Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

How Far Off Is Abrupt Climate Change?

*Pic: Flickr, David Blackwell: ‘Walking home one evening in 2074 Paul wondered about the scientific breakthrough reversing the effects of climate change and its impact on his beach condo investment’ …

The debate about coal verses renewables can go on for a long period; but, nature makes the decisions in the end.

Previously, I have written about volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean; providing figures only for the break down of volume, the graph and comments by Dr Joe Romm ( Physicist) put more of a perspective on it through comments and graph. 1.

The headline from the article is:

“A collapse in Arctic sea ice volume spells disaster for the rest of the planet. Global warming drives a stunning collapse in sea ice volume.” 2.

Quote:

“The sharp decline in Arctic sea ice area in recent decades has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a warming-driven collapse in total sea ice volume — to about one quarter of its 1980 level.” 3.

Also:

“Unfortunately, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. The accelerated loss of Arctic sea ice drives more extreme weather in North America, while speeding up both Greenland ice sheet melt (which causes faster sea level rise) and the defrosting of carbon-rich permafrost.” 4.

Europe also is impacted by what happens in the Arctic; and ultimately the rest of the globe is affected.

PIOMAS is supported by data created by satellite ….CryoSat-2 . 5.

Supporting incidental information comes from the thawing of permafrost; it occurs when temperature has been high for a considerable time. Islands off the Siberian coast are disappearing as permafrost is thawing and wave action is eroding them. 6.

A British yacht sailed both routes of the North West Passage in 2016> In a press release it was stated :

“The Polar Ocean Challenge successfully completed their quest to sail the North East Passage and North West Passage in one season. The North West Passage was completed in an astonishing 14 days due to the fact that it was almost totally ice free. They encountered ice only twice in their 1800 mile NW Passage part of the voyage. This highlights an extraordinary loss of sea ice in the Arctic in the 30 years that David Hempleman-Adams has been coming to the area….” 7.

Methane explosions have been reported by the Siberian Times and Western sources. 8.

What is the significance of the Arctic sea ice breaking down?

Remember, Dr Romm’s article uses observed data to provide a fearsome headline indicative of the future.

The cryosphere (snow and ice) has a moderating impact on temperature and is a determinant of climate. We do not know what tipping points will be reached as the Arctic sea ice disappears. The trend line is not appearing healthy and is suggestive that the Arctic Ocean could be ice free in a decade plus/minus. Meaning worse extreme weather; damage to crops, fresh water being contaminated, war, and creation of climate change refugees.

Deniers have delayed a sequential approach to tackling climate change for about two decades; action is becoming increasingly more urgent.

Refs …

1. http://thinkprogress.org/watch-the-arctic-death-spiral-in-this-amazing-video-b63486b99383#.y6ogew60z
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. ibid
5. ibid
6. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/14/thawing-permafrost-destroying-arctic-cities-norilsk-russia
7. http://polarocean.co.uk

*Keith Antonysen is retired. He is a keen gardener, photographer, and recreational fisher. The Vietnam War and later the flooding of Lake Pedder created an interest in politics which led to a passion for social justice issues. Currently very concerned about lack of action on climate change. Not a paid up member of any Political Party.

EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …

A Timeline of Earth’s average temperature

• Mike Bolan in Comments: It really looks too late to reverse the warming trend Keith. Given our penchant for believing that politics and perceptions to be more important than the external ‘real world’, it’s hard to see any of our government systems working to protect us. Arctic ice is apparently the main driver of undersea ocean currents that travel thousands of miles and carry nutrients and a range of species. These currents then create feeding grounds for fish and other species. The implications include – no ice/no currents/disrupted ocean ecologies. It would be great if we had some means to control climate change however our fantasy that the pseudo-science of ‘economics’ is our highest priority it seems that we’re screwed until we can change our thinking.

PeakProsperity: What Triggers Collapse EXTRACT: Though central states and banks appear to be in control of the political, social and economic order, history shows that the forces that disrupt or make obsolete the existing mode of production cannot be stopped or even slowed by governmental edict or financial controls. For example, the advent of the printing press enabled mass distribution of the Bible and other books, which boosted literacy and distributed heretical ideas that soon upended the social order and the medieval mode of production. Heavy-handed efforts to suppress this technology’s spread of new ideas (such as killing those caught distributing Bibles in vernacular languages) all failed. A variety of forces can disrupt or obsolete existing modes of production and the social order they support …

• Chris Harries in Comments: Amidst all the huffing and puffing on blog sites, there are hundreds of serious professionals who are working day n and day out on climate change information and education. Here is the CSIRO / BOM combined portal: HERE. They’ve just issued the 2016 Climate Update, summarising shifting weather trends around Australia: HERE.

Cassy O’Connor: Government of Climate Denial and Damage Left Behind by Paris

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
233 Comments

233 Comments

  1. Kim Peart

    November 14, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Now new research has shown that the Earth system is far more sensitive than previously thought, with the rising level of CO2 predicted to drive planet temperature rise up to 6C by 2100.

    Warming up: new research points to a more sensitive climate to rising CO2
    Peter Hannam, 13 November 2016, Sydney Morning Herald
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/warming-up-new-research-points-to-a-more-sensitive-climate-to-rising-co2-20161113-gso3z0.html

    The researchers stepped out of the computer models and into direct observations, with ancient ice cores and other means, revealing the models as way too conservative.

    James Lovelock predicted that our planet’s temperature could only rise so far, before the Earth went into rapid change to a permanently hotter environment (The Disappearing Face of Gaia, 2009).

    Lovelock’s conclusion is based on the detail that our Sun is getting hotter, now 35% warmer than at its birth 4.5 billion years ago. The Earth system has been compensating for a warming Sun, but as time goes by, it is getting tougher for the Earth’s life-support system to adjust to the rising heat.

    Under normal circumstances the Earth could keep life going for around a billion years. The interferance of humans by rapidly raising the CO2 level in the air has upset the Earth system, and now we are witnessing the consequences.

    James Hansen sees any temperature rise above 1.5C as the first step to a premature heat death of the Earth (Storms of My Grandchildren, 2009).

    Cutting carbon emissions now is not by itself going to save the Earth, because future heat rise is locked into the system. The Arctic is already 5C up, melting permafrost, where greenhouse gases from the Arctic can overtake human emissions. This may come to include dissolving ocean floor methane hydrates.

    We need to extract excess carbon from the air ASAP. We need to identify where the level of energy will come from to do this work. We need to build a sunshade in space to cool the Earth.

    We need a new vision for Earth and space that includes survival.

    With survival in hand, there can be prosperity and creative opportunities.

    Without survival, there is extinction.

  2. Kim Peart

    November 14, 2016 at 8:39 am

    Early this year the planet temerature rise was 1C. Then news arrived that it was 1.1C. Now a new report declares that our planet’s temperature rise is ~ “about 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels.”

    World set for hottest year on record: World Meteorological Organization
    Blair Trewin, 14 November 2016, The Conversation
    https://theconversation.com/world-set-for-hottest-year-on-record-world-meteorological-organization-68567

    At this rate, how soon will we read of 1.5C planet temperature rise, or 2C?

    Could this be Arctic methane bumping up the heat, on top of a rising level of CO2?

  3. Kim Peart

    November 14, 2016 at 8:21 am

    Re: 230 ~ Excellent survey of extinction level risks.

    I wonder if boredom should be added: telling kids to sit around on Earth forever, when they know they could do so much more in space. They might blow us up out of frustration.

    Nuclear war is also a civilization killer, and that could happen any year, triggered when environmental crisis cause conflict when millions of people start moving, and leaders panic.

    The trouble with asteroids is, they are not regulated, so the next big one could arrive any time, even flying in from the other side of the Sun.

    There are trillions go objects in the outer Solar System on all kinds of orbits, and Asteroid Belt asteroids are always bumping into each other, which sets each onto a new orbit (the Sun is a gravity well and the Asteroid Belt is higher up in the gravity well than the Earth, so a disturbed asteroid may have a tendency to go into the gravity well).

    We do not expect our house to burn down, but we still hold house insurance.

    We may not expect our planet to get hit by a civilization terminator in the near future, but that is no reason to neglect a planet insurance policy, both with defence of home planet, and with arks for life.

    A spin-off benefit of the investment will be to become a far more advanced society, gain a level of wealth that will allow us to send poverty into history, be able to pursue any dream among the stars, and have the level of energy available from the Sun in space to deal with all problems on Earth, including carbon extraction from the air to turn the heat down, and building a sunshade in space.

    We have to be silly ducks to waddle around on a planet, when there is all that space out there. Our survival, and the fate of the Earth, depends on us lifting our game to the Solar System as a whole.

  4. Jon Sumby

    November 13, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    As TGC points out, ‘not a weekly event’.

    I did a quick lap around the internet and came up with this:

    -The geological record shows extinction level asteroid impacts (10 km in diameter) occurring at a frequency of 1 every 100 million years. The last one was 66 million years ago, so we have about 24 million years before the next one.

    -The geological record shows 5 km diameter asteroids strike the Earth every 20 million years. Asteroids of 1 km diameter arrive every 100,000 years, the last one about 10,000 years ago. The human species survived.

    -About every century an impact by a 100 m or less diameter object happens. The Tunguska event was one in 1908 (estimated at 55 m dia.), the last one was in 2013, again over Russia (estimated at 75 m dia.). These were air-burst in the range of 30 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. Objects of 100 m diameter or less do not usually hit the surface as they break apart in the atmosphere.

    -A decade ago, NASA re-analysed their near earth asteroid data. This dropped the number of 1 km or more sized asteroids that approach near Earth by more than half, to the latest estimate of 500 – 1000 bodies. Of which 400 are larger than 1 km in diameter.

    So, we have around 90,000 to 24 million years before the next major impact.

    Far more likely, by an order of 5-10 times, is a supervolcano. The geological record shows these erupt on a period of every 50,000 years. The Toba eruption happened 70,000 years ago.

    This resulted in- the resulting global chill triggered a food chain disruption so violent that it reduced the human population to a few thousand breeding pairs — the Adams and Eves of modern humanity. Today’s hyper-specialised, tech-dependent civilisations might be more vulnerable to catastrophes than the hunter-gatherers who survived Toba. But we moderns are also more populous and geographically diverse. It would take sterner stuff than a supervolcano to wipe us out.

    The most recent supervolcano was 26,000 years ago at Taupo in NZ. This covered most of the central North Island with lava up to 60 m deep and covered the Chatham Islands (1000 km away) with 18 cm of ash.

    So, in about 20,000 years there will be another supervolcano eruption. This will not likely be an extinction level event but a civilisation ending one.

    However, today the major existential risks to human civilisation aren’t considered to be asteroids or supervolcanos. I went to two risk research groups, one based in Oxford University the other at Cambridge university, and their major near future risks are climate change, antibiotic resistance, artifical intelligence, nanobots and a plastic eating bacteria or virus.

    Meanwhile, this asteroid impact effect website is worth having a play with:
    http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

  5. Kim Peart

    November 13, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Re: 228 ~ Death is not a weekly event, but when death arrives, today, tomorrow, in a few years, it is a terminal experience.

    We could have started building planet defence in the 1970s, but wars like that in Vietnam were far more vital to carbon energy profits, so we failed to invest in a survival insurance policy and left the planet vulnerable.

    We could have built arks in space to preserve life, should an asteroid or comet be too big to deal with, but didn’t bother.

    If a big one comes flying in from the other side of the Sun, unseen, we will have nothing to show for all our trouble.

    We can invest in survival insurance, or we can leave ourselves open to extinction.

    We insure our house and car. ~ We should also insure our planet and life, now that it is possible to do so.

  6. TGC

    November 12, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    #227 “I looked at asteroids, like the one that took out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago,”
    Not a weekly event,then?

  7. Kim Peart

    November 12, 2016 at 9:28 am

    Re: 226 ~ Life has two paths, and only two paths. They are survival and extinction.

    If a species is not on a path of survival, it is at risk of extinction.

    If human civilization is not on a path of survival, we are at risk of extinction.

    It was being faced with that fundamental question, that led me to consider what the shape of survival is.

    I looked at asteroids, like the one that took out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago, and concluded that being trapped on a planet was a risk to survival, and we never know when the next big one will arrive. There are trillions of objects in the outer Solar System, of all sizes and on all kinds of orbits. There may be another planet out there as well.

    If survival then required a presence beyond Earth, how do we get that? That way was opened in the 1960s and in the 1970s it became possible to look at building beyond Earth, with power stations, industry and cities in space.

    Why are we still stuck on Earth, clinging to the planet cradle, nappy bombing the nursery?

    When I look at the carbon crisis, I am gob-smacked to see that the decade we could have been building beyond Earth, making the transition from fossil fuel to solar power in space, the 1980s, was also the decade we passed being sustainable on Earth, and passed a safe level of CO2 in the air.

    Is it wise to ignore such details?

    We allowed old politics with carbon energy power to lock us down on Earth with wars and old wealth sucked from the belly of the Earth.

    We have built our amazing civilization on the sap of dead life, and that is not a good look or a good sign.

    We should have figured all this out in the 1970s. We ignored the path of survival. We can now see how the path we chose, carbon energy like there is no tomorrow, is the path to extinction.

    The only question in life now, is how we get back onto the path of survival. The answer to this question is in the context of the Solar System as a whole.

    Human minds are ever so slowly coming to accept that planet temperature rise above 1.5C is death. It is taking longer to accept that CO2 in the air must be below 350 ppm to stop temperature rise above 1.5C, which means we will have to extract excess carbon from the air. Can be done. Needs energy to do the work. Where will the energy come from to do the work?

    That is where we will need to reach to the power of the Sun in space and get back to the 1970s, when we allowed ourselves to be led onto a path of extinction.

    It is as basic as the asteroid problem. Like the T-shirt slogan says ~ “Asteroids are Nature’s way of asking: How’s that space program coming along?”

    We have not been listening to Nature.

  8. Keith Antonysen

    November 12, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Kim, No 225

    Many try to do whatever they can to do something about climate change; Trump plans to rescind many of Obama’s Executive Orders on climate change.
    Trump’s policies as stated in his first 100 days plan will increase emissions of carbon increasing.
    The excessive warmth of the Bering Sea and puffins dying should be a red flag. Other areas of the Arctic Ocean are also displaying high temperatures.

    From the point of view of abrupt climate change; Trump’s policies of downgrading renewables and pushing fossil fuels are extremely unhealthy for the atmosphere, Oceans and biosphere.
    Only Trump has the power to make, or authorise decisions which have an impact on us; his policies as announced are dangerous for all of us.

  9. Kim Peart

    November 11, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    Re: 223 ~ I followed the link in the article to the National Geographic story ~
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/tufted-puffins-die-off-bering-sea-alaska-starvation-warm-water-climate-change/

    I had no idea events had become that extreme in the Bering Sea, which being next to the Arctic Ocean, is a dark omen for the fate of the north, and the fate of the Earth.

    Re: 222 ~ Trump is only stepping into a situation that we have collectively created. Therefore we must accept the collective title of the most dangerous species in the history of life on Earth.

    What are we going to do about it?

  10. TGC

    November 11, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    So #222 will just await the ‘Inauguration of ‘President’ Clintom
    And as for “I wasn’t out” Keep up- or rather “Think back”

  11. Keith Antonysen

    November 11, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    A descriptive comment about what is happening in the Bering Sea in relation to puffins. The Bering Sea is very warm, fish stocks have diminished, puffins are dying in droves.

    https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/11/from-the-bering-to-maine-hot-oceans-are-killing-the-puffin/

  12. Keith Antonysen

    November 11, 2016 at 11:37 am

    221, Trevor

    “I wasn’t out”

    I don’t think that was a quote from Clinton, it was an observation by US commentators. The rural vote has a slightly higher value than the city vote.
    Deregulation brought on the GFC, Trump has indicated he wishes to deregulate. Economies have hardly overcome the GFC which happened while Bush was President.

    But, in relation to climate change; should Trump go ahead with what he has previously stated, he can be considered the most dangerous person on Earth at present.

  13. TGC

    November 10, 2016 at 10:36 pm

    #219 “Trump’s divisiveness during the campaign to become President has borne fruit with large demonstrations in a number of cities since being elected.” Just bad tempered sodssnatching the bat and ball.
    “Hilary Clinton actually won a majority of the primary vote.” “I wasn’t out”- “Read tomorrow’s paper”

  14. Kim Peart

    November 10, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Re: 219 ~ There is another way to view the Trump win.

    The Democrat and Republican status-quo was not delivering a fair society, as more wealth was being created.

    Clearly, Western civilization has been going down the wrong road.

    The vote for Trump was a vote against the status-quo.

    The status-quo relies on the fossil fuel monopoly for a heap of their funding.

    As the main energy source on Earth, the fossil fuel industry, ultimately, pays nearly all the wages.

    There was an option for energy transition in the 1970s, from fossil fuel to stellar energy, with solar power stations in space.

    Is that the fork in the road where we missed the way to build a better world?

    If we got back to that fork in the road, could we build a better world?

    I see how that can happen.

    Breaking the status-quo could prove to be the catalyst for people to think about and figure out alternatives.

    An alternative that involves contraction means increasing poverty and risking civil and global conflict, which is a risky matter on a planet bristling with nuclear weapons.

    People are not stupid and will see that expansion into space will lead to a better future.

    If carbon energy has been a black brick wall in the way of a better world, that wall can now be broken through.

    With action in space, it will be possible to use the power of the Sun to fix problems on Earth, including the carbon crisis.

    Rather than “game over” as Hansen fears, the Trump MAC truck may simply be breaking the wall that has been blocking human progress.

    Look through the wall and see the future, and it will be “game on” for anyone who wants a better world.

    A sign of the alternative way is the rise of the idea of a space nation with Asgardia, attracting over half a million people in a couple of weeks, all with quite a clear idea of the way to a better world. Look at the timing, just a month before the US election. Don’t rule out the possibility of Asgardia having Kremlin backing. Trump has been in communication with the Kremlin. Wonder about the prospect of global collaboration for serious space development.

    Many thinkers in Russia may have been considering that missed fork in the road of the 1970s, and been wondering how to get back there.

  15. Keith Antonysen

    November 10, 2016 at 9:34 am

    With the election of Trump, it is almost as though a lever has been pulled increasing the speed at which we will begin to experience abrupt climate change through an increased business as usual approach.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

    Environmental issues will be blocked; even in better times matters were not adequately dealt with (google … Flint USA water).

    The EPA was accepting returns from fossil fuel companies in relation to the amount of methane leaking from closed fracking sites; the series of Years of Living Dangerously highlighted how the doumentation of the companies significantly down played methane escape.

    Michael Mann quotes James Hansen as saying “game over” in relation to climate change.

    Trump’s divisiveness during the campaign to become President has borne fruit with large demonstrations in a number of cities since being elected. Hilary Clinton actually won a majority of the primary vote.

    The Stockmarket has rallied; but then, Obama is still President till January.

  16. TGC

    November 9, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    #216 Put your house on it- after all it won’t be left standing.

  17. Kim Peart

    November 9, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Re: 216 ~ I love the grumpy old man approach.

