our government already outspends its revenue each year. An answer of “more tax” isn’t sufficient. You propose changes that will only happen in a different reality, and the majority, the average people, are not going to, or cannot, change their reality. Things must happen steadily.

You can espouse ideas like “we need all solar”, but it won’t solve anything.

Your argument is irrelevant on a worldwide scale. I bet you read some bad propaganda.

“More misery has been created by reformers than by any other force in human history. Show me someone who says, “Something must be done!” and I will show you a head full of vicious intentions that have no other outlet.”

To Kim:
We have discussed this before but it just bounces off. CO2 has indeed been higher in the recent past and our koalas, possums and gliders were not (at least not completely) knocked off by eucalyptus toxicity. Though changed forest cover is a concern. This is a very interesting area, because our forestry use trees with superior growth characteristics which also produce more toxin, which in turn have been linked to human health issues (though establishing direct link is nigh impossible). Enough digression, the extremely limited research on this topic was almost entirely speculation, and no research was actually done involving koalas.

Ocean acidity has certainly not increased by 30%. Establishing any kind of baseline. Acidity increases are practically all MODELLED and not observed and established to be increasing. Any changes are more on the order of 0.003% or less due to the logarithmic pH system, and don’t forget pH has been shown to vary in the shallows, where most carbonate utilising life lives, to vary by an order of magnitude with no adverse consequences. If life can cope with that, why would the chain collapse with slow gradual change. Daily changes are rapid (as in the shallows), creeping changes over years are geologically rapid, not rapid to life which may complete their life cycles multiple times within a single year.

Show me a time when a heat age was caused by 1000ppm CO2, show me a time when less CO2 caused an ice age. Show me something other than a poor model. The reason nothing is happing because nothing different is coming to pass. War was never affordable, has always been funded off debt and filled the pockets of the elite, putting solar panels in space is an odd concept, lots of fossil fuel to be burnt putting them up there and manufacturing them, how is the power transferred back to earth? We do need a plan that will actually work.

Ok M.F. lets see. Thanks for posting those articles. I have had a read and will answer some of your questions, but with regards to previous posts I simply don’t
have the time to investigate all articles and respond. I also fully admit I am not a climate scientist or a qualified scientist in the fullest sense, but with a degree from the science faculty,
and some interest in this area, I am not a complete novice.
I think in fact we could probably agree on a lot of things. I take your point that focusing on just CO2 is too simple and blunt, but I took alot of your original comment to be in the vein
of a anthropogenic climate change denialist, which if I was incorrect, I apologise. While the articles you provided state that we still know too little about carbon in the atmosphere, energy exchange in the upper atmosphere
etc. (with which I can agree), nowhere does it say that anthropogenically induced or rather assisted or accelerated climate change is a myth.

Perhaps what you were more trying to say is that the Carbon tax is too blunt and simplistic. I can also agree to some extent, but can you agree that something that enshrines the idea that we must pay
for the pollution we emit in legislation is a good thing? The tax on industry is supposed to be just that. Can the government help it that in its usual way, industry gets around this by upping their prices for services to the rest of us.
Maybe they can. I have long felt there needs to be a mechanism that forces them to absorb these costs rather than being able to forward them onto us as I agree this kind of defeats the purpose.

I didn’t actually say cooling gases but particulates or gases that reflect incoming solar radiation. I know this is partly wrong because gas emissions without particulate are largely colourless and invisible, except perhaps for water vapour that condenses as clouds
which does increase albido. Perhaps you are right that it is water vapour containing heat energy that is the real culprit of warming, but my reading of the articles indicates that it is still increased carbon equivalents (above natural levels in a relatively short time period) that is creating the extra, additional warming, leading to higher evaporation. Perhaps it is this that is increasing wind speeds and drying vegetation leading to more devastating bushfires, stronger storms and heavier rains?
You forgot that extra particulates in the atmosphere upon which condensed water droplets collect, to create raindrops, may also be increasing rainfall intensity.