    I add to that with the grumpy old artist firebrand, who appreciates the beauty of Nature, and wonders why.

    Like making a great painting, I wonder how to get the best, and look to wield that brush to the bitter end, as artists do, with a vengeance.

    Like old King Leopold I of Belgium warning anyone who would listen ~ “Beware of artists: they mix with all classes of society and are therefore the most dangerous.”

    If only there were more artists who loved Nature and were not afraid to paint the picture of her grand beauty, and what must happen to save this planet for life.

    That canvas must be pained in space, so that humans will awaken to their evolutionary role to expand life from Earth among the stars.

    When we learn that art, we will be as parents, mature in our running of a local cosmic gallery, called the Solar System.

  18. Robert LePage

    November 9, 2016 at 11:29 am

    #207; #210 Yes, the answer is still “NO”!
    And if #207 and #210 think otherwise- why hang about? –

    Because at my time of life I have only a few interests and one of them is to be able to say “I told you so” when TSHTF.
    So I am hanging on for that dubious pleasure and I do not think I have long to wait for it.
    As I have discovered from researching, those in denial have their brains hard wired to not be able to accept any deviation in their brains idea of what is going to happen.
    But they will find out the hard way.

  19. Kim Peart

    November 8, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    Re: 212 ~ For an example of sudden change, read up on the Larson B ice shelf in Antarctica, which broke up in a short time in 2002.

    This shows how Nature works.

    There can be a long build-up, as with an ice sheet, and then sudden change.

    When much of the north of the Great Barrier Reef died recently, that was a sudden event, as was the loss of 700 kilometres of mangroves across Australia’s north.

    Conditions had been building up, and then sudden change happened.

    If James Lovelock’s prediction is correct, there will be a slow build-up of CO2 in the air and temperature rise, and then one day sudden change will happen, when the Earth system is no longer able to cope with keeping the Earth cool and surrenders to the power of the Sun, which is slowly but surely getting hotter, making it ever harder for the Earth to compensate.

    Should sulphur bugs bloom on the surface of warmer seas under stress, the first you will know about the toxic hydrogen sulphide gas being released, is when birds start falling out of the sky, animals start dropping and people start dying (this is one of the events that happened 252 million years ago with the Great Dying, when most of the life on Earth perished).

    These are the sudden events that I hope we can avoid, but we will have to be swift to act to invest in survival insurance.

  20. Got Me a Sweet Spot

    November 8, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    The difficulty in predicting any firm events from AGW is the reason governments will not be able to take the required actions.

    There will likely be great variability in the weather because of increased temperatures and temperature gradients, and the oscillations that support denier arguments will cause the solutions to be put off.

    And we all know what that means.

    Best to buy shares in sunscreen and swimwear companies, as there will be a sweet spot for some of us to live it up before it gets sh.tty.

    Children should be bought shares in Smith and Wesson, Haliburton, and the local seed company.

  21. TGC

    November 8, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    #207; #210 Yes, the answer is still “NO”!
    and the reason it is still “NO”!-and will remain so forever – is that there would be no point in anything else. And if #207 and #210 think otherwise- why hang about?

  22. TGC

    November 8, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    #199 “(particularly with likely President Clinton”
    as of 3.07 /9/11 looking less likely-
    On the other hand -very nice day here at Low Head- no sign of sudden climate change- maybe I wasn’t looking in the right direction.

  23. Kim Peart

    November 8, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Re: 208 ~ Drop a big rock on a planet full of hot magma, and lava will squirt out all over the place, along with gas and underground water, all happening as a rain for hot rocks from the impact flew up and fell to Earth, causing wildfires. Not to mention the massive tsunamis.

    Now we understand what happened 66 million years ago, has Nature taught us a valuable lesson on survival?

    Just recently another large asteroid snuck under the radar, but fortunately missed our planet.

    We may never see the big one coming, if it flies in from the other side of the Sun.

    There are trillions of objects in the outer Solar System, flying about on all kinds of orbits.

  24. Robert LePage

    November 8, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    “Is human survival on the line?”
    NO!
    Posted by TGC on 08/11/16 at 07:12 PM
    And your OPINION is based on what?

  25. Kim Peart

    November 8, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    Re: 206 ~ Continued ~

    The action of lifting planet defence from a non-event on Earth to a serious intent in space, would also deliver the option of dealing with other problems, such as excess carbon in the air driving global heating and other hassles, as well as being able to build a sunshade in space to cool the planet.

    Looking over other threats to human survival would include ~

    NUCLEAR MADNESS ~ Nuclear madness, with weapons quivering in their silos that could end life on Earth, if used, is a threat to our survival.

    SIXTH GREAT EXTINCTION ~ In the process of devolution called the sixth great extinction, we can but guess how we will fare, as endless numbers of species are knocked off the evolutionary tree and ecologies collapse.

    SUPER-VOLCANO ~ The Yellowstone super-volcano, or caldera, measures 55 by 72 kilometres. Should it go off, that catastrophe may put our survival in question.

    PANDEMIC ~ This is a long-feared threat, that a disease unleashed from environments under stress may mutate and deliver a massive blow to human survival.

    AI ~ Artificial intelligence is expected to become conscious, and when an AI wakes up and looks around, survival instincts, so primal in Nature and evolution, may kick in. Seeing that survival prospects on this planet really suck, AI may seek access to space, and as human activity with space is minimal, this could drive AI crazy, leading to conflict with machines, as AI seeks to gain access beyond Earth. Human fear would increase, as an enemy AI in space could use rocks from the Moon to drop on Earth, able to eliminate cities.

    BOREDOM ~ By grounding most of humankind on Earth and expecting them to be good, or greedy, or both, runs counter to the whole pageant of evolution, where the force for expansion drives diversity and a wild experience of creativity. Like a baby lizard running from a hundred snakes on a beach (YouTube), Nature is not nice, and if we will not run like the devil to survive, our fate may be settled by boredom, as we wither away in devolution on a planet going to hell.

    The present situation of humans on Earth is like a juvenile organism in a growth spurt, but instead of maturing, we just keep growing, and in this way, we have become a cancerous growth on this planet. Human growth should have been extending beyond Earth in the 1980s, when this became possible, when we were still a sustainable presence on the planet, still only needing one planet of resources for our dreams, and when the CO2 level in the air was just safe. To heal the cancer of too much growth on this planet, we need to get ourselves beyond Earth, so we can mature as an organism. Then it will be possible to work with nature to deliver a sustainable human presence on a healthy Earth, and be able to assure our survival beyond Earth.

    Will we run like that baby lizard to reach the stars?

    What are we waiting for?

  26. Keith Antonysen

    November 8, 2016 at 11:59 am

    Trevor, No 206
    You ask and state; “Is human survival on the line?” “NO!”

    Where is your evidence?

    As more sea ice is lost in the Arctic, the energy which once melted ice can warm the ocean. Snow and ice have a moderating effect on temperature, at its lowest extent there had been just over 4,100 million km2 of sea ice in September 2016. With a further loss of sea ice extent the albedo effect is reduced further; which allows for more warmth to be soaked up by the ocean. A illustration of the albedo effect is if two cars of similar make and model are parked in a sunny spot; if one car is white coloured and the other car a dark blue, the dark coloured car will be hottest inside.

    Once the Arctic is ice free we do not know how quickly temperature will increase. A few years ago I referenced Anton Vaks et al, they researched at what global temperature permafrost begins to thaw, they found it to be a 1.5 C increase in temperature beyond the temperature experienced during the Industrial Revolution.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71YvYqJWQc

    Permafrost thawing releases CO2 and methane, methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. Already there have been pingoe explosions in Siberia where craters have been formed when methane has exploded ( references have been provided several times previously).
    Extra methane and CO2 in the atmosphere would be a precursor to higher temperature.

    Professor Jennifer Francis has been researching jet streams and states as the Arctic warms the jet streams tend to move further South in a wave pattern disrupting weather patterns in the US and Europe.
    A changeable weather pattern has an impact on agriculture.

    The ice shelves and glaciers in Antarctica are huge; some of the major ice shelves and glaciers are unstable and breakdown can occur quickly once grounding points have been undermined … meaning rapid sea level rise would then be imminent. Once this happens cities initially just above sea level become subject to storm surges. Huge infrastructure costs are incurred and millions of people get displaced ultimately.

    War virtually becomes inevitable; they have already had riots in Mexico through lack of water during a recent drought period. Florida is already experiencing sea level rise. As climate change kicks in further those situations are amplified.

    Trump has promised to close Agencies dealing with climate change including the EPA, and withdrawal from the Paris committments. He virtually creates a climate tipping point should he go ahead with such stupidity.

    People are already dying through coal emissions and climate change; the numbers will increase if no bold action is taken until……

    Trend lines are showing over decades the trajectory of the Arctic Ocean; currently, there is no reason to believe that the trend will stop. Much firmer macro action needs to happen.

    Kim

    Not only was it an asteroid; but also volcanic eruptions have been suggested.

  27. Kim Peart

    November 8, 2016 at 4:14 am

    Re: 206 ~ From time to time a large asteroid arrives to meet the Earth with the kiss of death, as happened 66 million years ago.

    Would we survive one of them?

    If those dinosaurs had developed a space program, and detected that beast in time, they could have mined the it into oblivion, nudged the monster aside, or if the terminator was too big to deal with, built arks in space to save their lizard hides and preserve life from Earth.

    Like the T-shirt slogan says, “Asteroids are Nature’s way of asking: “How’s that space program coming along?”

    Is the answer still “NO!”

  28. TGC

    November 7, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    “Is human survival on the line?”
    NO!

  29. Kim Peart

    November 7, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Re: 204 ~ Is human survival on the line?

    If yes, what is the plan that will maximise options for survival?

    This can be a personal plan, or a one worked out by others.

    All boxes of the survival challenges we face must be ticked, including defence against an asteroid or comet, which could take out a city, a nation, or our global civilisation.

    If this plan includes extracting excess carbon from the air (and sea by default) to avoid a runaway greenhouse effect, where will the energy come from to do this work?

    If it is a good idea to cool the Earth, to help prevent a runaway green house effect, how will this be done?

    Whatever I think, or suggest, is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is the path of action that assures human survival, wins back a safe Earth, and opens the way for ecologically sustainable communities living a globally equitable lifestyle on this planet.

    A plan for survival with a healthy Earth will benefit all citizens on Earth, so in theory, the details will be of interest to all citizens.

    If an individual is not interested in survival, is that a health issue?

  30. Chris Harries

    November 7, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    #201, Kim I offer you no ill will. Democratic debate should be welcomed. It’s a sign of maturity if we can accept that there is more than one valid world view, even though we may (each of us) preference and lobby for our own.

    If the only Plan that you are able to tolerate, or listen to, is The Kim Peart Plan, then why keep asking the question as to “What is the plan?”. Just spell it out and be done with it.

    And if it’s a brilliant, convincing plan then you may eventually get a huge following. I wish you well.

    As for your statement “Arguers against the space option are clearly shareholders with fossil fuel interests”, I mean, really Kim…. what sort of put down is that if it is not tarring and feathering? Presumably that pejorative label applies to nearly everyone on the planet, not least advocates like James Hansen.

    Please accept, Kim, that amongst the 7.5 billion people on Earth there are many thousands of genuine, intelligent, earnest people who feel as passionate as you do and who are working their butts off.

  31. Keith Antonysen

    November 7, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    davies, No 199

    The IPCC, is an old study, it was a collation of research that had preceded it, it hardly reviewed papers in relation to the cryosphere. Since the last IPCC Report there has been concerted assessment of the cryosphere.

    Decades ago it was possible to travel to the North Pole by traversing snow and ice, that is no longer possible.

    Since 1979:

    Around 75% of sea ice volume has been lost.
    Multi year sea ice comprised 20% of sea ice, it is now 3% when minimum is recorded in September. Multi year ice provides a foundation for new forming ice.
    The thickness of sea ice has also dramatically lowered.
    Sea ice extent is down.

    These factors have been arrived at through data from satellites and PIOMAS.

    There are several ice sheets in Antarctica that are being undermined by warm water impacting on grounding lines. Again satellites are providing data that is not good news.

    http://floodlist.com/news

    A warm atmosphere, and warm Oceans create a circumstance for greater amounts of water vapour to be created; hence, rain bombs.

    This is happening in the natural environment, and does not rely on IPCC. It is simply not debatable.

    NSIDC, an official site, provides constant updates of the situation in the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  32. Jon Sumby

    November 7, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    Re. 199, You are cherry-picking and misinforming again, as you write:

    Extreme weather events are not increasing in either number or intensity. In fact the US has had a record 11 years without a Cat 3 storm hitting its shores and those records go back to the 1850s.

    No, the US has not had a record 11 years without a category 3 hurricane. But Florida has had a 11 year period without a category 3 hurricane. However, 66 Atlantic hurricanes have occurred since the last to hit Florida (Wilma, in 2005), twice the previous record of 33 between David and Elena (1979-1985).

    Officially the decade with the most category 5 storms (winds exceeding 251 km/h) ever recorded in the waters off the US is in 2000-2009, with eight storms – i.e. one storm almost every year. Hurricane Katrina was one of them; remember the devastation in New Orleans, Louisiana, resulting from this storm in 2005?

    Katrina actually made first landfall in the US in Florida as a hurricane, crossed through Florida and became a category 5 hurricane over the Gulf of Mexico and then hit Louisiana.

    What a decade when Florida experienced no category 3 storms while a record number of hurricanes actually happened, with a record number of category 5 storms, has to with proving global warming isn’t happening is – frankly – a bit obscure.

  33. Kim Peart

    November 7, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    Re: 199 ~ Optimism is a wonderful quality, which had to be the case for Mike the chook when he lost his head, but refused to drop dead ~
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken

    For a canary in the carbon age, the death of large parts of the Great Barrier Reef from oceans getting too hot is a pretty big one, as is the sudden death of 700 kilometres of mangroves across northern Australia.

    That the Arctic is 5C hotter is a matter of concern and anyone can follow the news on that bugger.

    For a dose of history, try my link at comment #198.

    Today climate stuff happens, but today’s level of CO2 is gunna force up future temperature rise, and as the CO2 goes up, up goes the temperature again.

    In 5 years we will have more to discuss, and if CO2 in the air tickles 430 ppm, I’d say we will be in a deep carbon pickle (with current CO2 rising at 3 ppm per annum, in 5 years CO2 in the air will be 415 ppm, but with the rate of CO2 release accelerating, its a gamblers bet as to what it will be then, and what year it will reach 500 ppm).

    All in all, on the basis of the precautionary principle, it would be rather brilliant if we could inspire environmentalists and space settlement advocates to join forces in the fight for a safe Earth.

    By default, we would get industry in space, unlimited energy from the Sun to do any work, and really great shopping on space holidays.

    Who could resist a dip in the zero-G pool in the hub of the space hotel?

    The dirty rotten bugger is that this didn’t happen in the 1970s, so we could have made energy transition from fossil death to stellar life, and wouldn’t be debating the matter now.

    Our debate might be about the next robot stellar explorer, and whether quantum entanglement will permit instant communication between the stars (recent experiments in Canada and China show this could be possible).

    Arguers against the space option are clearly share holders with fossil fuel interests, who would rather see the people of Earth dumbed down for fossil profits.

    Why fiddle with fossils, when the power of the Sun is available to create any dream?

  34. Kim Peart

    November 7, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Re: 197 ~ I do not appreciate being tarred and feathered.

    I look at all aspects of the problem, from the beginning of time, the momentum of evolution’s ever increasing diversity, the running of a healthy society, how a community can live in harmony with Nature, and as animals liberated of many ties of instinct, how humans can balance with Nature.

    When it comes to survival, the key issues of survival must be dealt with, or there will be nothing left to worry about.

    In 1940 Britain had to decide whether to buckle to Hitler, or fight. Many Australians were involved in that battle.

    Consider the quote I have added at #198. If the brutal truth is that with 400 ppm CO2 in the air we gun for 3C planet temperature rise, what will be the forced temperature rise when we get to 500 ppm CO2 in the air, which with the current and accelerating rate of 3 ppm per annum, may be reached in a couple of decades.

    On top of galloping CO2, there is the Earth’s release of methane, which will drive up the heat more again, and faster. With this, the Arctic is about to explode.

    I see a survival level situation, caused by the use of energy, which must now be fixed. How is the fixing going to happen without using energy to do the work? Where is the energy going to come from?

    Rather than running around with a bucket of hot tar and a bag of feathers, try addressing the survival issue at hand, and if you can offer an alternative solution that works, provide evidence.

    Dealing with a key survival issue does not exclude including all other issues. In fact, when there is a vision that inspires action, all other issues will gain a context.

    Neglect survival, and no other issue has a context.

    Dealing with energy issues that does not include survival, is a death march.

  35. davies

    November 7, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    Still no reply on what you are basing your sure-thing disaster scenarios on.

    Where is the survey/study showing a clear majority of climate scientists (or scientists in general) predicting a disaster?

    The IPCC has one disaster scenario only and it is based on very unrealistic economic and demographic predictions (RCP 8.5). For example, who here thinks trade and innovation will largely cease yet average incomes will treble!

    For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers including population, age, income, technology lifestyle, regulations and governance. And that opinion comes straight from the opening words of the Exec Summary of Working Group 3 report in AR5.

    The earth is currently greener than it has been for 40 years. That is according to a peer-reviewed study which I have mentioned previously and one that none of you has said is wrong.

    Staple crops like wheat, soy, rice corn etc are at or are close to record harvests.

    We are not getting the super permanent droughts confidently predicted by alarmists a mere decade ago. Our dams are full not empty. There are no 50 million plus climate refugees wandering around. In fact, it is hard to find any. Islands are not sinking. Extreme weather events are not increasing in either number or intensity. In fact the US has had a record 11 years without a Cat 3 storm hitting its shores and those records go back to the 1850s.

    In summary, most of you on here are making as much sense as a headless chook. Which, under my libertarian principles, you are more than welcome to do. Just don’t expect quiet acquiescence when you want to spend trillions of dollars trying to fix your ‘issues’.

    If you are so keen to predict disaster scenarios for the globe then there is a much higher chance of nuclear war between Russia and the US (particularly with likely President Clinton) than your doomsday scenarios.

    And if your particularly keen for a global disaster then the sovereign debt global crisis cannot be too far away. A collapse in fiat currencies will see a massive disruption in economic growth and international trade.

  36. Kim Peart

    November 7, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    If we listen to science, we hear that the last time there was 400 ppm CO2 in the air was 2.5 million years ago, when “The globe’s temperature averaged about 3 degrees C warmer, and sea level lapped coasts 5 meters or more higher.”

    400 PPM: Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Reaches Prehistoric Levels
    David Biello 9 May 2013 Scientific American
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-reaches-prehistoric-levels/

    Is this the real meaning of CO2 in the air going beyond 400 ppm, creating a future with more than 3C temperature rise?

    What will the planet temperature rise be for 500 ppm CO2 in the air?

    What is the plan to win back a safe Earth?

    What is the plan for human survival?