(continued)
By ‘volcano quoting deniers’ I meant people who try to explain away increased carbon causing warming by saying that volcanoes emit more carbon in one eruption that we ever would. I am not a holocaust denier (?),
nor was I accusing you of being such or one of these people. It seems you also see this denialist trickery to be the nonsense it is. Volcanoes also emit large amounts of particulate and water vapour that can also cause earth cooling from blocking insolation.
Perhaps increased carbon absorption from the ocean and from new vegetation growing on new land masses created after eruptions, over long time periods, slowly take up the extra carbon as the particulates in turn fall from the atmosphere, maintaining the balance.

Mixing in the ocean is partly caused by wind and the coriolis affect, from the earth spinning yes but much is also caused by cold and warm water differentials, causing water to sink and upwell, which also brings vital nutrients (and carbon) up from the deep ocean.
As these differentials level out as cold water becomes less cold, these circulation mechanisms also slow down.

As far as Solar goes, there are many other renewables we need to be developing, because I don’t think ‘all solar’ is the answer. We need local, non centralised options that work for the region. I have heard of wind kite turbines and am probably just as perplexed as you why this is not being looked into further. Probably suffering the same funding starvation as solar, wave and geothermal. I agree we still need to dig up resources to make PV panels (or anything for that matter) but on the flip side, much of the material comes from sand (an abundant surface mineral) and many of the precious metals could probably come from recycled e-waste if we could be more bothered. Also with more research and development we could probably do away with alot of the infrastructure required and paint photo-reactive cells onto surfaces already in place and use the power network already in place, or better still, develop better battery technology and not use an inefficient distribution network at all? My point is once the collection infrastructure is there, the energy is free. This cannot be said for fossil fuels, they still need to be dug up and burnt, even when the generative and transmission infrastructure is in place. What we really need is less people and more efficiency coming in from the other end.
I also agree that wealth distribution (or lack of it) is the biggest evil we face. So much more could be achieved and faster if knowledge, wealth and assistance to each other were evenly distributed. However to suggest such gets you labelled as a commy.
Nooooo not the dreaded socialism! How can I possibly gain power and manipulate others if we are all equals? That just won’t do!

(continued)
So I agree there probably are other things at play, we don’t understand it all, and there is a level of natural climate change that would be occurring over time anyway, but none of this explains away the fact that our extra CO2e emissions, over a short time period
are adding to the problem, much more quickly than the planets natural cooling mechanisms can cope with. I’m sure the planet can survive higher carbon levels in the long term but as to whether we can survive with drastic changes in the short term remains doubtful.

If they are real quotes, I do however think your last statements in post number 12 are absolute rubbish. Unless you call war mongerers ‘reformers’ ?

Re: 13

Should any reader wish to check out the science on the rise in ocean acidity caused by the rise of CO2 in the biosphere over the past two centuries, then simple use Google News and type in ~ ocean acidification ~ where many stories appear based on research which can then be pursued.

Current ocean acidification is historic record and has nothing to do with climate change modelling.

From my reading, I see that ocean acidification is now 30% higher and is rising, is already impacting on sea creatures and is now on the way to becoming extremely severe, in part because the human release of CO2 into the biosphere is too rapid for evolution to keep pace.

Similarly for the koala, the change in plant biology driven by higher levels of CO2 in the air is happening too fast for evolutionary adaptation.

With atmospheric CO2 now rising past 400 ppm, with human release of CO2 increasing and with the Arctic region getting hotter and beginning to release CO2 and methane from the permafrost and the ocean floor methane hydrates, a heat age is where we are heading.

In the Great Dying 252 million years ago, when most of life on Earth perished in the first great extinction event ~ “Further evidence for environmental change around the P–Tr boundary suggests an 8 °C (14.4 °F) rise in temperature, and an increase in CO2 levels by 2000 ppm (by contrast, the concentration immediately before the industrial revolution was 280 ppm”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

Kim Peart

Thank you for your consideration Sue. My beef is with throwing around the word denialist when I actually enjoy seeing what the research has to say and will search it out. The denialist word use has been strung with the holocaust all over the internet.
Here are a few quick examples so you can see how distasteful the debate becomes. It makes Tasmania look cuddly.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=A7CAEF06-802A-23AD-458C-1B8ACD1DE91F

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-is-another-grim-tale-to-be-treated-with-respect/2007/07/08/1183833338608.html

cont ...

cont ...