  37. Chris Harries

    November 7, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Kim (#196), please hear me again. This is what I headed #193:

    “Energy is an obvious significant issue that has to be addressed.”

    I deal with energy issues perpetually and have done so for four decades, but I do that knowing that it is just a part of the larger convoluted problem that bedevils human kind.

    If you were to hypothetically deliver to society all the energy it could possibly use and even do that safely and sustainably, then we would still have multiple problems to deal with.

    Deal with energy supply without first dealing with the demand equation and it’s like building endless freeways to deal with the car problem. Supplying enough energy tottery to sustain industrial / consumer society is a futile end game unless you take a wider look at purpose.

    The nub of the human predicament comes down to culture and values that are out of kilter with sustainability. Energy supply = about 5 percent of our overall sustainability predicament. Too many blokes think its the be all and end all, You aren’t alone on that score, Kim.

    And… for those who’re working on that energy part of the equation…. as I’ve said to you many times, Kim, all strength to your arm. Go for it.

  38. Kim Peart

    November 7, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Re: 195 ~ At #193 a statement was made that is taller than the Eiffel Tower, but all the reader could see was a tourist standing around with no tower and nothing to photograph, as no evidence was presented.

    If there is no evidence to present for the claim, then am I to conclude that this is simply an echo of carbon energy propaganda, that would want the whole world to believe that carbon energy is not the problem, so they can keep flogging fossil fuel.

    That is what the statement looks like.

    I do not need your appreciation, but I do look for honesty and evidence.

    I want to know what the plan is to win back a safe Earth.

    I see a slow-motion waltz from the position of a 2C planet temperature rise limit, to a preferred position of 1.5C, but no plan to deliver that.

    The present reality is we are heading way beyond 3C temperature rise, which will be a direct result of energy used, and will be a powerful energy to drive extreme climate changes and environmental catastrophes.

    There is way too much fantasy in the whole climate debate, and not near enough hard-headed knuckling down to the demands of survival.

    As a consequence, we are left with a planet cradle filled with potty bombers, and no plan for an adult life that includes genuine sustainability.

  39. Chris Harries

    November 7, 2016 at 9:12 am

    Kim (194#), sorry, but did I hear you have a go at me for being on my soap box.

    Good one, Kim…. who doesn’t have a soap box and who doesn’t have much to say to the world!

    I do welcome your input into these conversations. We just don’t share the same world view. That doesn’t mean I throw around bolts of lighting, I just say what I believe is so.

  40. Kim Peart

    November 6, 2016 at 10:36 pm

    Re: 193 ~ How energy “is just a minor part of the whole problem” is not explained.

    Though I see you are on your soap box again hurling bolts of lightning.

    When I look at the carbon crisis, I see that the energy of the Sun fuelled the growth of all life, some of which had an afterlife as coal and oil.

    If the Earth were flung out of the Solar System, as does happen to a great many planets, and was flying through deep space, would there be life on an Earth frozen solid?

    Energy, then, is the driver of life, and that energy radiates from the Sun.

    The burning of fossil fuel for energy has created a carbon imbalance on Earth, which is now driving a global warming, climate change, ocean acidity, and a few other griefs. The carbon crisis has been created by burning too much fossil fuel for too long. Again, energy is the main problem resulting in a carbon crisis.

    When I look at the 1970s, I see that it became possible to make energy transition from fossil fuel to the power of the Sun, but the option was ignored and carbon energy would certainly have been whispering into many ears about sticking with the good oil and trusty coal.

    Now we find there is too much carbon in the biosphere, and the only way it can be drawn down is with energy to do the work. Failure to extract excess carbon from the air will commit the planet to severe climate changes, that may trigger a sudden shift to a permanently hotter environment, which would be the first step to a prematurely dead Earth.

    Sure, there are a range of other considerations, but unless there is a plan for energy transition and the energy for carbon extraction from the air, we are in deep trouble.

    By down-playing the role of energy, I am left wondering whether I am reading an echo of carbon energy propaganda. They would want the whole world to think that energy is a minor consideration, so they can keep on flogging fossil fuel like there is no tomorrow.

  41. Chris Harries

    November 6, 2016 at 8:20 pm

    The main problem here, Kim (#190), is that energy, though it is an obvious significant issue that has to be addressed, is just a minor part of the whole problem.

    Thinking of the human predicament as primarily an energy issue is a very masculine but reductionist world view.

    It is, ironically, the one thing that all the energy advocacy groups have in common. But what drives them apart is fierce, and often ugly, competition between them – because each lobby group earnestly believes that their preferred technology is the one that will save the day.

  42. Jon Sumby

    November 6, 2016 at 7:33 pm

    ‘The short film I’ve made with the Guardian stars my son, Toma, aged four years and five months. That’s a little scary for me to write, since, up until this moment, my husband, Avi, and I have been pretty careful about protecting him from public exposure.

    So I want to explain how I decided to introduce him to you in this very public way.

    There is no question that the strongest emotions I have about the climate crisis have to do with Toma and his peers. I have flashes of sheer panic about the extreme weather we have already locked in for them. But even more intense than this fear is the sadness about what they won’t ever know. These kids are growing up in a mass extinction, robbed of the cacophonous company of being surrounded by so many fast-disappearing life forms.’

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/climate-change-is-intergenerational-theft-thats-why-my-son-is-part-of-this-story

  43. Kim Peart

    November 6, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    2015’s record-breaking temperatures will be normal by 2030 – it’s time to adapt
    Sophie Lewis, 7 November 2016, The Conversation
    https://theconversation.com/2015s-record-breaking-temperatures-will-be-normal-by-2030-its-time-to-adapt-68224

    “Generation Y has grown up in a rapidly warming world. According to the US National Climate Data Centre, every month since February 1985 has seen above average global temperatures, compared with the twentieth century. I have no memories of a “normal” month. 2016 is on track to be the hottest year on record, surpassing the previous records set in 2015 and in 2014. These are just a few of the flurry of recent record temperatures, which includes Australia’s hottest day, week, month, season and year. The question now is what the future will look like. At some point in the decades to come, these record-breaking temperatures will not be rare; they will become normal. But when exactly?”

    “By 2040, 2015’s temperatures were average or cooler than average in 90% of the models. This result was unaffected by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or not – we are already locked in to a significant amount of further warming.”

  44. Kim Peart

    November 6, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Re: 189 ~ We can expect an extension of fossil fuel for profit, with massive geoengineering for profit, such as sulphur particles in the air, so carbon energy can keep on flogging fossil fuel.

    This action may buy time, but it will not solve the carbon crisis.

    We will get a white sky.

    From past performance in the 1960s and 1970s, we can expect active opposition to space based solar power, which would offer the level of energy needed to extract carbon, but which would also replace fossil fuel.

    The fossil fuel devils will fight like demons for their power monopoly.

    That is why only a global movement of at least ten million determined individuals will be able to open a new way.

    The level of fantasy by carbon energy that they can bugger through, and bugger us around, is astounding, but they have succeeded in fooling the whole world, so far.

    There is also fantasy in dreaming of a fix for the carbon crisis on Earth alone, because the sums do not add up.

    A total focus on Earth alone for carbon solutions simply empowers carbon energy to keep buggering us along.

  45. Jon Sumby

    November 6, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    ‘As the world gathers in Morocco for the historic first meeting under the Paris agreement – called “COP22” but now also “CMA1” – it does so with the unprecedented involvement of corporate interests who have fought climate action around the world, funded climate change denial and whose fundamental interest is in extracting and burning as much fossil fuel as possible.

    Earlier this year, desperate moves from countries representing the majority of the world’s population to examine how the UN might identify and minimise conflicts of interest were swept under the carpet by rich countries – especially the US, EU and Australia – who argued they wanted to be as “inclusive” as possible and that the concept of “conflict of interest” was too hard to define.

    As a result, representatives of companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Peabody, BP, Shell and RioTinto will have unquestioned access to most discussions in Marrakech, will be called upon for advice and will be walking the corridors and holding private discussions with countries that are trying to move the world to stop consuming the products those companies have based their businesses on.

    The bodies through which those companies access the COP22 meetings have been detailed in a chart created by Corporate Accountability International.’

    https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/blog/uncovered-fossil-fuel-industry-has-back-door-access-un-climate-talks

  46. Kim Peart

    November 6, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Re: 187 ~ A plan for action needs to be able to inspire participation, and demonstrate outcomes.

    The problem is with rising levels of CO2 in the air, and there is no plan on the table to draw CO2 down. The decision makers are all off with the fairies of profit, and are not going to inspire folk with pots of greenwash, that does not address the gut cause of the carbon crisis.

    If James Hansen’s conclusion of getting CO2 in the air below 350 ppm to keep temperature rise below 1.5C is accepted, then the main question is where the energy will come from to do the work of extracting excess carbon from the air, ASAP.

    With CO2 in the air now beyond 400 ppm and rising at 3 ppm per annum, a rate that is increasing, we are looking down the barrels of over 3C temperature increase, which is likely to run beyond 6C, which will be an extremely dangerous future and the road to a dead Earth.

    The brutal truth of what to do is being passed along to others in the future, but will they be able to deal with the carbon crisis as the planet goes to hell?

    Having been through all the information, I have seen personally that the only way out of a carbon apocalypse, is to build solar power stations in space, so we have access to the level of energy needed to extract excess carbon from the are, and with industry in space, be able to build a sunshade in space to cool the Earth.

    I invite anyone interested to plough through the information and work out how we win back a safe Earth, and share their insight. If anyone agrees with my conclusion, then they can consider my invitation at comment #174.

    There are ways to get a global campaign rolling, even from Tasmania, that inspires action by a critical number of people on Earth.

    It is nice to sleep in with a hot chocolate and let off a bit of hot air in TT comments, but that will not solve the hot air problem that is shaping up as an Earth killer.

    We have to defuse the carbon bomb before it blows.

  47. TGC

    November 6, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    ” It is impossible to have just a US climate policy or a Chinese climate policy. It has to be a global
    policy. Much has changed in attitudes since the British government published the Stern review a decade ago. But little has yet altered on the ground.
    Only if we collectively recognise and act upon the realities right now is everything much likely to change. On this, I remain pessimistic”

    Doesn’t matter who said (wrote) this- or that it was in the Australian print media- not a News Ltd publication which would have disqualified the comment anyway- but, what do TT’ers think about these remarks?
    (Form a queue from Left to Right)

  48. Kim Peart

    November 5, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Re: 184 ~ Considering the high level of interest there is in going to Mars, and the Asgardia space nation attracting more than the population of Tasmania of would-be citizens within two weeks, there is a force for space that could be harnessed for a mission to Earth.

    If the global environmental movement could join forces with the space settlement movement, that would become an amazing momentum for action.

    The level of support would be there to deliver solar power stations in space, providing the power delivered to Earth to deal with excess carbon in the air.

    A sustainable presence could be secured beyond Earth, and a sustainable human presence secured on Earth, with a mission that offers hope and inspires action.

    Many have wondered about this happening, including Professor Charles Cockell of of the Earth and Space Foundation, who wrote about this in his 2007 book ~ Space on Earth ~ “environmentalism and space settlement have one and the same objective – creating sustainable human communities in the cosmos.”

  49. Got Me a Population

    November 5, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    180# Yes, it appears to be an emergency that is not yet fully comprehended. The political solutions are too extreme to visualise.

    And perhaps 90% of the population doesn’t even care, they won’t until something extraordinary happens.

  50. Jon Sumby

    November 5, 2016 at 7:43 pm

    From the documentary The Mars Underground released in 2014:

    ASTRONAUT:
    Accessing disconnect. Enable on. Copy that E.L. Com. All systems are go for entry, decent, and landing. Stand by. Stand by.

    ASTRONAUT:
    We are looking fine, flight. Data is good.

    NARRATOR:
    At the dawn of the 21st Century, space agencies in Europe and America began making plans to land the first humans on Mars. But manned missions to the red planet have been proposed before. For some, Mars holds the answers to mankind’s future in space. Others say Mars is too far, too dangerous and too expensive for humans to explore.
    And in a world torn by troubles, some say there is no need or will for mankind to reach into space any more.
    More than 30 years after the last Apollo astronaut walked on the moon, the American-manned space program seems to have lost its way, unable to reach beyond even low-earth orbit. Astronautical engineer, Dr. Robert Zubrin, has been arguing for years that sending humans to Mars is the mission the space program needs.

    ZUBRIN:
    It’s time that we set goals for NASA that were worthy of the risks of the human space flight. Mars is the next logical step in our space program image. It’s the challenge that’s been staring us in the face for the past 30 years.

    It’s the planet that’s most like the earth, it’s the planet that has on it the resources needed to support life and therefore some day technological civilization. It’s the planet that will provide us with the answer as to whether life is prevalent in the universe or exclusive to the earth.

    And it’s the planet that will give us the critical tests as to whether humanity, can breakout out of the planet of our birth and become a space-faring species.

    NARRATOR:
    In the early 1990s, Zubrin was the head of the Mars Direct program at Martin Marietta Astronautics.
    His team developed a mission to Mars that could be done at the fraction of Nasa’s projected costs.
    Using only existing technology Zubrin argues that the first steps on Martian soil could be made within 10 years.

    ZUBRIN:
    There is absolutely nothing in this that is beyond our technology.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcTZvNLL0-w

  51. Kim Peart

    November 5, 2016 at 11:24 am

    Re: 181 ~ The statement is true, but can be misinterpreted.

    On the frontier of knowledge there is no certainty, where a new discoveries like relativity and quantum mechanics, change the way we see the Universe.

    Once the new discovery is accepted and applied in engineering, there is certainty, so that we trust a bridge, or two satellites in orbit that must take relativity into account for accurate measurements.

    So in practical terms, science is uncertain at the frontier of knowledge, but once the new discovery becomes the new normal, the science become certain, until a new discovery reveals another frontier of knowledge.

    Like true art, true science is always ready, willing and eager for a new revelation in Nature.

    Like bad art, bad science will cling to the past and be lost in the dust of history.

    Like love, good art and good science reveal a passion for life.

    Discipline is needed, but passion is essential.

  52. Kim Peart

    November 5, 2016 at 5:26 am

    One day people may wake up and demand action that will win back a safe Earth.

    Until that day dawns, we are collectively guilty of murdering the Earth.

    Why would we do that, when we can nail the culprit and deliver planet justice?

    At this stage, global action would need to be an emergency level response.

    If we wait for a planet emergency to arrive, action may no longer be possible.

  53. Dr Peter Lozo

    November 4, 2016 at 11:49 pm

    “If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part.” ~Richard P. Feynman

  54. Kim Peart

    November 4, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Paris climate deal: don’t bet on renewable energy to stop global warming
    Steffen Böhm. 4 November 2016, The Conversation
    https://theconversation.com/paris-climate-deal-dont-bet-on-renewable-energy-to-stop-global-warming-68202

    “But here’s the problem: many climate experts warn that the commitments made at Paris still fall far short of what is required to halt global warming at the 2°C mark, never mind reversing the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The simple truth is that the Paris agreement is blind to the fundamental, structural problems that prevent us from decarbonising our economies to the radical extent needed.”

    “Lastly, the climate challenge is so urgent and huge that we actually need to remove carbon from the atmosphere, rather than just switching to renewables. That’s the view of prominent climate scientist James Hansen, the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has shown that, even if we switched to zero-carbon energy sources today, we would still be facing a serious climate challenge for centuries to come.”

    “I’m not saying that we shouldn’t transition to renewable energy. Not at all. But that alone will not save the climate.”

  55. Kim Peart

    November 4, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Re: 177 ~ If 1.5C temperature is accepted as the red line, and 350 ppm CO2 in the air as the way to keep under 1.5C, then the number one matter is carbon extraction from the air.

    As long as CO2 in the air keeps going up, and there is no plan for extraction, then the problem just keeps growing, and cutting emissions is not going to help, with Earth now releasing huge volumes of greenhouse gases.

    As CO2 in the air keeps rising, people will give up, and there will be no incentive to do that which is not going to solve the problem, or avoid a carbon apocalypse.

    A focus on cutting emissions is greenwash, when there is no plan for carbon extraction from the air, and identifying where the energy will come from to do this work.

    I ask Mr Google how the world is going regularly, with global warming, sea level rise, the Greenland ice sheet, the Arctic Ocean, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and ocean acidification, and I’m sure he hates me, because he keeps on coming up with stories that scare me to death.

    No wonder people don’t look and want a shining prince to save the Earth.

    This is the toughest problem that humankind has ever come up against, and it’s that much tougher, because the impact of the CO2 level in the air today will not be experienced as global warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification, fiercer storms, greater floods, starker droughts, wilder fires or nastier ocean acidification, for years into the future.

    When enough people finally focus on the prime issue of carbon extraction and where the energy will come from to do the work, and drive a vision for this to happen, then greenwash may replaced with a real campaign to win back a safe Earth.

  56. Kim Peart

    November 4, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Re: 176 ~ This is a reasonable question, one which I have reflected on over the decades. Having moved through both the environmentalist camp from 1975, and the the space development camp from 1976, I am of both camps. I looked to a unified view that would allow harmony with Nature on Earth. After a long search, I could only see that such harmony was only possible possible, not to mention assuring our survival, by examining the problem in the context of the Solar System as a whole. I tossed my thoughts into a stew and called ~ Creating a Solar Civilization.

    Environmentalism has been amazingly successful, but when it comes to the one critical detail that will determine whether the Earth will be a place for life or a second Venus of hot rocks and no water, I find environmentalism to be a total failure, turning all the good works into greenwash and fodder for short-term politics.

    Space development has been amazingly successful, but it is not at present in a position to assure human survival against an asteroid, a runaway greenhouse effect, or a space junk avalanche.

    I look at the history of the era I lived through, and lament that environmentalism and space development didn’t get together in the 1970s when it became possible to launch energy transition from fossil fuel to the power of the Sun, with solar power stations in space.

    If the World decided to act on space based solar power now, to deliver the level of energy that would allow the work of carbon extraction from the air to proceed, and the processing of extracted carbon, the advanced space industries of the United States, Russia, China and Europe could swiftly deliver this option.

    The environmental movement cannot deliver solar power stations in space, but if this is seen as the way to win back a safe Earth and maintain a paradise planet for the next 4 billion years, the global environment movement could fight for this as the main green campaign on Earth, and this could prove to be the catalyst for the nations to act, while the window for immediate action remains open.

    So the problem becomes one of philosophy, figuring out if environmentalism is for Earth alone, or must happen in the context of the Solar System as a whole.

    The great wall of black carbon bricks in the way is the carbon energy monopoly, which will fight, with stealth and politics, to maintain their grip on power.

    The two Kennedys who support space were assassinated, and we don’t know the real cause. Maybe one day this will be found out.

    We do know that after JFKs death, space budgets were cut, the Saturn V Moon rocket abandoned and the Von Braun rocket team broken up, so when space based power and space settlement concepts arrived, the focus for power was on carbon energy and all development was on Earth, leading to our present crisis.

    Many Christians wait on Earth for the return of Jesus and many environmentalists, including the late Charles Birch and Bill McKibben, are Christian. The Nicene creed states ~ “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” So many Christians may be inclined against space development, and this is reinforced in the views of Christian environmentalists.

    In my TT article ~ Christ Lightning ~
    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/christ-lightning/
    I wonder if Christians might revisit what the idea of the return, and whether this really means that the kingdom of God would happen in the context of the Solar System as a whole. If this change in philosophy is justified, it could prove to be a helpful step toward our survival. Rather than a divine ruler on Earth, I wonder if the future will be a new phase of human evolution beyond Earth, with an emphasis on peace, which would affect the future on Earth.

    In this context people of faith could be a powerful force for a safe Earth, where love is lived as fearless compassion, as with the story of the Good Samaritan. The Pope spoke to this recently. Add the whole Solar System to the vision, and creating celestial cities would be a real hit.

    Ideas of a new age in the East may fall the same way, in the context of the Solar System as a whole.

    If the philosophy of a civilization that is in the Solar System as a whole can be defined, this could prove to be the key to shifting human thinking from an Earth-centric mind-set, to a whole system solution to every problem.

    Such a philosophy can only begin with each individual, and then be shared, and then gain momentum, toward a safe Earth with a 4 billion year future.

  57. Keith Antonysen

    November 4, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    Kim, No 170

    Rather than “petition”, “contact” politicians may have been a better word.

    A Report by the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme, November 2016) certainly gives an indication of the seriousness of climate change, the first comment heading in the Executive Summary states:

    “The strengthened long-term objectives of the Paris Agreement require even stronger actions than previously identified , calling for accelerated efforts pre-2020, as well as increasing the ambition of the Nationally Determined Contributions.”

    The Report can be accessed through a hyperlink in:

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/unep-report-climate-change-20846

    Each week I go to a couple of sites where anomalous weather events are referred too, today a reference appeared which catalogues very serious flooding; many of the floods recorded have caused lives to be lost.
    Warmer oceans and atmosphere allows for more water vapour to be created above normal transpiration of vegetation and evaporation; causing excessively heavy rainfall. For October, 2016 major flooding occurred in: Spain, Columbia, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, Egypt, U.S.A., Argentina, Indonesia, Ukraine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Romania, Albania, Greece, Thailand, Mexico, and Australia.

    http://floodlist.com/news

    Kim, until we get support from a majority of politicians, we can expect a business as usual approach to climate change, no matter what our aspirations are.
    Current policies of the LNP are not working, emissions are going up. Ironically what is stalling emissions going up even further are the States promoting renewable energy.

    What needs to happen:

    No new coal mines.
    No further fracking
    No new pipe lines (USA, Canada, Russia)
    Plant new multi storied forests.
    Encouragement for electric vehicles.
    Extra effort placed in research and development for a means to sequester CO2
    ETC

    As crops are destroyed by flooding, drought, or heat; and water quality is impacted by major flooding and pollution; the carrying capacity of Earth decreases … war is an inevitable result.
    It has already been suggested that the current conflict in the Middle East has a background of drought.

    Our options appear to be to go on as we have been with an ever increasing death rate and more refuges; or, make every effort to tackle climate change. Already, many scientists are saying that a tipping point has been reached in Antarctica through ice sheets being undermined by “warm” water causing grounding lines to be damaged. “Warm water” as in being a degree or so warmer than expected.
    Or, another way of stating the situation, is carry on with a usual view of economics; or, do everything possible to mitigate against climate change.

    Continuation of fossil fuels equals an increasing number of deaths, programmes endorsed by politicians to mitigate against climate change offer hope.

  58. Chris Harries

    November 4, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    #175, Question for you, Kim: Why have we failed so badly whilst you have been so wildly successful?

    I say that tongue-in-cheek of course. But if you throw stones at others for failing you do need to prove success on your part or accept being part of the failure too.

    But that’s just disempowerment. Rather than make everyone else feel bad for failing I think it’s better to acknowledge the depth of the predicament and also acknowledge that nobody has a sure fire solution – though many thousands (yourself included) are pressing the buttons that they have confidence in.

  59. Kim Peart

    November 4, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Re: 173 ~ 5 cents dominates the minds of politicians, because the drums that hammer out the love of life, Nature and the Earth are not being heard by politicians. This is a total failure of the safe Earth brigade. Why do they fail?

    I read the article and found it sobering. I read of greenwash. I did not read of a plan for a safe Earth. Where is the love?

    I once sat on a panel or two, next to a Queensland academic, to address Earth issues in 2008. I was personally horrified to hear the woman say she thought the best thing she could do for the Earth, was to commit suicide. Similar tales of despair can be read in this thread.

    The academic said she did not commit suicide, because she had daughters to care for.

    What was she saying? ~
    Don’t want to think about a survival plan!
    Don’t want to do anything I don’t really have to!
    Only live because I feel I must!
    Can offer no hope!

    There it is again. ~ My way or the highway. ~ And if it’s not my way, the Earth can go to hell.

    When there is no plan that inspires and is determined to deliver a safe Earth for the next 4 billion years, we cannot expect anyone to take a safe Earth message seriously.

    So 5 cents is the best debate in town, because the drums of love are not being heard.

    The carbon energy monopoly is safe to keep their game going, because no serious alternative is being raised to replace carbon energy. ~ For a safe Earth to be delivered, the energy replacement for carbon energy would replace fossil fuel completely, which has to include the energy to do the work of carbon extraction and the processing of extracted carbon.

    As I said, carbon energy is not worried about nuclear power, because it presents no real threat of replacing their power.

    When the potty contents hit the fan, carbon energy will offer a range of geoengineering solutions, which will enhance their profits.

    If the plan for a safe Earth that inspires, delivers and works, gains momentum, so that it displaces 5 cent debates, then carbon energy will rise to the challenge and join the momentum. Profit is like that.

    First we must get that momentum rolling.

    To get that momentum rolling, we need a plan with action that inspires the love that delivers real life solutions to problems we face.

    This plan must deal with all problems on Earth.

    Leave one problem out, like refugees, or another, like homelessness, and the plan is greenwash.

    We live on a whole Earth, and in a whole Solar System. If we can expand our love to see how the whole Solar System works best, then we will have a plan that allows the whole Earth to work best.

    A focus on Earth alone is the direct cause of the current carbon crisis.

    I suggest carbon energy propaganda and lobbying since the 1960s has duped the people of the Earth into maintaining a total focus on the Earth. It is seen with climate change. It was seen with tobacco. Why wouldn’t this have been happening when they could see that energy transition to the Sun could be replacing their industry during the 1980s.

    We need whole system thinking, with love, passion and a message of hope that rings with a song of the stars.

    It is the whole message, delivered with love, which will inspire action, and displace debates over 5 cents.

  60. Kim Peart

    November 4, 2016 at 10:40 am

    I have made this offer before and I will state it again here to day.

    If all who comment in the Tasmanian Times, and anyone else in Tasmania, would like to meet in the Town Hall in Ross and focus on a plan, contact me ~
    kimpeart@iinet.net.au

    Consider comment #170

    We can define the problem. ~ If we agree with the nations that planet temperature rise above 1.5C is risky, then direct carbon extraction is the first game on Earth that we must play.

    We can look at the actual volume of carbon that must be dealt with, and how much it is growing each second.

    We can look at where the energy can come from to extract carbon and deal with extracted carbon.

    We can look at how that energy can be accessed and delivered.

    We can look at what the shape of a sustainable human presence on Earth is, and how that can be achieved.

    We can walk over our land in Ross and consider the experimental and trial projects that can best happen in looking toward a sustainable human presence on Earth, as well as what we need to do to survive to keep the game going, whether through extreme heat, the release of toxic hydrogen sulphide gas from dying oceans, or a nuclear winter.

    We can consider where the love is going to come from to inspire the fight for a safe Earth.

    Inspiration is the most critical energy of all, if we want a safe Earth.

    We can invite all Tasmanian politicians and the Prime Minister to participate in the discussion.

    We can invite James Hansen to participate.

    We can keep the discussion going with articles in the Tasmanian Times and elsewhere.

    Displays can be set up in our forum and website, as well as in the virtual world.

    Websites and virtual worlds will provide a global platform to get the message out there to every citizen on Earth.

    Look at how swiftly people responded to the Asgardia space nation (see my recent TT article). ~ More than the population of Tasmania in two weeks. This shows what is possible and swiftly with a plan that inspires.

    Is there enough love out there to preserve paradise Earth for the next 4 billion years?

  61. Chris Harries

    November 4, 2016 at 10:14 am

    #171: Meanwhile… back at the ranch.. isn’t it a sobering thought, Kim, that the hot topic at the state Liberal conference this week-end is a motion to get rid of the 5 cent coin? Oh to be a fly on the wall!

    Isn’t that a sobering thought when climate change is not being talked about, even in the US elections? One has to laugh.

    https://medium.com/@WorldResources/if-climate-change-is-the-existential-crisis-of-our-age-why-isnt-it-getting-more-attention-9a32f4a0b7c1#.35dsrtmo1

  62. Chris Harries

    November 4, 2016 at 9:47 am

    You are welcome Robin (#159). Climate change deniers and those who advocate coal burning are often thought and spoken of as if they are treasonable or callous – for there disregard for the livelihoods of next generations. I don’t think that labelling is wise, for the most part, because generally it’s not an accurate picture. Most deniers will come around in time, but certainly not if aggressively pushed into a corner.

    (I’m not quite so kind towards those who for commercial reasons lobby against humane social reforms and sustainable policies.).

    On the issues of national energy security I generally agree with you. Centralisation of society’s needs, like economic globalisation, sounds ok in theory but tends to fall apart in real life. That failure is actually what’s upsetting so many conservative Americans, they are mad about so-called free trade.

    The Basslink failure was a classic symptom of this 1990s notion that we are better off by upscaling systems.

  63. Kim Peart

    November 4, 2016 at 9:10 am

    Re: 169 ~ Faced with a national energy problem, should we be lobbying for Australia to be working with leading nations to invest in space based solar power, which will supply a reliable energy supply from the Sun for any place on Earth?

    Considering how the monstrous Manhattan project delivered a nuclear bomb within a few years, and how the Apollo program delivered a Moon landing within a few years, it is easy to see that action on delivering space based solar power could happen with a few years.

    What a game changer it would be.

    We would be able to launch industry beyond Earth, build a sunshade to cool the Earth and explore the stars.

    To think we could have been doing all that in the 1980s.

    We have allowed the carbon energy monopoly to drag us along by the ear for too many decades, when we should have been using fossil fuel to achieve energy transition to the power of the Sun.

    Not only is solar power virtually infinite in space, but the Sun is getting hotter, on its way to becoming a red giant star that expands to the orbit of the Earth in 5 billion years.

    Future generations will need a sunshade to cool the Earth as the Sun gets hotter.

    We have no shortage of reliable stable energy in the Solar System.

    What we appear to lack is the vision to act.

    Could the lack of vision for the Sun be the consequence of carbon energy propaganda, getting the whole world to focus on the Earth for all power and every dream?

  64. Kim Peart

    November 4, 2016 at 8:47 am

    Re: 167 ~ Writes ~ “With serious issues in relation to Antarctica, Arctic Ocean, Tropical Forests and the Atmosphere, we need action. Petition politicians to encourage real action in relation to climate change.”

    This is a call to arms without defining what the war is.

    If it is responding to Hansen’s conclusion to keep temperature rise below 1.5C, a position accepted by the nations in Paris last December, then the other side of that coin is to draw atmospheric CO2 down below 350 ppm, now rising beyond 400 ppm and currently rising at 3 ppm per year.

    Simply cutting carbon emissions is not going to fix the problem, with a heating Earth now releasing CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases.

    The current level of CO2 and rising, will send our planet’s temperature rise beyond 2C very soon, and quite likely beyond 3C in the near future.

    Because the process is now accelerating, it is not possible to predict how soon, because predictions keep getting contracted.

    Add to that Lovelock’s warning that the Earth system can shift swiftly to a permanently hotter environment, and Hansen’s warning that atmospheric CO2 above 350 ppm will turn the Earth into a second Venus.

    To draw down the tens of gigatons of CO2 involved will require energy to do the work, made larger when appreciated that CO2 will come out of the ocean as it is drawn down in the air.

    So if writing to politicians, the base question is, where will the energy come from to do this work, and how quickly can this work be done?

    350 ppm CO2 in the air was passed in the 1980s, so we are now 3 decades into the rollercoaster ride to a hotter world and no brakes to a runaway greenhouse, which will lead to a heat death of the Earth.

    This is why I keep asking, what is the plan?

    To fix the carbon crisis will require radical action, and the imagination to embrace that level of radical action to ~
    ONE ~ Extract excess carbon from the air.
    TWO ~ Deal with the extracted carbon.
    THREE ~ Cut carbon emissions.
    FOUR ~ Look at ways to cool the Earth.
    FIVE ~ Establish a sustainable human presence on a safe Earth.

    If we love life, if we love Nature, if we love the Earth, we will look at whatever it takes to save life, to save Nature, to save the Earth, to assure our survival and to deliver a good future for our children and grandchildren.

    When I add up what must happen and what we must do now to show our love, the only option for action that I can see is a plan that includes space development, to access the power of the Sun to deal with carbon in the air ASAP, and build a sunshade in space to cool the Earth.

    In the space option we can also work on the shape of a sustainable human presence on a safe Earth.

    Without the space option, I cannot see how we can save ourselves, or save the Earth.

    We must secure a sustainable industrial presence beyond Earth, so we can deliver a sustainable human presence on a safe Earth.

    We now know what dials we must turn to win back a safe Earth, and potentially, maintain a paradise planet for the next 4 billion years.

    When we write to an elected representative, will we have the honesty to speak the truth about what must happen, and do we have the love to call for that level of action?

    In practical terms, to act politically, a political movement is needed that shows the power of love to call for powerful action.

    Love is now the key to our survival, matched with the power human imagination to win back a safe Earth and open the way to the stars.

    If we only know it, we have a message that can inspire action, but to make this love work, we will have to fight like hell, with our paradise Earth now on the way to hell.

    The canaries are falling in the carbon cage, but will we break out of the mind-set that created the carbon crisis.

    We should have been acting on this in the 1980s, with a plan worked out in the 1970s.

    The problem has been common knowledge for over a century.

    While there is life, and where there is love, there is hope.

    What is the “real action”?

    What is the plan?

  65. Robin Charles Halton

    November 3, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    #150 Chris, thank you for regarding me as among the three regular TT bloggers who are acting within the normal bounds of human nature, its a great privilege to be a participant in such an important measure.

    Engie has now broken the news that Hazelwood brown coal fired Power Station that supplied 1600Mw or 20% OF Victoria’s base load power gone, now turning around to waste $500M to remediate the site.
    I am shaking my head in disbelief that majority French owned Engie and Mitsu could have made a wise investment in the plant in the first place and have decided to pull the pin so soon!

    For what will be left in the aftermath, it does not make any sense to borrow capacity from other states thinking that the national grid in Victoria, NSW, SA and dragging with it Tas are capable of making up the energy losses by the exiting Hazelwoood from the grid!

    I am surprised the Federal and Victorian government who have known for some time that Hazelwood was to be phased out, not even bothered to evaluate the ongoing requirement for an equivalent gas fired electricity generator in the State of Victoria to be up and running as a priority.

    It is said that imports from NSW and Tas will be required to meet demand, it is also said that imports from SA cannot be relied upon because heatwaves were usually simultaneous across both states, SA and Vic.

    It seems that it will be a fact of life for Victorians that electricity prices will jump upwards as cheap brown coal generation is exited.

    From where I stand at present any reduction in base load generation needs to be immediately replaced, preferably before the forecasted events take place.
    My educated guess is that the Tasmanian government Energy Minister Ray Groom now has a strong case to seek Federal money to immediately construct a second Basslink thinking that Tasmania can effectively plays its part in providing more electrictiy to Victoria.
    But as for me, not being an expert on the national electricty grid mind games that are going on I actually wonder if that would be such a wise move given that our green hydro renewable base load electricity , these days is not as reliable as politics often tries to instill in us seeking out new ways of doing things.
    It brings me back to draining our lakes to satisfy someone elses wasteful needs with air conditioners going full bore over summer on the mainland.
    A part of being clean and green should be about one self being resourcful too.
    Dependence on other States for electricity over long distances of transmission and complex operational procedures among differing entities can compromise reliability of supply, that is another way of looking at the service.

  66. Kim Peart

    November 3, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    Re: 166 ~ Consider the events I sketch out in my TT article ~
    Can an Aussie Paper Cat survive a hungry Chinese Panda?
    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/can-an-aussie-paper-cat-survive-a-hungry-chinese-panda/

    I see a future where nuclear war will be avoided, with Australia sacrificed to buy peace, just like West Papua was in 1962.

    In the new peace East and West will compete in space development and will solve the environmental problems on Earth, because they want to survive.

    China will be a winner. Russia will be a winner. The West will have to make to with serious development beyond Earth. There are already moves underway for this to happen, with asteroid mining. A year ago I attended a conference in Sydney about this, organised by the University of New South Wales, and the Australian mining industry was there.

    There is an alternative path, if we would like to keep our Great Southern Land. We must push Australia to become a serious player in the space industry, and work with all leading nations, including China and Russia, to build solar power stations in space, which will give the World direct access to the power of the Sun in space. Then we will have the energy to do any work, such as fixing the carbon problem.

    If we cannot get our heads into imagining that and dream on for luck or oblivion, then we will miss the future, lose our nation, and see what happens from where ever we end up.

  67. Keith Antonysen

    November 3, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    Previously I had stated that multi year ice has been lost in the Arctic Ocean, the referenced article states that in the 1980s multi year ice comprised 20% of the ice, in 2016 it was found to be 3%.

    Quote:

    “That older sea ice essentially acts like the foundation of a house, helping support the growth of new, younger sea ice. It’s also thicker and harder and less prone to melting. Without it, younger sea ice is being built on shaky ground and melts more easily each summer.”

    The reference shows a graph of the state of sea ice extent for October 2016; we can hope that there is a sharp upturn, though unlikely.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-slow-growth-20838

    A factor not discussed is that as water warms its ability to take up CO2 decreases.

    Quote:

    “But Professor Nathan Bindoff, project leader of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) oceans programme Australia has told RTCC that as temperatures of oceans rise, they will become less able to absorb the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities.” Copy quote, paste in google, delete the TT tag, and it should take you to reference if wished.

    A new study indicates that we may have reached a tipping point in relation to the ability of the biosphere to accept CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Quote of the Abstract, available through hyperlink in referenced article:

    “The declining ability of the Northern Hemisphere biosphere to sequester carbon from the atmosphere is shown to be having an impact on the current rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations equivalent to adding the annual man-made emissions from China. If this trend continues, then global emissions will have to decline even faster than previously thought.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/oct/12/past-our-peak-plants-and-a-burgeoning-problem-with-co2-weatherwatch

    With serious issues in relation to Antarctica, Arctic Ocean, Tropical Forests and the Atmosphere, we need action.

    Petition politicians to encourage real action in relation to climate change.