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Deniers-of-global-warming-harm-us-1243264.php

So now you know, maybe you can be more constructive with the criticism.
I wasn’t actually thinking about the carbon tax at all when I responded. We got that and there was nothing to be done about it. There are better ways to apply disincentives but the government doesn’t fill it’s coffers as much by them. One think my partner rages about is how it is all passed onto us the consumers while the emitters effectively don’t pay a thing, profit nonstop and promulgate the system. Saying it’s a tax on industry is a selling tactic, as you alluded to. So I agree with you about the current state, maybe not what methods should be in place.
Every increase in CO2e comes back to water vapour through enhanced feedback. Thats the mainline of it all. Things like methane are able to temporarily absorb MUCH more energy that water and CO2, but it is put back into the system apparently to enhance the amount of water in the atmosphere, which is where the warming comes from. Changes in the trace gasses like methane and CO2 will be <<<0.1%, but corresponding changes in water vapour may be above 0.1% which is where the warming comes from. But again there are such huge changes in water vapour over a range of time scales its almost impossible to tease out.
The particulates you talk about are too big to act as cloud condensation nuclei, which include aerosols are are an order of magnitude smaller than particulates. The particulates are big enough to block/absorb light waves and cause harm to our respiratory systems (poor ol china). While there is cross over in the size range, the amount of gaseous CCN is far more important. Check out how cool this is, I can’t find the picture I wanted, but these give an idea, from a single cosmic ray these are the particles produced:

http://www-conf.kek.jp/hadron/QCDCR/img/Cosmos.jpg

cont ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Protonshower.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/uploaded_images/cosmic_rays-715634.jpg

cont ...

According to http://www.auger.org/cosmic_rays/faq.html#how_many
The most abundant are 1 GeV particles, are there are about 10,000 per square metre per second. The one in the second picture is from a 1 TeV (1000x stronger) which hit at 1 per square metre per second. So that’s some crazy cloud making material. The effects of cosmic rays are discounted by many. These guys http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/Physics/Physics.html are the only ones doing research on it because if it doesn’t involve CO2 it’s very hard to get a grant.

cont ...

Agree with lots of what you said next, lots could be talked about but no time to do it :(
The Copenhagen Accord was a massive wealth redistribution scheme if you choose to be able to see it that way, shift from the first to third world. One of the big points is that we are trying to stop them from using cheap fossil fuels to fuel their development (if just pulling themselves out of our gutters) as we did. I personally don’t believe we have the right to do this, arguments about what the climate is doing aside. I also have an issue in that a lot of hardcore green ideals have very fascist undertones. Sadly, it would be nice if we had less people, I agree, but that’s going to take at least a hundred years if not much more to wind back barring a disaster. And while we can hope for it (but hope nothing evil happens to them) we can’t do anything about it. China has created enough problems for the world with their 70s policies. Plus our middle classes are spewing out kids like they have a massive right to (oops). (As selfish as this is) I’d love to see my bloodline keep going, but I’m (probably…) not going to bring a child into this world, we would rather adopt and improve the life of somebody already here. The quote was a bit of a shot at the fascism I talked about above, nothing personal but just those undercurrents bother me even while I’m probably guilty too along the way.

Propaganda and mainstream media (the beloved ABC included) are a new conversation entirely. :(

You’ve probably seen the story too but apparently we just found shale oil to rival the Saudis.
Very few people out there and no farms, so stopping it will be hard. This is incomparably better than shale gas. And $20 trillion potential? We might get all that renewable energy after all!!! Nahhh, it’ll be squandered.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/trillion-shale-oil-find-surrounding-coober-pedy-can-fuel-australia/story-e6frea83-1226560401043
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/major-oil-discovery-in-outback-sa/4481982

cont ...