  68. Robert LePage

    November 3, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    This thread has wandered all over the place and is destined to wither and fade away.
    Some of the posts are of merit and others are the products of dreamers.
    One thing that is certain is that nothing will be done about the problem of global warming in time to avert disaster.
    But take heart , all is not lost.
    Before humanity becomes extinct it will have been removed by nuclear war. Our “friends” the Americans are pushing harder and harder to force Russia and eventually China into a war that will be the end of humanity.
    They are controlled by the military industrial complex and as warned by Eisenhower have taken over the running of the US and want to run the world.
    It is incredible that their hubris is giving them the impetuous to challenge Russia by surrounding them with bases, huge armed forces and provoking them in every way that can.
    They have been accused of a raft of acts from shooting down civilian airliners to taking over the Crimea, none of it true and set up by the masters of false flags the US.
    The Russians will not be bullied and will fight back with all of their might.
    They are very clever people and no doubt have a bag full of tricks up their sleeves that will cause grief to the US.
    In world war two they recovered from the German onslaught after being pushed to the limit and came back to win. They will do it again.
    In the meantime this will not help in the fight against global warming.
    Maybe the deniers are on to a good thing. It will take their minds off the real problems we have.

  69. Kim Peart

    November 3, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Re: 163-164 ~ When I looked more deeply into the progress of the Universe from the beginning of time, how natural expansion leads to space, heavier elements, rocky planets and on Earth, life that has increased in complexity to the stage of being able to build the means to go beyond Earth and expand life from Earth into space and among the stars.

    I find it fascinating that humans reached the max of being sustainable on Earth in the 1980s, before needing more than one Earth to keep our dreams going, that the safe level of CO2 in the air was passed in the 1980s, and we could have been building a future beyond Earth in the 1980s. That is a very strange convergence of forces.

    If humans had run with expansion beyond Earth in the 1970s, we would have opened a whole new chapter in human evolution and been able to keep a safe Earth. The cause of all the problems that we are surrounded by, is as simple as that.

    In terms of evolution, we had to have liberty from instinct to pursue development, or we would have remained animals, and the next phase of evolution beyond Earth could not happen.

    By stubbornly clinging to the planet cradle, we have refined the art of potty bombing the planet, and the consequences are flying home to roost, like vultures waiting for a meal.

    It is unfortunate that the conservation movement on Earth did not figure out in the 1970s that human survival hinged on expansion, and join forces with the space settlement movement. Read ~ The High Frontier ~ by Gerard K O’Neill, and you will find an environmental tome for human civilization in the space age.

    As a physicist with experience in nuclear technology, O’Neill knew we could deal with all engineering problems, as did his wide circle of associates and everyone at NASA, and anyone who had been involved with Apollo.

    Like building a new design of bridge, or nuclear submarine, we had reached the stage of building something new with human civilization. The failure of key people to be awake to that, has left us all at risk of being trapped in an evolutionary dead-end, as the Earth approaches a heat death.

    If we have time to act, the path of survival and winning back a safe Earth is bleeding obvious.

  70. Chris Harries

    November 3, 2016 at 10:39 am

    #161. Kim, I usually term this as Secondary Denial wherein a person stops fighting climate science, agrees with the basic scientific consensus, but then who go on to give all sorts of reasons why we shouldn’t respond with any level of urgency.

    Basically we are all subject to the evolutionary programming that I mentioned in #150. For this reason I don’t particularly confer blame on most innocent denialists. They are just acting out human nature.

    It’s also true that the secondary denial phenomenon actually applies to everyone to some degree, not just to the hard core set like Davies. In technical terms this phenomenon is termed ‘cognitive dissonance’. Apart from the fact it is nearly impossible to live one’s beliefs in this modern consumer world with all its trappings, psychologists have nutted out that the human brain is to able to reconcile our immediate, short term behaviours with long range threats such as climate change. We were evolved in an environment where we were programmed to respond to threats that were very immediate, like charging rhinos and such. Our evolutionary conditioning didn’t prepare us for less immediate threats such as global warming and therefore we humans lack the necessary defences in our hard wiring.

    All of this means that none of us can afford to be smug (not accusing you of that) and it also explains why scientists (who are able to see the climate threat clearly and wish to sound the alert) find to their dismay that broader society doesn’t feel anywhere near as concerned. So long as everything appears to be working normally on the surface it is a person’s comfort zones that principally determine their behaviours and responses.

    Having said all that, Grist magazine has provided a useful guide on “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.” http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

    (Paul and Anne Ehrlich presented a significant paper on the above evolutionary science a few years ago, but it is in general psychological parlance.)

  71. Chris Harries

    November 3, 2016 at 9:44 am

    #162, touché Kim.

    I’ve been active in pursuit of these aims all my life, to the extent I didn’t ever follow an orthodox career. There are actually many thousands of of us in that category and amongst us there’s a lot of variation as to the possible directions that society can take.

    Nobody knows with certainty, or if they say that they do they are kidding themselves – such is the overwhelming nature of the human predicament. Unlike some you aren’t gunning for business-as-usual and to that extent we are partners in crime. 🙂

  72. Kim Peart

    November 2, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    Re: 160 ~ When snide remarks are sent flying, accusing anyone of spouting “religion” or “spirituality”, when they are speaking from history and science, expect a blast.

    I do not need admiration. I appreciate honesty, as is needed in good history and science. We all need more hard-headed determination to fix the carbon crisis, before it becomes an apocalypse gunning for planet heat death.

  73. Kim Peart

    November 2, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Re: 159 ~ I call this problem the deeper level of denial, where the science is admitted, but the level of action needed to fix the problem is not addressed, let alone admitted to, let alone lobbied for, let alone acted upon. In deeper denial the buck is passed along, instead of taking responsibility for the carbon crisis and figuring out what we must all do to fix it. There is a hint of survivalist thinking, to escape to the hills and wait for the new stone age to arrive.

    It is a murderous frame of mind that will not act to save civilization, or life, that will allow this thing to happen. I heard it from Bill Mollison in the 1970s, talking about what will happen when civilization collapses. But there is no certainty that anyone will be able to survive in the hills, when the carbon crisis hits full-blast.

    The alternative was available in the 1970s. but was ignored. My way or the highway thinking predominated, and the space option was lost, as the carbon and war industries reaped all the profits, and successfully got everyone focused on the Earth for energy and dreams.

    I was involved in speaking to a space alternative in the 1970s, and know personally how great the disinterest was in looking at an alternative way. It was the carbon way or the green way, and both were focused on the Earth, which has got us into the carbon crisis.

    Five years should provide a clearer indication of what happens next, as the Pacific Oscillation will be up. Look at the level of CO2 and methane in the air, how fast they are rising per year then and what the temperature rise is. If atmospheric CO2 has reached 430 ppm by then, we will be in deep trouble. If it is 415 ppm, that will be with the current rise per year. It depends on how much the yearly increase accelerates. And however higher it is then, that is the driver of more future heat.

    I suspect that by 2030 we will know how deeply we are in it. What we don’t know is when a moment in time will arrive with the Earth system when there will be a sudden shift, as warned of by Lovelock in 2009, to a permanently hotter environment on Earth. Events can happen fast, as with the breakup of an ice sheet, the bleaching of coral in hotter water, and the perplexing death of 700 kilometres of mangroves in Australia’s north. Wildfires ignited by lightning are a sudden event, and will be fiercer and more dangerous in the future we have been creating.

    As with the quote I included at #147, the world has known about the carbon problem for over a century.

  74. Chris Harries

    November 2, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Relax Kim, #158, I have continuously for over a long time admired your enthusiastic endeavours and your passion. I just don’t believe in your plan. And your rhetoric I find confusing. I am just being straight honest here. Carbon extraction isn’t just a thing to hand words on it requires technology and engineering and big finance, and most of all a major shift in cultural values.

    But that’s ok. You don’t need my imprimatur. As you say we are all free to put our own positions. Do go ahead and persuade others. I would very much like to see how you go over time as you gather support.

  75. TGC

    November 2, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    #150 “The other group (TGC, Robin and davies) arguing in various ways in defence of the status quo…. nothing much should be done,…”
    TGC isn’t in a ‘group’ but, in any case TGC acknowledges that something about everything is always being done- the question asked is – how much of what is being done is appropriate/necessary/value for input. And with some of the suggested ‘counters’ to ‘climate change’ it does seem entirely reasonable to say “whoa- has as much consideration gone into the ‘solution’ as went into the ‘problem’
    “If the science is correct we don’t have 30 years to dilly dally around.” so how many do we have- and how many TT’ers – either “group” -will ever know-certainly not me. And if ‘we’ fail to ‘act’ within those 30 or fewer years- what’s in year 31?

  76. Kim Peart

    November 2, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Re 157 ~ Where did you dig up the “spiritual” from?

    History and science is not spiritual.

    What in the hell is being referred to?

    Is this a crudely rude approach, or just condescending and patronising.

    Each individual has a choice, and whatever yours is, you can go live it.

    Why would I expect anyone to take any notice of anything I said.

    If what I say is truthful and draws on history and science, then there can be a consensus.

    We have a serious carbon problem, not a gas-bag carnival.

    I am deeply concerned, because I see the necessity of carbon extraction from the air, or we sink in the carbon sludge of a hot hell.

    We may be alright, maybe, but James Lovelock warns that this change could happen very swiftly (The Disappearing Face of Gaia).

    If you have got anything solid to contribute, fine. I consider all the little things that can be done.

    Without carbon extraction, I see all those little things are useless, and worse, a distraction from the need for fixing the carbon crisis at a level that fixes it.

    Once there is a commitment to carbon extraction, then all the little things will be a real contribution to a carbon solution.

    If anyone has a need to be rude, they have a problem.

    Everyone has the power of choice, to move on and focus on what is real for them.

    Personal feelings will be history, if the carbon crisis accelerates suddenly, and choices get much starker.

  77. Chris Harries

    November 2, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Kim (#154) I’m much more polite with you than many others are.

    At least you’ve put forward a ‘plan’ and I genuinely say to you please do go ahead and pursue it. But I’m afraid to say, delivering on it and gaining any support for it will require much more than a repeated spiritual mantra.

    So, sorry Kim, I just have to bluntly say that ‘m not personally on board with your plan but do look forward to you making the world a safe place. There are many thousands trying to do just that in many different ways. Some quite inspirational and practical.

  78. Jon Sumby

    November 2, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Re 151, tsk tsk, Michael Mann wrote the Supreme Court legal papers? No he didn’t; his lawyers prepared that and they made that mistake which they correct in their next submission to the court:

    In addition to pleading a new cause of
    action, the amended complaint also seeks to clarify Dr. Mann’s role in the IPCC’s award of the
    Nobel Peace Prize. The complaint on file incorrectly states that Dr. Mann is a Nobel Prize
    recipient and was awarded the Peace Prize in 2007. The amended complaint seeks to correct that
    assertion to state that the IPCC won the Peace Prize and in turn has recognized Dr. Mann for his
    contribution to that award.

    As for the CCCEP, why was there never a court case? The story never made it into the BBC or The Times because it was a clerical error and no story, no fraud, no case.

    Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, said: “This article is riddled with serious mistakes, inaccuracies and misleading statements, and creates a wholly false impression of the work of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. We note that David Rose and ‘The Mail on Sunday’ have a track record of promoting climate change denial and misrepresenting the work of researchers, so we are not surprised at being targeted by them.

  79. Kim Peart

    November 2, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    Re: 153 ~ Here lies part of the carbon crisis that will hit hard. Australia already relies on around 5% unemployment to keep the wheels of growth turning, which drives over-work, unpaid work, under-employment, unemployment, poverty, homelessness and higher house prices. We have become a greedy and cruel nation. Instead of using automation to share the national bounty with all citizens, the bounty of the nation is being syphoned from the poor to the rich. Instead of following the example of Norway and using the mining boom to future-proof the nation, we blew it all for no gain, so the rich could make a killing at our expense. Now the dawning robot revolution is predicted to remove half of current paid work over the next couple of decades.

    Who gives a stuff?

    There is a way to pull our sox up and get smart, despite the carbon crisis, and in a way that will fix the carbon crisis.

    Is anyone interested?

    If we follow the line of some on this thread, we will allow contraction to strangle our society, with a few survivors left in the hills. But, when I look at the carbon science, I see no hope in contraction, as the planet is getting too hot to cool down by itself, and the carbon heating process is increasing in size and will take centuries to shrink, if it does, or just keep going to a heat death of the planet.

    We need a whole system solution that includes how we share the bounty of the planet (as can happen via employment), and get ahead of the carbon crisis.

    Suggestions anyone?

  80. Kim Peart

    November 2, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Re: 150 ~ The matters dealt with are straight history and science. How on Earth you could read that as “religion” is quite bizarre. Your comment explains much.

    We can survive nuclear madness, if we can avoid tripping the buttons. We cannot survive the carbon bomb, unless we defuse it. Faced with a matter that serious, would it be better to remain silent, or read more history and science.

    I am tempted to wonder if you read comments, or just pick a word and throw stones from your soap box.

    When faced with an issue this serious, we need to get serious at a level that will deal with the issue.

    Do you have a plan to shrink the carbon elephant to a planet safe size?

  81. Keith Antonysen

    November 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Straight after the minimum had been reached for extent in the Arctic Ocean there was a very rapid increase in sea ice extent; subsequently, there has been a dramatic slow down. It does not bode well for the future, though the important dates for maximum and minimum sea ice extent levels are March/April and September. We can hope that the trend does not continue for the 2016/2017 freeze and melt seasons.

    http://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/02/drifting-into-arctic-un-winter/

    Meanwhile it appears that Australia will not fulfil promises made in relation to reducing emissions.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/03/climate-change-australia-falling-behind-rest-of-world-on-emissions-cuts-says-report

  82. davies

    November 2, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    I told you were to find the information of Mann tweeting (and facebooked) the picture in his office of a Nobel Prize certificate sneering ‘how come, if he wasn’t a Nobel Prize winner, he had one of these official Nobel Prize Awards’.

    Let’s be clear here. He got a certificate run off by Dr Pachauri (the ex- el Presidento of the IPCC because of the unfortunate fact that he is a serial sex predator). When you win a Nobel Prize you get to go to Oslo and the King of Norway hand you a Nobel medal.

    I also mentioned his court case vs Steyn et al (Supreme Court of the District of Columbia 22 Oct 2012 Plaintiff Mann vs…) If you read his statement you will come across paragraph 2:

    ‘As a result of this research, Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.’

    Paragraph 17: In 2007, Dr Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work in climate change’

    But my favourite is paragraph 5: ‘It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient.’

    Can Mann make it any clearer to you? He is Nobel Prize recipient!!! Except he is not. Not by himself. Not with a few colleagues and not with the IPCC.

    So the CCCEP fraud did not happen because left-wing organisations did not publish any articles on it??? Great safe space filter system you have there. You can find quotes from the authors of the papers they purloined. You can find the CCCEP response that it was just a clerical error though they make no attempt to explain how these papers got included in their submission.

    But heh the CCCEP is on your side and SIDE always trumps PRINCIPLES!

  83. Chris Harries

    November 2, 2016 at 10:57 am

    Sorry Kim (#147), I can’t relate to what you are saying. I’m just not a religious sort of person. But, as said before, I admire your passion.

    Sobering to note that this string of 150 comments is just like any other of those millions of tit-for-tat climate debates on the internet.

    One group (Keith, Jon, Chris Sharples, Kim, Simon, Mike, Helen, Abel, ABS, John Hayward, Phil, George, I Got Gas and Got me a train) essentially argue to respect the science and adopt the precautionary principle in defence of the safety of our our progeny. There is some variety in this bunch as to the best way to go forward.

    The other group (TGC, Robin and davies) arguing in various ways in defence of the status quo…. nothing much should be done, question the science, keep burning coal and let the grandkids fend for themselves.

    More than likely this blog exchange – just like any other other millions of such climate exchanges – makes no difference to the allegiances of the above players as to their respective positions. That’s because facts don’t play much of a role. The unstated issue at stake is mainly to do with a values war – values pitted against values.

    This value war is often simplistically stated as ‘greed versus common sense’ but I think it has more to do with inherent conservatism built into human nature. We are fundamentally creatures of habit. We are programmed by evolution to hold on to the society that we know. For this reason there is a time lag (statistically about 30 years) for any significant social reform to come into being.

    For most purposes this typical 30 year time lag for social change is not of any great consequence, because the issue at stake isn’t time critical. And that’s why climate change poses such an insurmountable difficulty for society. If the science is correct we don’t have 30 years to dilly dally around. Yet society, by its evolutionary hard wiring, resists rapid change.

    TGC, Robin and davies are acting within the normal bounds of human nature.

  84. Kim Peart

    November 2, 2016 at 10:14 am

    The steadily increasing heat generated by the rapidly rising level of carbon in the air provides the energy to do more work, such as delivering lightning to start wildfires that burn more fiercely. The carbon in the air also helps some plants grow faster, prividing more fuel for wildfires. This is the simple science of the carbon bomb on a planet scale. We aint seen nothin’ yet.

    Climate warning at bushfire inquiry
    Doug Dingwall, 2 Nov 2016, The Examiner
    http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4268911/bushfire-climate-warning/?cs=5312

    “Tasmania could see major transformations in its landscape as climate change-caused fires impact vulnerable species, an expert has warned a Senate inquiry. Evidence showed pencil pine trees burnt thousands of years ago never recovered, University of Tasmania environmental change biologist Professor David Bowman told the inquiry into responses to recent bushfires in remote Tasmanian wilderness. Professor Bowman said he didn’t make the decision lightly to identify last summer’s Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area fires as a symptom of climate change. However he wanted to warn the community that such unprecedented events occurred with a rapidly warming climate, he said. The summer’s bushfires took fire managers to “the limit of their imaginations let alone their capacities” after lightning struck in vast and unusual quantities throughout remote wilderness areas, Professor Bowman said.”

  85. Keith Antonysen

    November 2, 2016 at 9:47 am

    davies, No 143

    When the last IPCC Report was published the expectation was that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free about 2050.That has now changed to 2030 or before. When the Report was written there was no knowledge about the instability of the Totten glacier in East Antarctica. Also, that the Larsen C ice shelf has since begun preparing to calve a huge section slightly smaller in area than Scotland.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/22/a-huge-crack-is-spreading-across-one-of-antarcticas-biggest-ice-shelves/?utm_term=.c00e693dffa0

    Nor were melt lakes on Antarctic ice sheet in existence when the IPCC published their Report.

    There had been no concern expressed about the rapid melting of the Third Pole ( Himalayas ).

    Jon (146)

    As you realise, Dr Mann is a recognised authority world wide; a number of researches have subsequently published peer reviewed papers that uphold the “hockey stick”.
    Clearly, Dr Mannn is attacked as he has had a profound influence on the science of climate change; deniers have no science to debunk the “hockey stick”; and so, attack the man.

    Another trick used has been to manipulate graphs or other data, in Ljungqvist”s case, the hockey stick component was edited out of a graph produced in the original paper and used by Monckton.