I used the woeful news search as you suggested, just to see what ocean acidification turned up, and the first article was a ‘skeptic’ bashing of an alarmist senator. Good start. So I added 30% because I just need to know where this crap came from.
Musn’t have done too much reading because there are only two news articles.  First posted by USA TODAY and it seems the figures are from a draft report of the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, summarising 2.6 billion worth of research conducted by the US Global Change Research Program. Second posted yesterday on HuffPo. So I downloaded the 150mb draft report to see what it said about 30%.
Nb. Correct use is also acidity increased by 30%, as acidification is the process.
The 30% acidity references are Caldeira and Wickett 2003; Hall-Spencer et al. 2008; Hönisch et al. 2012.
There is no mention of 30% acidity in the most recent paper, they are mostly looking at CO2, warming and acidification during big events, like the PT boundary discussed below, over the last 250 million years down to 11,000 years ago. Also, saying ‘unprecedented CO2 release’ isn’t really appropriate as we can’t get down to 20 year resolution even at 11,000 years BP.
The number appears to come from the Hall-Spencer paper, which is studying “venting gas fields” near Italy. Here is the interesting part and why this paper made it past peer review I don’t know, but nature isn’t known for it’s high standards with regards to climate science. 30% increase of hydrogen ions in surface is waters is stated in the abstract/introduction, without reference, AND WITHOUT FURTHER MENTION IN THE REPORT. So this report seems to have fabricated(??) the 30% number.
Onto the third, oldest, paper, no mention at all. I might email these guys from NCADAC and see what’s up.
If anybody would like a copy of these papers, please leave a reply and I will see if it’s possible without getting anybody in trouble. But don’t you all think that taxpayer funded research should be free to the tax payer? Climate scientists don’t. Figures.
Now my own analysis.
The greatest (long-term) changes in two decades of pH we have seen are -0.1 pH units. So at most within a single unit, this is 10%. Add the rest of the scale, logarithmic 0 to 14, and it becomes a change of about 0.00000000000001%. I’m probably wrong about that because much thought has not been dedicated, but still. Bit off 30% even within one unit. The thunderbolt is pH has been measured varying by 1.4 pH units in the ocean, over shorter time periods, so measuring such a minor change (<0.1 units) becomes very problematic. That 1.4 units is on the order of 500% variation over the 0.1 pH units long term change. Again, do we really have the resolution to measure such a change?

Show me where it has actually been investigated that the change in plant biology is happening too fast for adaption. No speculation.

The quote of the Permo-Triassic boundary is a bad one, with two flood basalts and probably meteors too? Who can say what happened there. As in, the surface would have been swept by wildfires, atmosphere probably quiet toxic, CO2 would have been the least of their problems at a paltry 2000ppm. Think SO2 (rotten egg gas) at 2000ppm. You’d be dead before you sniffed it.
Kim if your only source for information on climate change (note, now it’s extreme weather) is google news and mainstream media (and wikipedia no-less), with no critical followup, you are likely ill informed, as your comments indicate.

Re: 23

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
“Ocean acidification is an “emerging global problem,” according to NOAA. Over the past 250 years, about one third of the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels has ended up in oceans, according to a 2010 study. Over that time, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent, according to the National Research Council.”
Scientific America   11 Jan 2013
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-effort-on-ocean-acidification-needs-focus-on-human-impacts

Re: 23

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
“According to the Washington Department of Ecology, shellfish growers in Washington and Oregon became the first to discover that ocean acidification was undercutting their jobs and businesses around 2007, when corrosive seawater began killing off tiny young oysters by the billions in Pacific Northwest hatcheries. For Governor Christine Gregoire and many in the state’s government, to surrender this profitable industry to the consequences of human-accelerated climate change is unthinkable.”
http://www.care2.com/causes/washington-state-declares-war-on-ocean-acidification.html

Re: 23

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
“For years, researchers have warned that the increasing acidity of the oceans is likely to create a whole host of problems for the marine environment. Most of these warnings were predictions for future decades as well as theories about possible impacts based on experiments under artificial conditions. Now, scientists have discovered proof that ocean acidification is having significant impacts on an Antarctic marine snail, Limacina helicina antarctica, in its natural habitat. This tiny snail hails from a suborder called the “sea butterflies” because they flap their feet like wings as they swim. They’re also known as pteropods. Whatever you want to call them, they are an important component of marine food webs, and provide food for a variety of species.”
National Geographic   29 Nov 2013
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/11/29/strong-evidence-for-ocean-acidification-impacts-in-southern-ocean/