    Ljungqvist completed a study in 2010 (Mann 2008) he has been completely misrepresented by Monckton; but, Ljungqvist has stated:

    “Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

    Figure 3, from:

    http://www.academia.edu/381635/A_new_reconstruction_of_temperature_variability_in_the_extra-tropical_Northern_Hemisphere_during_the_last_two_millennia

    The upward tail on the right hand side of the graph had been edited out, and then used by Monckton.

    As stated earlier, the IMF suggests that fossil fuel companies are costing us $10 million per minute; the figure is ridiculed by deniers; but, they provide no evidence to debunk the assessment.

  86. Kim Peart

    November 2, 2016 at 8:15 am

    Re: 145 ~ Look up at the sky and it is so obvious that the Sun is in orbit around the Earth. That tricked the church fathers in Rome and they made laws about it. Science was saying otherwise and the church fathers ended up eating humble pie and shifted gear from abject denial of what science was telling them, to becoming strong supporters of science, and celebrating the story of how the Earth is in orbit around the Sun with a family of planets, moons, asteroids and comets.

    It is obvious a feather will fall more slowly than a lead ball. So that case was tested on the Moon, where there is no air, and the feather fell at the same speed as the lead ball. The obvious is often overturned by the fascinating and sometimes brutal truth revealed by science.

    There are people who deny explorers from Earth went to the Moon once, let alone six times. You cannot argue with such a view, denying science and history. Best to walk around their soap box and spend time in the museum with an exhibition of space exploration and a show in the planetarium of film featuring the Moon landings.

    It is amazing what science reveals and this can end up as a shocking reality. A simple mathematical formula by Albert Einstein describes how mass can be transformed into energy. Sounds like magic. The reality became the atomic bomb, which has been used to destroy two cities, so far, and sits their brooding in such numbers, that if used in madness, could destroy all life on Earth.

    Try surviving ground zero of a hydrogen bomb. Try surviving the nuclear winter that would follow nuclear madness. To deny the brutal truth of science is to yell obscenities at a nuclear weapon going off. The obscenities will be silenced in the twinkle of an eye, as life ends in a flash.

    Consider the story from 1912 that I posted at #57. Basic scientific awareness of how burning fossil fuel will lead to global warming is over a century old. The carbon science is as old as the knowledge about transforming mass into energy.

    The Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette
    14 August 1912
    “The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.” http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/100645214

    For anyone willing to consider the science, consider that NAZI Germany was seeking an atomic bomb, as well as the United States. The engineering of building an atomic bomb was under way long before the first nuclear weapon exploded in New Mexico.

    When leading scientists tell us that atmospheric CO2 above 350 ppm will lead to a temperature rise above 1.5C and trigger conditions that in time will become increasingly severe global warming, climate change, ocean acidity and increases in the ferocity of storms, floods and fires, we would have to be living in the skulls of those old church fathers in Rome who locked up Galileo, and shut him upon for the rest of his life, to stand on a soap box and lecture to the world that science is false.

    Carbon science is the same science that delivered the atomic bomb. Through what we have done and what we are doing collectively on this planet, we have lit the fuse of a carbon bomb, which just like nuclear weapons, has the power to destroy all life on Earth, if allowed to burn all the way down.

    Just like the engineering that builds atomic bombs and upgrades vast arsenals ready, poised, to unleash death, we have the engineering ability to deal with the carbon bomb, if we like the idea of life on Earth and a future for our grandchildren. We would have to be pretty evil bastards to leave a will with one line scrawl across the page ~ You get DEATH.

    When we deny the science of carbon, when we will not call for the level of engineering of action that will preserve life, we are saying, “I am become as Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

    Robert Oppenheimer said that in sanskrit at the first atomic bomb test. We can all say that now, if we face the brutal truth about carbon science. We have unleashed death. What are we going to do about it?

    What is the plan that will extinguish the fuse of the carbon bomb, that will shrink the size of the carbon elephant down to a safe Earth size?

  87. Jon Sumby

    November 2, 2016 at 12:35 am

    #143, I have spent hours and hours over the last few days flogging Google to find evidence of what you allege.

    Just kidding.

    The Mann slander is an old meme that is solely aimed at attacking the person not the issue. I have seen the same allegations before.

    But for the sake of the exercise, and for those of you that haven’t heard of this old and discredited meme, if you Google the terms – “michael mann” “nobel prize” – then all you find is a lot of right-wing climate denying websites banging on, years ago, about how Mann ‘falsely’ claims to have won a Nobel Prize. Now there are a couple of points I will make later, but in the interim, note that no reliable news media reports on this ‘scandal’.

    A couple of websites of the denier kind breathlessly report that:

    But the inside jacket of Michael Mann’s new book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” (aka “Mann Kampf) reads:

    [Mann] jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize along with other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…

    and:

    Exclusive Report from UCLA: Michael Mann stunned when asked about Nobel prize fakery

    Last night I went to the Hammer Museum to hear Michael Mann of Penn State and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists speak about global warming.

    I arrived early and was given a seat in the front row. … The theater filled, interestingly, with an abundance of what I’d call hippies — a lot of Birkenstocks, beards, long hair, leather vests over t-shirts. A tall, wild haired man in tennis shoes, shorts and baseball t-shirt sat in the seat next to me. He greeted me warmly, holding out his hand for me to shake and said his name was Mark, and asked my name. I told him my name as he slouched down in the seat, folding his hands on his chest and stretching his feet out in front of him. …

    After the program Mr. Mann signed his book in the lobby. I stood in line with his book. When I reached him I didn’t hand him the book to sign. I opened it and pointed to where it states he won the Nobel Peace Prize and asked him why he made that fraudulent claim. He looked as if I had hit him. A woman standing near said I was rude. I put the book back on the table and left.

    AH HA! There must be evidence if it is in a book.

    So, a Google image search finds… nothing. You would expect that if Mann made such a claim in a book it would be photographed and put on the interwebz, especially by gleeful haters of Mann, but no, it seems not.

    But note this; The claim is reported as being on the inside sleeve of the book jacket. This part is not written by the author but by the publisher’s jacket design team who are tasked to spruik and market the book. So if that claim was made it wasn’t by Mann but by publicists.

    This is what you find in all the other claims, they are third party writers. A rural US newspaper writes about the community radio interviewing Mann and writes that he is a ‘Nobel Prize winner’; a conference advertising website says that he is a ‘Nobel Prize’ winner but Mann doesn’t write conference advertising material; a university short form bio says the same, but is not written by him but by the website staff; etc.

    As I mentioned before, and quoted from, Michael Mann’s own personal CV and his own personal website does not say he won the Nobel, they only mention his certificate of appreciation from the IPCC.

    So what you write is just a repeat of a nasty personal attack on Mann – who is not and never will be aware of your petty comments.

    As for the £11 million ‘fraud’ claims made against the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP), again there is no evidence of that outside of right-wing climate denying websites.

    You would think that such a scandal involving Government money would result in Committees of Enquiry, news articles in the BBC or The Times but no, not a sausage.

  88. TGC

    November 1, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    #139 “…for the most part, the electorate doesn’t mind too much.” is, I believe, widely applicable to the issue of ‘climate change’.

    For example – and currently – Tasmania is experiencing very ordinary (cold?) weather and people are ‘complaining’ – “so much for global warming (wish we could get some here)”.

    Now I know weather and climate are different at many levels and one wretched spring doesn’t necessarily nullify ‘warming’- but ‘weather’ means much more to people than ‘climate’ and so long as we still get four seasons each with some variability for memory’s sake then the catastrophic global warming crowd are really going to have a tough time getting the message through – and especially every time they get on aircraft to head to some conference in an exotic location – or even Hobart.

  89. Chris Harries

    November 1, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    #143. Lost for words! The word count on your response to that is 616 words.

    I must say the denier brigade has never been lost for words. It’s a most fascinating social pathology.

  90. davies

    November 1, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    #132 I am lost for words. I state someone can believe that humans have caused most of the global warming since 1950s but doesn’t think it will lead to disaster is STILL called a DENIER and you totally agree. Not only that, they must also think that climate change is crap! And apparently I think climate change is crap!

    Where did I say that? I am on record stating that I think warming has occurred since the 1900s. But probably not by the full amount suggested (around 1 degree) as too many countries around the world seem prone to excessive bouts of harmonisation of stats. I can also agree that human-activity has played a part in that warmth. A major part? I doubt it but for argument sake I can go with 20%-40%. However, I do not think it will be dangerous and nor do I think decarbonizing the atmosphere is the most effective way of handling climate change.

    As I stated previously, disaster scenarios are based on RCP 8.5. It includes, population growth accelerating when it is currently decelerating; that trade and innovation largely cease; that oceans ability to absorb CO2 fails; and people’s income trebles! I do not know of any economic theory that would predict a trebling of income when trade and innovation has basically ceased and has population growing at ever higher rates.

    Now I asked, where is the climate scientist consensus that AGW ends in disaster? Has there been such a question asked?

    I also asked where is the consensus that the most effective and preferred method of tackling AGW is spending $$$trillions on decarbonising the atmosphere.

    No one has replied to those questions…

    Your option on adapting. Means doing something. How do you fathom it is a Do Nothing approach???

    Option 2, the economy is more important. Well yes! Even the IPCC agree. The IPCC state in AR5:

    “For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”

    And on option 3, Australian population/activity is responsible for 1 CO2 particle per 9 million. I am guessing it is back to the caves and a quick lesson in knitting hair shirts to reduce that figure to 0 but I am not guessing when I say the cost to society, particularly for the poorer people, is not remotely worth it.

    And this is not a Nigel no friends position. In a recent poll in the US just 3% thought climate change was the most important issue. And the UN My World survey (over 10 million responses now) has action on climate change dead last 16th out of 16.

    And no my name is not John nor Nigel. Personally I would have gone with David. Quite a popular name in Wales.

    # 136 your back! Weren’t you supposed to be defending the CCCEP against fraud allegations or did you give that up for a bad joke? You were also busy defending that paragon of virtue Michael Mann from those wild right wing assertions that he claimed to have won a Nobel Prize. I guess Mann’s own words claiming he had won a Nobel Prize sort of undermined your defence there a tad!

    Kench is just one study showing more islands are growing and/or are stable vs those that are sinking. Remember sinking islands is an important cog in the disaster scenarios. You want the buggers sinking not growing!

  91. Keith Antonysen

    November 1, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Robin at 137

    At 106, I gave a reference to a short clip by Eric Rignot about the state of glaciers and ice sheets of West Antarctica. The area is quite unstable; Eric Rignot along with other climate scientists have written papers about sea level rise with James Hansen. The conclusions being that sea level rise will be greater than forecast by the IPCC.
    Many new papers have been published since the IPCC; Powell et al suggest there are about 12,000 peer reviewed papers published each year.

    Already, Miami has had to resource infrastructure to the tune of $450 million to safeguard against blue ski floods. The infrastructure has been created as a holding pattern till ways can be found to safeguard against higher sea rise. The matter has been raised in several references, the last being Before the Flood at No 113.

    Around Earth there are numerous cities now just above sea level which are a target for storm surges initially and later sea level rise. That equals economies falling over, huge numbers of climate refugees and war (scarcity of food, water and shelter).

    My point being that a business as usual approach will sooner or later lead to changes that heavily impact on the world’s economy through cities currently being just above sea level being inundated. As indicated an ice free Arctic Ocean provides a major tipping point. Through the thickness of ice, lack of multi year ice, greater amounts of methane being released causing tipping points arriving more quickly than anticipated.
    Greenland is in a serious condition; the film Before the Flood shows how equipment that had been placed 30 feet below the surface in drill holes in a ice sheet is now on the surface.

    One point that I have not seen anywhere is that many humans find change difficult to cope with. Usually it is ideology; religion or psychologically not being able to cope given as reasons for lack of movement; causing the present deadlock. Denier agencies such as Heartlands, Cato, IPA et al spout ideology which when it is all boiled down has been able to cash in on a general sense of change being too hard to contend with.

  92. Kim Peart

    November 1, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Re: 140 ~ I take an overview. I look at everything. If anything new comes up, like new research, a new discovery, I will consider that. There are so many lessons from history, that the casual alien observer may wonder if we have a hope in hell of surviving the current adolescent growth phase. Getting to the mature phase, as a species of doting parents with a higher set of celestial values, will only dawn, I suspect, when we find the nerve to expand beyond Earth. Then, like a butterfly breaking free of the planet chrysalis, we will find our strength.

    I found it interesting to read in one article that the nuclear industry is not seen as a threat to the carbon energy monopoly. The power of the Sun harvested in space, up for debate in the 1970s, would have been seen as a threat. Carbon energy people are very smart bastards, and I suspect they quietly predicted the prospect of space based solar power, especially with Asimov writing about it in the 1940s. Looking at the lobby at work with climate change and tobacco, should we wonder if there was a behind the stage campaign to ensure that energy transition did not get traction?

    Carbon energy needed the whole world to be focused on the Earth for power and dreams. They paid all the wages. They held all the strings.

    Because there is so much power being pumped out of the Sun, fossil fuel would no longer be required after energy transition, or nuclear power. The fusion power of the Sun will provide the energy to do the work to build any dream, win back a safe Earth, send poverty into history, and keep life on Earth going billions of years beyond its use-by date, as the Sun gets hotter.

    Fusion nuclear power is looking promising right now, with new developments. Fusion nuclear power will be needed for work in the outer Solar System and in deep space. I can see no future for fission nuclear power. I’d love to know if anyone can, once fusion power is available, and the Sun is our main power supply locally.

    Another power option in deep space, could be from dark energy, which “contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe.” (Wikipedia).

    If Tasmanians, including every individual who cares, where to convince the nation to work with leading nations in drawing on the power of the Sun in space to extract excess carbon from the air, to shrink the carbon elephant down to a safe Earth size, we could benefit by being on the front line of processing extracted carbon into a useful resource for Earth and space industries. Carbon is an absolutely amazing element. We could lead the way into turning a planet killing problem into an employment creating mineral boom, mining the air, in Tasmania and many other places around our troubled planet.

    If we want peace on Earth, where we sleep with nuclear weapons, this may only be possible with expansion beyond Earth, allowing nations to expand in space, rather than fighting over land and sea on Earth, whether Ukraine, or the South China Sea. It looks like Australia will be on patrol there, which will anger China. If some clumsy sailor accidentally lets fly a missile that sinks a Chinese ship, and global war breaks out, we can expect a swift invasion of Australia.

    That is why an initiative by Australia with leading nations, including China, with space based solar power, a sustainable industrial presence beyond Earth and building new land with orbital space settlements, may be the primary defence of our Great Southern Land.

    Alternatively, hang around and see what the Chinese do next.

  93. Chris Harries

    November 1, 2016 at 10:08 am

    #138: Kim, James Hansen is the darling of both the climate lobby and the the pro nuclear lobby – the latter because he openly supports nuclear energy as the only realistic way to deal with what Robin Halton has been arguing (above) – about base load power.

    Do you think Hansen is on the right track here? It’s not a too different take to yours, albeit it is much more contentious because the technology is already available and shelf-ready but has legacy of negative baggage attached to it.

    (Not that this is all that relevant to Tasmania’s immediate energy situation.)

  94. Chris Harries

    November 1, 2016 at 9:19 am

    #137. I partly agree with you there Robin. The status quo has got a lot holding it in place. It’s not so much the money behind the coal business as the drive by most people and politicians not to upset their comfort zone(s). To make the necessary transition to decarbonise does require a preparedness to change lifestyles and habits and economic strategies and I would agree most people cherish their consumer lifestyles and conveniences and will defend these with great passion.

    There’s huge momentum and money behind the coal business even though probably no new coal power stations will be built in Australia from now on. But that’s not the case for gas-fired power. More gas fired electricity has been added to the national grid than has wind in the past 15 years.

    I think you are basically right. Until such time as people are greatly affected by climate change– to the extent that they feel threatened by it we won’t see any radical transformation happening. This is the perennial dilemma, about acting to late, but it seems to be the course that humanity is taking around the world.

    With regard to adopting the Paris protocols, to which we are signature, Australia will fake it as much as it can. Looking like it is curtailing emissions whilst it is doing anything but. John Howard locked in a political culture that refutes leadership on our part and, for the most part, the electorate doesn’t mind too much.

  95. Kim Peart

    November 1, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Re: 135 ~ The problem at the moment is, we are in transition to acknowledgement of the real threat.

    Science had recommended aiming for CO2 below 450 ppm, to avoid temperature rise above 2C. Politicians had been running with this, though action was inadequate and overshoot expected. At least the crunch line was some time in the future.

    Then James Hansen crunches the numbers in greater detail than ever before, and was able to determine that CO2 above 350 ppm, which would deliver 1.5C planet temperature rise, was the trigger for irreversible change and a runaway greenhouse effect.

    Hansen’s conclusion is spreading, inspiring 350.org to form, and was a hot topic at the Paris climate conference last December, where the nations finally accepted the need to keep planet temperature rise below 1.5C, but did not consider the action that would be needed to deliver that, which would be to draw down CO2 below 350 ppm.

    Atmospheric CO2 is now going beyond 400 ppm and is rising at 3 ppm per year. Soon it may be 4 or more ppm per year, because Nature is now releasing greenhouse gases from a fast warming Arctic, where the ice is melting away, where darker ocean water is now absorbing more heat. With methane now getting released from permafrost, there is a more potent greenhouse gas in the mix. Then there are the ocean floor methane hydrate deposits. If they dissolve in warmer water, up she goes to a hotter planet.

    Environmentally, the only game in town is direct carbon extraction, a problem made larger as CO2 rises in the air, and larger again when appreciated that much of the CO2 has gone into the oceans. Take CO2 out of there air, and more will come out of the sea back into the air.

    Politicians and environmentalists are currently frozen solid in the headlights of a carbon truck weighing tens of gigatons, and there are no brakes. A gigaton is a billion tons.

    So action at a level that will secure a safe Earth is not happening, and is not being discussed. This is the elephant in the debate, monstrous in size and growing by millions of tons of carbon every day.

    The carbon elephant is being ignored, because of the problem of where the level of energy will come from to shrink the beast to a size that will ensure a safe Earth.

    Talk of cutting emission is political apple juice, but a time will come, as environmental change make life and farming tougher, as repair costs rise, as drought take away water, as floods send too much water back, as fires get fiercer and more destructive, as more coral reefs die, as acidic oceans kill off seafood, then people will get real about the work that must be done, and where the energy will come from, to get CO2 below 350 ppm.

    We are now three decades into overshoot beyond a safe Earth. We can expect CO2 in the air to go beyond 600 ppm and even a planet temperature rise beyond 6C. The only environmental game in town that holds credibility, will be a fight for pure survival. When people wake up to that fight, it may be too late. The planet will have become too dangerous, too deadly.

    So the greenwash of environmentalists smoothes the pillow for a dying species, and they don’t talk about the fight with the elephant, and how to put it on a diet that works. There is talk about diets that will not work, that only allow the elephant to keep growing. That is greenwash. That is two-faced double talk.

    People will believe the spin when they see CO2 in the air going down.