Re: 23

“The sea today is 30 percent more acidic than pre-industrial levels, which is creating corrosive water that is washing over America’s coasts. At the current rate of global worldwide carbon emissions, the ocean’s acidity could double by 2100.”
The Washington Post  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ocean-acidification-emerges-as-new-climate-threat/2012/09/30/8457e6e8-08b8-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html

Re: 23

“Dr Schmidt of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences said: “Ocean acidification has happened before sometimes with large consequences for marine ecosystems.  But within the last 300 million years, never has the rate of ocean acidification been comparable to the ongoing acidification. She added that the most comparable event, most likely 10 times slower than the current acidification, was 55 million years ago. “At that time, species responded to the warming, acidification, change in nutrient input and loss of oxygen – the same processes that we now see in our oceans.  The geological record shows changes in species distribution, changes in species composition, changes in calcification and growth and in a few cases extinction,” she said. “Our current acidification rates are unparalleled in Earth history and lead most ecosystems into unknown territory.”“
University of Bristol   28 Sep 2013
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8811.html

Re: 23

“According to the paper, if current trends continue, by 2050 atmospheric CO2 is expected to increase to more than 80 per cent above pre-industrial (pre-1750) levels, with the corresponding devastation to marine environments putting trillions of dollars at risk globally. From tropical to polar oceans, the magnitude and speed of the changes expected as a result of climate change and increasing ocean acidity is likely to exceed the ability of numerous marine species to adapt and survive. This rate of increase has few, if any, parallels in the past 300 million years of the Earth’s history.”
Science Alert   21 Aug 2012
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20122008-23673.html

Arg news stories and media releases. Acid burning my eyes.  My math was off too, if its something like 0.0000001 molar H+ changing to 0.0000003 molar H+, it is indeed a 30% increase, so sorry for my mistake. The -0.1 pH unit increase is a 10% increase, the 0.00000000000001% number is rubbish.

Re: 30

It is the raw facts of ocean acidification and the current inevitable increase that drives me like crazy to understand the root causes of the carbon crisis and all related crisis that are steadily building to a snapping point catastrophe.

Many civilizations have been through a slow decline, like Rome, until invaded from the north.

Because our demands on the Earth are so great, so unsustainable, so artificially bloated like a great bubble with carbon energy and the accumulating catastrophes so dire, our fate as a global civilization must be a snapping point, beyond which we will have no control of our fate.

In the ensuing chaos, just like Rome, we may experience invasion from the north, as nations and empires fight over resources.

My first comment above sketches out that which I see as the only way to save our hides globally ~ and also as a nation ~ and turn the carbon crisis completely around in such a way that we will secure a safe Earth and a stellar economy without poverty.

The poverty aspect is critical, because as Nicholas Stern puts the matter (‘Blueprint for a Safer Planet’ ~ 2009), we must solve climate change and poverty at the same time, that we will not fix one without fixing the other.

Such a bold vision, such a huge vision from an economist, can only hope to succeed with a rather bold response that offers the level of hope that inspiration real action.

Business as usual on Earth, tinkering around with fine adjustments, will not get us out of catastrophe.

In an article I sought to tackle our geopolitical dilemma with a vision that could deliver Australia’s security and lead toward peace on Earth ~
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/environment/avoiding-calamity-by-looking-to-the-stars/

Writing from a storm-ravaged Queensland, wondering if floodwaters flowing through the street will reach the front door again, as happened only a year again in one of them one in one hundred year events.