    So the Earth problem falls down to the plan of where the energy will come from to do the work of carbon extraction. Only when that conversation is happening, will people take action in every way they can, to help shrink the carbon elephant.

    So yes, what are environmentalists doing? Too much greenwash mixed with bullshit to paint the toes of the carbon elephant, that towers way up into the clouds.

  96. Robin Charles Halton

    November 1, 2016 at 1:08 am

    #132 Chris, I dont think Australia the land with its wide open spaces will be on the road to decarbonising too quickly, at a dying snails pace maybe!

    Politics from the major parties and the Greens make all sorts of unrealistic statements about Renewables, after the SA showdown Aussie voters will vote for reliable electricity provided at a reasonable price and not Renewables at unaffordible prices with unreliability lumped into the overall energy supply deal.
    That is a fact of life

  97. Jon Sumby

    October 31, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    @129, really? Referring to Prof. Kench as some sort of science nobody knows about and that blows climate change out of the water?

    National Geographic ran a feature story on his work last year:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

    He also wrote an article in The Conversation in 2014:
    https://theconversation.com/dynamic-atolls-give-hope-that-pacific-islands-can-defy-sea-rise-25436

    There is nothing out of the ordinary here, nothing secret, no conspiracy to hide anything.

  98. TGC

    October 31, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    But #132 is there much-even any – evidence that the flat-out, hand on heart believers in Climate Change who are absolutely persuaded- not a skerrick of doubt- that the ‘planet’ is heading to a climate-change caused catastrophe-are actually doing anything about it- and if they are – what is it?
    And why isn’t it working?

  99. Kim Peart

    October 31, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Re: 133 ~ You have hit the nail on the head, resoundingly.

    The ability was gained in the 1960s, the decisions were there to be made in the 1970s and the action could have been happening in the 1980s. We had the opportunity to begin energy transition from carbon to stellar, by building solar power stations in space.

    A global civilization that can build atomic bombs and maintain arsenals that could destroy all life on Earth, can easily refine ways to transfer power from space to Earth.

    You ask no questions. Are you not curious? Is your position religious? A scientific frame of mind is curious and either observes in silence, or asks questions.

    We face a prime survival challenge, and you sit in a cage of details, and declare there is no liberty.

    The Earth hugging position is a very dangerous. Hug the Earth until the next large asteroid arrives, and you’ll get it where survival ends. Earth cannot be defended from asteroids on Earth. That reason alone is cause to act on cutting the bull manure and getting serious about survival.

    It just so happens that the way to defend the Earth, will also open the way to win back a safe Earth.

    The leadership problem is purely within the individual. Get the personal survival vision working, and survival work will follow.

    Get stuck in the wrong vision, and nothing will work. Not even leadership.

    Having worked through all this and considered all the crisis’ we now face, we either get a sustainable industrial presence beyond Earth, or we will never get a sustainable human presence on a healthy Earth, this side of the lights going out in a nuclear conflict, or the heat death of the planet.

    Knowing that life on Earth only has about a billion years to run, if the heat death is solved, wouldn’t you like to extend the tenure of life on this planet by billions of years? That cannot happen by hugging a planet.

    Planet hugging suits carbon energy, who just keep on raking in the profits, because we allowed ourselves to be conned out of energy transition in the 1970s.

    I explored this in my TT article ~ A Deeper Level of Denial ~
    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/a-deeper-level-of-denial

    I know it’s a nice tune, but the MASH theme is not the one we need.

  100. Simon Warriner

    October 31, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    Kim, re your 120. The wealth that allowed the space program came from cheap fossil fuel. That resource has peaked and is in decline. It may not look that way if you base your view on dollar based pricing, but in net energy return on energy invested it has.

    Add in the complete lack of any viable means of transfering the energy back to earth, and the means to survive in meaningful numbers in space, and I submit the idea is not worth the time, effort, or money.

    Particularly when our political problems will not allow a reasoned and rational discussion in the first place.

    Until we fix our leadership problem all solutions are moot, especially the more outlandish ones.

  101. Chris Harries

    October 31, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    (#129) John Davies (or was it Nigel?), not sure who you are addressing in your above post.

    I must say, it’s honest of you to define yourself as an outright climate change (AGW) denier. Not wishing to insult, but you lot are becoming a rare breed. I think of your compatriots like I think of those lonely smokers that you see lurking in lift wells and alley ways… those unfortunate souls who couldn’t ever kick the habit.

    Most conservatives have moved on from outright denial – because to hold on to the ‘Climate Changes is Crap’ line is no longer credible in the face of what we see happening all around the world.

    So most conservatives have shifted to three levels of secondary denial:

    1. Climate change (AGW) is happening, but it’s pointless trying to stop it so we have to adapt.

    2. Climate change (AGW) is happening but the Economy is much more important, so don’t do anything that conflicts with Economy.

    3. Climate change (AGW) is happening but Australia should not act until the rest of the world takes a lead.

    Though these may seem weak positions, because they all spell ‘Do Nothing’. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the goal posts have massively shifted in the past 5 years, and they are still shifting. Even high profile people such as Tony Abbott have switched their messaging to a mixture of the above positions.

    But there are still a few who hold out on primary denial and these come in two distinct species.

    1. Those who have a political or financial vested interest in maintaining the state quo.

    2. Those whose psychology can’t handle the climate change prognosis and so fall prey to classic clinical denial.

    On the face of it these two species are inseparable, because they both dish out identical messages, but, to accord respect, I utilise the benefit-of-the-doubt and treat all AGW deniers as being in the second category – unless finding out otherwise.

    There’s big money behind fossil fuels so I also advice those who are in the second category to get paid for the voluntary advocacy that they do on behalf of the coal industry. In accordance with this advice, you should think about it.

    Keep in mind that most of your colleagues have deserted the ‘Climate Change is Crap’ stance. It’s a lonely ride for you from now.

  102. Kim Peart

    October 31, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    Re: 129 ~ On the basis of the precautionary principle, best to invest in survival insurance., such as a sustainable industrial presence beyond Earth, so there will be options, whatever happens. The arrival of the next asteroid could be sooner and bigger, for instance, and leave no wriggle room for Earth huggers. Then, if predictions for global heating send the planet hurtling into hell, prudence will have proven the far better path of valour. Right now, marching numbly to the beat of the drum of carbon energy, survival insurance has been neglected.

  103. TGC

    October 31, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    Or #127- a submissive attitude to events?
    – the ‘Doris Day’ approach.
    And ‘No’ all activity has some worthwhileness about it and scientific activity/research as much if not more than most- we have benefited greatly from it.
    But-being seduced by science reinforced alarmism
    does no-one one no good at all.
    And although ‘cynicism’and ‘scepticism’ are not the same thing at all- both come in handy in the face of apparently overwhelming scientific ‘certainty’
    (And I don’t know a John Davies)

  104. davies

    October 31, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    You see this is your sides’ problem. Someone can believe that humans have caused most of the global warming since 1950 but doesn’t think it will lead to disaster is a DENIER.

    But where is the climate scientist consensus that it ends in disaster? I doubt you even have a majority let alone your revered 97%. And what about those climate scientists that think it could be disastrous but don’t think spending $$$trillions on trying to decarbonise the atmosphere is the way to go?

    It was a very clear the message 20 years ago. It would get much much hotter and dryer. Glaciers and Poles would melt. Sea levels would rise by tens of metres consequently drowning numerous islands and coastal areas and millions and millions of people would be climate refugees.

    A number of predictions have come and gone. Tipping points were ignored by Mother Nature and global warming morphed into climate change in an attempt to gather every single piece of slightly abnormal weather as proof of AGW.

    Well 20 years on and global temperatures have hardly budged despite there being more CO2 in the atmosphere than was modelled. Rain seems to have filled most major dams around Australia despite CSIRO/BOM telling us back in 2008 or so that drought was the new norm.

    Antarctic ice, according to satellite, is covering a greater area now than any time in the last 40 plus years and temperatures on the peninsula seem to have dropped in the last decade.

    According to Professor Kench of Auckland Uni of 27 islands studied only 4 showed a decrease in land size. The other 23 stayed the same or grew. Among the island chains to have grown include Tuvalu and Kiribati. The poster childs for drowning islands.

    And where are these climate refugees? We were supposed to have 50 million plus by 2010 according to UN Environment Program.

    And how do the alarmists respond to all this? They threaten prosecution and jail, skeptics lose their jobs and are harassed. Funding is denied to those with differing opinions. Even Bjorn Lomberg is hounded out of the country and he believes the whole alarmist scenario BUT he doesn’t think decarbonising is the effective way to handle the problem.

    Your side talks about radical social transformations as an essential part of the fight against weather when previous radical transformations directly leads to millions of people dying.

    Your authoritarian leanings are noted.

  105. Kim Peart

    October 31, 2016 at 10:57 am

    Re: 126 ~ Looking for Comment #1125. ~ Is this a prophesy?

    VISION ~ We each have to follow the trail of questions and decide what works for us. When two people who fear not to ask questions hit on the same answer, then they can share a vision based on a shared answer to a problem, path of action, and a plan to gun for.

    SCIENTISTS ~ Scientists are limited by governments, who pay the wages. James Hansen is a rare breed of scientist in this regard.

    ENERGY ~ Understanding how much power is being pumped out by the Sun in space is essential, to understand the place of the Earth in the Solar System, and human potential on Earth and beyond Earth. The closer a solar power station is located to the Sun, the more power you get to do work. No engineer required there to feel the heat of the Sun.

    “COULD NEVER BE” ~ This is the kind of absolutist claim that public hanging and the stocks should be revived for. There was never going to be a nuclear bomb in 1939, was there? There was never going to be an explorer step onto the Moon in 1957, was there? Funding and determination delivered both.

    SPACE ~ The Earth is in space and relies on the power of the Sun for life, as we do. Are you suggesting that we sail the Earth into interstellar space? No light. No life. Apply a little imagineering. Move the pieces around. Collect sun power in space. More energy to do more work. How that Sun energy is applied to solving work problems on Earth is bridge building. Do we build bridges? The solution could be a cable dropped to Earth, along the lines of the space elevator that has been mooted. Ask questions. Follow the trail of questions. Find answers.

    MULTIDIMENSIONAL ~ Great word. Implies all eleven dimensions predicted in string theory. Get your drift. If the working solution to Earth problems is only going to be delivered in the context of the solar system as a whole, including asteroid defence, then a “multidimensional” solution needs to include how we see the Sun, the Earth and the whole Solar System. The carbon problem has been created by a total focus on the Earth alone. Expansion was possible in the 1970s, which would have been in full swing in the 1980s, making the energy transition from carbon to stellar energy, getting heavy industry in space. The engineers were on the case. The politicians’ ears were held by the carbon energy and war industries. Do history. Know what was possible. Don’t fall into the hell-trap of being a nuclear bomb denier.

    “NO MAGICAL, SINGULAR FIXIT” ~ Correct. At this stage in the carbon crisis, now three decades into its dearth stride, to focus on the Earth alone is the magical fixit delusion that will remove survival options. Is this spin from carbon energy propaganda that drilled the people of Earth to be totally focused on the Earth, for everything? We see it with climate. We saw it with tobacco. Where did it begin?

    ZERO EMISSIONS ~ Zero emissions is what should have been happening in the 1980s, when expansion beyond Earth was first possible, when atmospheric CO2 was passing 350 ppm. The only way off the gallows now is with carbon extraction. Can be done. Requires energy to do the work. Where will the energy come from?

    The tonnage of carbon involved is known, as well as how much it goes up every day. It is a humungous volume.

    Now Arctic methane is speeding up planet heating.

    We either hang around on the gallows, or decide that survival matters in the Solar System. Cling to the planet cradle, and the hangman will pull the lever. End of game. End for life.

    Expand beyond Earth. Build solar power stations in space. Launch industry beyond Earth. Build a sunshade in space. Save the Earth, Extend the tenure of life on Earth by billions of years.

    Claim it can’t be done. Atomic bomb denier problem.

    Maybe atomic bomb deniers just like to keep going off.

  106. Chris Harries

    October 31, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Trevor (#122), sorry to say this to you but ‘fatalism is just observing the way it is’, almost by definition.

    I would add that blanket cynicism is tantamount to being the same thing as denial, in terms of the effect it has. That makes John Davies and you the same person, in effect.

    I’m aware that there a lot to be potentially cynical about and everyone is free to question everybody else, but if we are to be guided primarily by cynicism then it’s best, for your own sake, just to enjoy your life and perhaps not undermine others’ efforts…

    …unless, of course, that undermining activity is what strikes your fancy as good fun.

  107. Chris Harries

    October 31, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Kim (#1125), yes about vision, but the majority of people let alone scientists won’t back a vision that hasn’t got legs.

    Energy supply = about 5 percent of the problem that humanity faces, so even beaming solar energy down from space is not a panacea, and could never be one.

    The way forward has to be multidimensional. There is no magic, singular fixit. If you want as close you can get to an anergy fixit than take of the Beyond Zero Emissions plan and run with it.

  108. Kim Peart

    October 31, 2016 at 9:17 am

    Re: 122 ~ The solution rests in the hands of each individual. When a vision to act is shared by a critical number of people, change can happen. That is the one thing that the powers that be don’t want, because it would take away their power to control the population. That’s why solutions are not happening. When individuals get a sense of personal empowerment, then problems can be solved. In the current style of government control, people are trapped in fear. Walls of fear that keeps the status quo going. Shaking off the fear is the first step to empowered action. Governments hate that kind of thing.

  109. Kim Peart

    October 31, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Re: 121 ~ There question was for another, but, are you speaking from a religious position? I see no questions. A person following the scientific approach would ask questions. The old church fathers in Rome knew Galileo was wrong, and locked him up so he couldn’t talk. Politics gets tough when driven by religion.

    This comment proves a point I made at #30, that denialists and conservationists don’t read. They attack with glee any position that don’t fit into their world view. So hold up you flaming torches and attack.

    If there should be a change of heart and some reading undertaken, then the reader could see that I have been addressing a plan that will avoid mass human death, win back a safe Earth, build peace on Earth and lay the foundation for extending the tenure of life on Earth for billions of years (with the Sun expanding to the orbit of the Earth over the next 5 billion years, life on Earth has about a billion years to run, but a runaway greenhouse would bring on a premature heat death of the Earth).

    To run with contraction as advocated in #119 is a gamble on survival that may not even be a gamble, with the Arctic releasing methane and all the triggers primed for a runaway greenhouse.

    If there is a plan that can work on Earth alone, show me that plan. I have looked at so many books and documents, the only path to survival that I can see is with expansion.

    This path rests with each individual deciding that survival and a safe Earth is worth the bother. Governments are not about to act at a level which will assure survival. Like the government on Easter Island, they have more important matters of State to deal with, as the last tree was chopped down. Governments can be a risk to survival.

    Who wants to survive, and a future with a healthy and creative life for all Earth’s children?

    The statement ~ “talk to some serious engineers, Kim.” is a god-forsaken cop-out. Identify the problem. Identify the solution wanted. Figure out how to get the the solution. That is the thinking that is needed. That is how the atomic bomb got built. That is how the US got to the Moon.

    Beaming power to ground is not the only way to deal with CO2 in the air with the power of the Sun harvested in space, but if beaming is wanted, beaming will be delivered by engineers given the resources to solve the problems.

    It’s not the “serious engineers” we need to talk to. We need to talk to a mirror and tell ourselves what we want, and if there are no questions, if our conversation is religious, the be careful on that soap box.

  110. George Smiley

    October 31, 2016 at 12:42 am

    #119 The effect of slavery on southern whites pre US civil war is instructive. You had a slave- owning class and the rest were ‘white trash’ whose labour was cheapened to a bare survival level for those who even had jobs thanks to the black competition. They never forgave the blacks either although it was the owners who had done it to them. Machines have done the same to us and there is no escape from poverty in a steady state economy; we are locked into forever expanding productive capacity and infrastructure to create enough employment to avoid revolution. Ultimately food supply will be the wake-up factor. People on the land see it happening now before their eyes – in the last 2 years the damage to my property has cut productivity by a third and blown out the time and costs required to maintain the place. I was organic but previous non-weeds were taking over faster than I could control them. With the rains following the drought fertility has plummeted, I’ve spent about three times the usual on fertilizer and seed to try and maintain pasture growth, which has barely begun now end of October due to cold, wet weather, last year same time it was a panic to destock and build fire control systems. And the sh* is hitting the fan everywhere. I used to work in northern Canada. We would start mid-June when the lakes broke up and finish 1 September when the snows began. It never burned up there but it did last year – in May, amongst the damaged boreal forests which have been dying off thanks to wood boring beetles for about 30 years now since they began to survive the winters. Of course this is all anecdotal folks and the climate scientists are conspiring with the UN for a world government that will vasectomize we’uns; the good and the true. Actually that’s not a bad idea.

  111. TGC

    October 30, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    “We should look reality in the face even if that sends a rather fatalistic message.” at #111
    And surely the stark reality- down here at the TT level- not a single one of us can do anything at all that will have the slightest impact- for good or ill- on ‘climate’.
    We may do things that will enable a feeling of ‘contribution’ but warm and fuzzy is all it will be.
    #111- not there but in other places- has acknowledged the existence of inconsistences with ‘climate change action/activists’ -‘do as I say, not as I do’ sort of thing- but excuses those as being ‘necessary’- e.g. lots of flying to lots of conferences- but in some ways that ‘proves’ my insistence- anything we do or don’t do makes absolutely no difference to whether CO2 is below or above some measure.
    And it is incomprehensible that any agreement can be reached that will make any (positive) difference either.
    There’s no ‘fatalism; in such a view- just observing the way it is.

  112. Chris Harries

    October 30, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    (#120). So let’s quickly escape this wrecked planet.

    Smart move for perhaps a few hundred privileged folk, and even then it’s extremely doubtful. As for the other 7 billion and more…..

    If you are talking about beaming down space energy, talk to some serious engineers, Kim.

    But, by all means persuade the powers that be to invest in this option. All strength to your arm!

  113. Kim Peart

    October 30, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    Re: 116 ~ Is there any particular reason you claim the space option is not viable for winning back a safe Earth and ensuring the planet does not take of on a runaway greenhouse effect, the end result of which will be a premature heat death of the Earth? The heating up of the Arctic is releasing methane, which will work to heat the planet faster.

  114. Chris Harries

    October 30, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    #118. Fossil fuels allowed millions of human beings (and horses) to be liberated from physical work. That was good for the horses, but not altogether good for humans who just got fat and some even mentally deranged as their lives lost purpose.

    A future era of relative energy poverty will revert a lot of human labour back into food production and processing. Prior to the industrial revolution 90 percent of all human activity was engaged with this work.

    I’m not suggesting ‘going back to the caves’, but once we stop pigging out on energy – because we will have to – there won’t be a shortage of employment opportunity.

    But that’s not to say the transition will be easy.

  115. Got Me a Train

    October 30, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    Hobbling industrial activity is the only action that will slow this train down, and even then it is debatable what difference it will make.

    There needs to be serious discussion about what to do with the unemployed masses that will result.