Kim Peart

Instead of spending billions of dollars trying to turn back the clock why not spend that money in adapting to the inevitable. Rising sea levels- go talk to the people from the Netherlands. The Riverina is going to be too hot for good grape production that’s why Brown Bros have started moving their operation to Tassie.Adaptation.They could have put in solar panels and maybe a wind turbine and had a good warm fuzzy feeling for a few years and then gone broke.
Queensland floods;why not give homeowners in those flood affected areas a low interest loan to lift their homes onto 3/4 metre basements designed for flood waters when they happen to just flow straight through. Adapt to nature don’t fight it.Talk to any farmer and they’ll tell you the same, go with mother not against her she is too powerful.

Re: 32

Johnboy writes ~ “Adapt to nature don’t fight it.Talk to any farmer and they’ll tell you the same, go with mother not against her she is too powerful.”

If the human caused Earth changes now in motion were identifiably minimal, we could adapt.

Because of feedback loops, the changes now in motion have no identifiable upper limit, which is why James Hansen has alerted us all to the detail that with CO2 above 350 parts per million (now 400 and rising), we are in the process of triggering a runaway greenhouse effect, which could ultimately turn the Earth into a second Venus (p.223 ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’ 2009).

One such feedback loop can be seen in the fast warming Arctic region, where warmed up ocean water is melting polar ice, exposing Arctic water to more midnight sunlight, which then warms up more, leading to a year when the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in the summer.

A second feedback loop can be seen in the Arctic, with the melting permafrost and ocean floor methane hydrates releasing greenhouse gases that will warm the Earth, leading to a hotter Arctic and the melting of more permafrost and methane hydrate. 

The Arctic events will impact globally and contribute to the acceleration of other environmental changes now in full swing, such as ocean acidification.

Because our Sun is getting steadily hotter, now 30 percent warmer than at the dawn of life 4 billion years ago and set to increase in heat and size over the next 5 billion years, until reaching reaching the orbit of the Earth as a red giant star and because our planet’s life-support systems are very fine-tuned, James Lovelock has warned that we are opening the way for a sudden shift to a permanently hotter world that is hostile to human interests (p.102 ‘The Vanishing Face of Gaia’ 2009).

In the face of a global crisis that is set to affect the retirement benefits of politicians, governments are likely to panic when serious changes start to bite and we may see trillions of dollars invested in a range of geoengineering projects, such as pumping sulphur into the air, which will not address the core issue.

The core issues are greed and timidity.

It was greed that drove the continued use of fossil fuel in the 1970s, instead of making the switch to stellar energy, by building solar power stations in space.

The plan was on the table for the way to keep a safe Earth (‘The High Frontier’ by Gerard K. O’Neill, 1977), but we timidly fell beneath carbon energy greed, which pays all the wages and blindly ignored a simple fact of Nature.

For 4 billion years Mother Nature had drawn on the energy of the Sun to evolve life and produce all our fossil fuel reserves, which were then neatly available to lift our game from an Earth-trapped carbon economy to a space liberated stellar civilization, built on stellar energy.

If we now awaken to the implications of our greed and timidity, we can demand action to win back a safe Earth, by building solar power stations in space, which will give us the energy level to extract excess carbon from the biosphere and even build our way through the crisis period.

One of the fundamental facts of the Universe and of Nature is expansion and if we will not run with Nature in the expansion of life beyond Earth, then we may simply be causing a stillbirth of life on this planet, with potentially the death of both mother and child.

Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/

Hi M.F. Thanks for the article links. Some interesting reading, though I am unsure as to the relevance of cosmic ray refraction and absorption in the upper atmosphere?
As I said, and apologised for, I originally took your post as bordering on denial of anthropogenic, accelerated climate change. I see now that you fall more in the realm
of sceptic, which as your articles say, any scientist worth their salt usually is and must remain.
Though I wouldn’t personally put a climate change denialist in the same boat as a holocaust denier (the facts on which are pretty much well known, documented, and collectively remembered and experienced)
The articles you linked actually make the case that such a comparison is tenable, in the sense that delay caused by hubris and deliberate misinformation has the potential to create similar misery and horrific conflict.
I must admit I had to agree.
Whilst I respect the need to understand once and for all what the true catalysts and feedback loops are (is it carbon or water vapour?) to avoid useless taxes or misdirected remedies, I would warn against
nitpicking that only perpetuates simplistic wrong-headed arguments by those who want to deny because its all too confronting to not deny, and creates the illusion that things are still not unanimously accepted.
As your articles state, the theory that increased carbon (or equivalents) emissions by humans in a relatively short time span is compounding the natural greenhouse effect and creating extra warming that the biosphere is not equipped
to deal with outside of drastic tipping points that jeopardise a majority of life forms (including us) is basically no longer in dispute. It is only the details of how carbon flux creates the extra warming, how much carbon leads to drastic tipping points,
and what is the scale of climate change we can live with, which are still being argued and disputed by rational people.
I would be interested to know whether the Carbon Tax and carbon emission reporting is in the form of just CO2 or the now more accepted CO2e’s (including all possible GHG’s and water vapour). Even if
it doesn’t, when it comes to burning fossil fuels, it seems it would be pretty hard to reduce CO2, while not also reducing all other emissions at the same time.
(Continued)

(continued)
My point is, sometimes policy and and remedial measures are blunt and simplistic and operate without all the precise facts, and yet still achieve the desired outcome (in this case less emissions to the atmosphere), even if it is
only localised. I agree that having a carbon tax that only ends up with extra expense to the general public (regardless of other tax breaks and compensations that only go so far) while continuing to search for more oil, coal and gas
to burn is positively ridiculous. Something the Greens have been trying to point out for some time.

In our effort for irrefutable results and evidence, lets not loose sight of what we already know, which combined with a true precautionary principle, should be plenty to demand what we must do. End our addiction to fossil fuels. They are after all limited anyway. Better now than being unprepared and forced to later.

The only reason Australia aren’t doing that more rapidly is because we have set all our jobs and exports eggs in the mining basket and those who currently profit a great deal from it don’t want to stop profiting.

Yes all technologies need resources and alot of them due to our sheer numbers now, but is it not better to dig up the earth to make clean energy that is sustainable, if we are already digging it up anyway to perpetuate dirty energy
that is slowly but surely killing us and much of the animal world we rely on for so many things.

You are right to be discussing the often overlooked issue of Ocean Acidification, as the link between the oceanic and atmospheric is harder to refute, and its effects have potentially further reaching dire ramifications for our global food chain than erratic and extreme weather events. I believe this is less often discussed as its still easier to muddy the waters regarding carbon emissions and its effects on the atmosphere, or easier to dispute what the definite effects will be. Valid scepticism is one thing but those who continue a deliberate misinformation campaign for fear of their own financial jeopardy ought to be thoroughly ashamed.

Re: 34~35

I have become concerned with a deeper form of denial.

Where climate change denial can be traced back to carbon energy propaganda, the deeper denial is gravely more concerning, because it fails to challenge the ensconced position of carbon energy.

The deeper denial is a failure to admit the real cause of climate change and also as a consequence, the very way to win back a safe Earth.

As I have demonstrated and shown could have been afforded in the 1970s, if we had demanded a change in energy from carbon to stellar, by building solar power stations in space, we would have kept a safe Earth by not burning all that fossil fuel.

When the conservation movement became obsessed with Earth-only solutions, they became a second propaganda arm of carbon energy, by not bringing the fight to the very front where the battle was raging.

This allowed the greed of carbon energy to win a great evil, which now presents a threat to all life on Earth through a perfect storm of crisis that are yet to break upon us in their full fury.

If it is possible to escape from this iron maiden mental trap and think the matter through, then it may be possible to see that the forces of Nature will only permit the conservation objective of a sustainable and equitable human presence on Earth, if we secure a sustainable presence beyond Earth.

One of the most fundamental forces of Nature is expansion and currently this is being bottled up on Earth, creating a pressure cooker environment.

It may still be possible to assure our cosmic survival and win back a safe Earth, if we swiftly build solar power stations in space to access unlimited stellar energy from the Sun, finally achieving the energy switch from carbon to solar.

The limits to growth on Earth have been ignored, but beyond Earth there are no such limits.

While the deeper denial continues and carbon energy continues to pay all the wages, we are condemning our children to a very dangerous future.

Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/