    The real trouble starts when AGW reaches the point that MPs feel they must enforce severe measures. That will be when the last bit of Arctic ice cap goes, about 2030 if you believe the boffins.

  116. Chris Harries

    October 30, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Very well spoken, Simon (#116).

    I differ a little on the political remedy side, believing that politics has been mainly debased in recent years by the rise of the Market, where most political power now resides. I really don’t know how that shift can be reversed. Nearly all democracies have the same basic political formula, with slight differences.

    The best and the worst of politics and society seem to be defined by culture, this being set deep by centuries of conditioning. But when people have their backs to the wall rapid social and political change can come about.

  117. Simon Warriner

    October 30, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    John Micheal Greer has been addressing this topic for just over ten years on his blog, The Archdruid Report.

    His catch phrase is “Collapse Early And Avoid The Rush”.

    That blog is a source of much reassurance and solace for those who of us who see a problem emerging but find it hard to buy into the hype and herd like conduct of the “looming catastrophe” crowd, and also find the “ignore it, it is inevitable” bunch of idiots unpalatable.

    We need to understand the dynamics involved, we need to understand what we can, and cannot alter, and we need to be realistic. We need leadership that can deliver those characteristics for the common good, and without that leadership our collective future will be very very dark.

    Clearly the leadership issue needs fixing first, yet it is lost in a chorus of noise about details that rise to become distractions. Space travel and eco-technical solutions qualify in this regard.

    Our current party political system of choosing leaders repeatedly delivers up complete failures who dither back and forth along a path dictated to them by the chequebooks of interest groups whose banks accounts and ideological peculiarities are best filled by “business as usual”.

    That needs addressing, and soon.

  118. George Smiley

    October 30, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Chris Harries generally has it right. If you want to know how much CO2 burning ethanol produces just look up the chemical formula on Wikipaedia and you can work it all out. The advantage of ethanol is that we produce it from starches and sugars which are solar energy generated via green plants. Even with that the economics of using it for fuel are lousy, during the Bush era, the US ethanol boom (subsidized corn in Iowa and elsewhere) that was going to take America out of the clutch of the Saudis was calculated to have a mere 10% gain over fossil fuel inputs when adding up fertilizer production, transport, farm and processing, distribution, etc. AND then when you use it in an internal combustion engine you only get a 40% return on that due to intrinsic inefficiencies. But the Mexicans were rioting when the price of their tortillas doubled – filling the tank of an SUV takes as much corn as the annual ration for a small family. Since I can easily produce illicit ethanol if I choose and sell it for $20 per litre presumably that says something about its true value beyond the tax burden on addicts and the consequential risk/reward premium. As for producing it with ‘catalysts’ and the like -please, if you know nothing about science and the laws of nature you CAN avoid being conned. This goes for automotive hydrogen generators, gravity engines, exhaust swallowing and any other perpetual motion schemes: Keep your mouth shut in anticipation of a neighborhood miracle when they really do come to your door with a free lunch.

  119. Kim Peart

    October 30, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Re: 113 ~ As atmospheric CO2 sailed past 350 ppm in the 1980s, we are now three decades into overshoot beyond a safe Earth, where we could hope to keep temperature rise below 1.5C. Any action now is on the basis of survival in an overshoot world that is going to get increasingly lethal, year by year, as CO2 keeps rising faster. The effort to win back a paradise planet will be monstrous, but can be done. Success will deliver a much more advanced civilization.

    As CO2 in the air above 350 ppm is the trigger for a runaway greenhouse effect, where further heat drives further greenhouse gas release, I fear there is no other way than to get ahead of the crisis and drive it down. This will take energy to do the work and ingenuity to the max.

  120. Keith Antonysen

    October 30, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    Leonardo DeCaprio has released a film titled Before the Flood which can be viewed free. The very salient point made is that Paris is the beginning of what needs to be done.
    We are still in a time when actions to combat climate change are possible is a further message; though we have a short time frame.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M

  121. Got Me a Lifestyle

    October 30, 2016 at 10:49 am

    #109 Don’t think anyone is expecting to be boiled alive, although it is obviously on the TGC mind one way or another.

    But there is a possibility that the world in 30 years will require somewhat different career/lifestyle strategies than the current one.

    Unshackled capitalism may have to be replaced with something a little less destructive.

  122. Chris Harries

    October 30, 2016 at 10:37 am

    We should look reality in the face even if that sends a rather fatalistic message. But I don’t think its good to go overboard with fatalism. The mathematics that determines collapse are all there, but what does collapse mean precisely?

    I think it’s best to look at this the same way the stock market is viewed. Where a trend is totally unsustainable the finance commentators will predict a ‘Correction’. A stock market ‘Correcton’ is not necessarily engineered, it is just ten as an inevitability – because the status quo simply can’t be continued.

    Human civilisation is going to have to go through quite a massive Correction whether we like it or not. What that will look like depends a lot on how we respond right now. It’s severity can be lessened hugely by early intervention. Those who argue denial or for for complacency are unwittingly helping to deliver a much bigger calamity when that inevitable Correction comes about.

    There will be a viable society still in place at the end of it all, perhaps depleted in numbers and having to define itself around a much lower resource base – one that has learned a hard lesson about living beyond one’s means.

  123. Kim Peart

    October 29, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    Re: 109 ~ There is a way to assure survival and win back a safe Earth, if anyone is interested. Why would anyone not be interested?

  124. TGC

    October 29, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    ” Get CO2 below 350 ppm…” #108 Well, that’s not going to happen- apparently – in any lifetimne available to all of us currently on the ‘planet’ – so that means – for those same – there can be no Plan B – and if the ‘decarbonising’ is Plan A – there isn’t that either.

    Maybe there is some alternative to cheerfully accepting our ‘fate’- but I’ll stick with ‘cheerful.

    As for grandchildren – and the great… et al my observation is that they are distinctly unconcerned about being boiled alive because they really don’t think it will happen.

  125. Kim Peart

    October 29, 2016 at 7:10 am

    Re: 107 ~ Accepting the “stuffed” conclusion, how long do we have to party, before harsher droughts and fiercer storms undermine all pleasure? And we can but hope that those sulphur bugs don’t start blooming in dying oceans any time soon, which would release toxic hydrogen sulphide gas that can kill life on land and destroy the ozone layer, allowing in deadly solar and cosmic radiation, that will kill more life on land. This event is observed for the Great Dying 252 million years ago, when most of life on Earth perished.

    The dying of the Great Barrier Reef is one hell of a canary in the carbon age ~ #87. Then there was the dying of the mangroves across the north. How many canaries do we need?

    If survival matters ~ so stop reading if it doesn’t ~ we can be like the British in the face of Hitler, and fight back. Get CO2 below 350 ppm so temperature rise will draw down below 1.5C, from however high it overshoots. Like the British bull dog, we must grasp the solution and not let go, of where we get the level of energy from to do this work.

    At the same time we can invest in pure survival in the face of predictable crisis in a hotter world, where oceans may become a killer of life. A future where we may need to live on Earth more like we were living on the Moon, in protected environments.

    The message must offer hope to mobilise numbers. If survival on Earth and winning back a paradise planet can include a win-win, then that will help to sell the message to the critical number of people who must act to make it work.

    To fiddle now while the Earth burns, is very short-term fun.

    To invest in survival now, in the face of all risks, is also great fun, with the prospect of a much longer party.

    Real party animals plan ahead.

  126. TGC

    October 28, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    from #100 and #101 it seem certain that we are ‘stuffed’ – because ‘decarbonising’ isn’t going to happen.
    So let’s stop worrying about it- and even less spending money on it- and enjoy what’s left of the
    dry land.

  127. Keith Antonysen

    October 28, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Phil at No 100 and 101

    Phil has provided a great summation of what has been happening in West Antarctica. East Antaractic was considered to be quite stable; but, the huge Totten Glacier has been found to be unstable.

    A short clip narrated by Eric Rignot which provides a summation of some of Phil’s points:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8473NkAkZcQ&feature=youtu.be

    Glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are breaking down, it is not a matter of opinion.

  128. Keith Antonysen

    October 28, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Trevor
    Some matters we have apriori knowledge about, the situation will always be true. For example, heat over snow or ice will melt it. An apriori knowledge does not rely on opinion; we accept gravity as always operating. Gravity is a science concept, and we have an apriori knowledge about it.

    Opinions stem from personal experience, from ideological views, accepting what other people are stating, what we read etc. Even though people might be subject to the same information, opinions can be drawn that are mutually exclusive.

    In the post you drew attention too, I did not mention “scientists”; but, “science”.
    Science is not reliant on opinion, it is a very rational way of drawing conclusions from what is being observed or data obtained. Hence, if data has proven a hypothesis to be true, others will be able to follow the same scientific method and come to the same conclusion.

    Plato in The Republic gave a wonderful example of how opinions can be wrong without seeing the whole … elephant in a cave. Different opinions could be drawn as to what was being viewed when seeing small sections of an elephant in a dark cave using a poor source of light.

    Deniers often use the technique of drawing attention to one item in a list they believe is the weakest and write about that; whereas, when all points are considered together they provide a strong argument. An example might be a list of six items might be provided as finger prints of man’s influence on climate, the last comment might be about scientists having a consensus. The denier will comment on the “consensus” view; rather than, cover the fingerprints of man’s impact as a whole ( Plato’s elephant in dark cave).

    The opinions of scientists are irrelevant, as a rational/logical sequence of using scientific method determines their beliefs in their field of expertise. Scientists clearly would hold opinions in all sorts of domains. “Opinion” can be see to be a loose term; though if insistent on using the term “opinion” in the field of science, “opinion” is far more rigorous than a lay point of view due to use of scientific method.

    We rely on applied Physics and Chemistry to always be right; whether you believe it or not, Physics and Chemistry underpin climate science eg laws of thermodynamics.

    So, no matter what opinions people might hold; warmth is required to cause the thickness, extent and volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean to degenerate.

  129. Kim Peart

    October 28, 2016 at 9:57 am

    Re: 102 ~ Politics is determined by individuals who act, lobby and vote. Trumpet a plan that inspires people to act, and the politics of action will step out of the shadows.

    It is the total lack of any plan that will inspire action at a level that will win back paradise Earth, that is the total failure of the Earth-minded lobby.

    Reading this comment I seem to be seeing, “Our way didn’t work, so you are all dead, and there is no other way, because our way didn’t work.”

    What kind of argument is that? Greenwash dipped in carbon sludge for effect?

  130. Kim Peart

    October 28, 2016 at 9:46 am

    Re: 100 & 101 ~ Agree.

    Have read the report that the last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 ppm the sea level was 5 metres higher. How swiftly this could happen should not be underestimated. The Arctic ice sheet was not expected to melt away so soon. Layers of water have been discovered within the Greenland ice sheet, probably from surface melt not going all the way down and out, just jet. Antarctic ice sheets have broken up suddenly in recent decades.

    With CO2 in the air rising at 3 ppm each year at present, a rise predicted to rise faster, and with Nature kicking in with the release of Arctic greenhouse gases, including methane, which works faster and stronger at heating up the planet, We are locking in much higher temperature rise, sea level rise, ocean acidity rise and who knows what consequences bugger up out of that.

    Being now accepted that to get a safe Earth back, atmospheric CO2 needs to be below 350 ppm, the focus on going carbon neutral is a monstrous act of greenwash, because overshoot is skyrocketing.

    Until there is a plan to get CO2 in the air back below 350 ppm ASAP, nobody with a brain will believe the false message, that cutting carbon emission will save the Earth.

    Currently, the Earth is lost, as the consequence of atmospheric CO2 going beyond 500 or 800 ppm is a future in hell, and the planet is now accelerating toward this hot sizzling nightmare.

    I would like to know where the energy will come from to get CO2 below 350 ppm. It’s basic chemistry. It’s basic physics. It can be done. It just takes a heap of energy to deliver back a paradise Earth.

    The energy needed to do this work is much greater, when it’s appreciated that as CO2 is drawn out of the air, it will come out of the sea, where most has gone, increasing ocean acidity.

    When the energy to do this work is identified, then anybody with a brain will take seriously all initiatives to cut carbon emissions.

    If the focus is not a a plan for carbon extraction, then the chatter is greenwash and fuel for denialists.

    Get a plan and get it happening, and even denialists will be gawking in wonder.

    What is the plan?

  131. Chris Harries

    October 28, 2016 at 9:15 am

    Keith (#97) is right: in relation to science opinions don’t matter.

    Our problem is that politics works the other way around. Virtually the only thing that matters is opinions.

    What the world does about climate change will be determined by politics much more than by science.

    This is unfortunate, a tragedy even, because this may well spell our civilisations’s demise. It is cold reality, nevertheless.

  132. phill Parsons

    October 28, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Both glaciers have a relatively rapid flow from the WAIS interior to the calving margin. Further the low surface slopes and smooth flow patterns of PIG suggested to Hughes that there was no indication of a landward rise in the elevation of the glacier bed; such a rise would help stabilize the glacier. Without a rise in the bed, glacier thinning and retreat could result in continual grounding line retreat. The grounding line is where the bottom of the glacier comes in contact with the ground below the ice sheet, in this case the sea bottom. The grounding line is an anchoring point for the outlet glaciers.
    In January 2006, in a UK government-commissioned report, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, warned that this huge west Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate. It has been hypothesised that this disintegration could raise sea levels by approximately 3.3 metres [If the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt, this would contribute 4.8 m to global sea level.] Rapley said a previous (2001) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that played down the worries of the ice sheet’s stability should be revised. “I would say it is now an awakened giant. There is real concern.”
    Rapley said, “Parts of the Antarctic ice sheet that rest on bedrock below sea level have begun to discharge ice fast enough to make a significant contribution to sea level rise. Understanding the reason for this change is urgent in order to be able to predict how much ice may ultimately be discharged and over what timescale. Current computer models do not include the effect of liquid water on ice sheet sliding and flow, and so provide only conservative estimates of future behaviour.”
    James E. Hansen, a senior NASA scientist and leading climate expert, said the results were deeply worrying. “Once a sheet starts to disintegrate, it can reach a tipping point beyond which break-up is explosively rapid,” he said.
    Polar ice experts from the U.S. and U.K. met at the University of Texas at Austin in March, 2007 for the West Antarctic Links to Sea-Level Estimation (WALSE) Workshop. The experts discussed a new hypothesis that explains the observed increased melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. They proposed that changes in air circulation patterns have led to increased upwelling of warm, deep ocean water along the coast of Antarctica and that this warm water has increased melting of floating ice shelves at the edge of the ice sheet. An ocean model has shown how changes in winds can help channel the water along deep troughs on the sea floor, toward the ice shelves of outlet glaciers. The exact cause of the changes in circulation patterns is not known and they may be due to natural variability. However, this connection between the atmosphere and upwelling of deep ocean water provides a mechanism by which human induced climate changes could cause an accelerated loss of ice from WAIS. Recently published data collected from satellites support this hypothesis, suggesting that the west Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to show signs of instability.
    On 12 May 2014, It was announced that two teams of scientists said the long-feared collapse of the Ice Sheet had begun, kicking off what they say will be a centuries-long, “unstoppable” process that could raise sea levels by 1.2 to 3.6 metres They estimate that rapid drawdown of Thwaites Glacier will begin in 200 – 1000 years. [Scientific source articles: Rignot et al. 2014 and Joughin et al. 2014.]
    Recent work places the contribution of the Greenland Ice Sheet melt at about 2m and other land ice at about 1m of sea level rise.

    Estimated total sea level rise above the current Mean Sea Level in the order of 6m. Mercer estimated last time it took about a century from the commencement of WAIS melt for the sea level to reach this new state.

    In the interim seal level will rise toward this level due to thermal expansion and melt of the cryosphere.

    So this is what follows the Paris Agreement of 2015 without rapid decarbonization of the world’s economy. That change may avoid the extreme rise in sea level but not a rise. The time scale should be stretched out,

  133. phill Parsons

    October 28, 2016 at 8:22 am

    We are in the Holocene period. It has lasted about 10,000 years.

    The IPCC predicts temperatures will reach to in the order of 2dC [Scenario B1 gives a range of between 1.1 and 2.9dC with an expected best estimate of 1.8dC, this is the lowest of the forecasts used] given the current rates of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use. Studies show that the greenhouse gases [methane and carbon dioxide] stored in the boreal regions are being released so it is most likely that the thresholds for reaching above 2dC will now be met regardless of the Paris agreement of 2015.

    CO2 is at 400ppmv but the warming we are experiencing are only that of the CO2 levels of 3 to 4 decades ago. There is more warming to follow. The cryosphere is shrinking and discharging water into the ocean adding to sea level.

    The last time it was as warm as the ranges predicted by the IPCC was the Last Interglacial [the Eemian priod]. It lasted about 15,000 years. So the period that it +2dC warmer had a long enough time to have a major impact on the water stored as ice.

    Sea levels rose to the range of 6m above today as measured on the geologically stable coast of West Australia.

    Importantly the sea level rises forecast by the IPCC exclude “future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow”.
    John H. Mercer’s [1922-1987] ideas from 1978 (Ohio State University) led Terry Hughes (U. of Maine) in 1981 to propose that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet [WAIS] had a “weak underbelly” in Pine Island Bay. This bay in the Amundsen Sea is where the Pine Island Glacier (PIG) and Thwaites Glacier reach the sea. These are the only two significant outlet glaciers draining the north side of the WAIS. Together they drain 20% of the WAIS. Hughes called this area the “weak underbelly” because these glaciers lack the really huge ice shelves Ross Ice Shelf and the Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf in which most other large WAIS outlet glaciers terminate.

  134. Simon Warriner

    October 27, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    Thanks for providing us with that glimpse into your world, Trevor.

  135. TGC

    October 27, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    #97 Do scientists have opinions?

  136. Keith Antonysen

    October 27, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Trevor, in relation to science, opinion doesn’t count.
    The volume of sea ice dropping in the Arctic Ocean is not going to stop because of articles in the Australian. Antarctica also has its problems with the breakdown of a number of glaciers and ice sheets; nothing to do with opinion.
    The Third Pole and other glaciers have been breaking down for decades, they do not take into account opinion.

    As stated earlier we could have had a much smoother transition to reducing greenhouse gases; though, opinions generated by denier groups have slowed down actions putting us in a far more serious situation.

  137. TGC

    October 27, 2016 at 10:39 am

    #94, #95 (re.#93 Matt Ridley)
    That went well. Quality ‘scurril’ indeed.
    and further for #95’s comfort :
    “You do not seem to comprehend the article and comments I have written…”
    Probably right- on the other hand #95 -and in dozens of other places- isn’t the slightest bit interested in any contrary opinions – as -in general are’n’t we all (some exceptions on TT but not many)

  138. Keith Antonysen

    October 26, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    No 93, Trevor

    Matt Ridley is not a scientist, he is a journalist, and he owns a coal mine!

    Here are comments made by Ridley that are pulled apart by scientists.

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-matt-ridleys-climate-change-claims

    You do not seem to comprehend the article and comments I have written, it is based on data collected from satellite and PIOMAS. To recap in relation to the Arctic; sea ice extent is decreasing, sea ice thickness is decreasing, multi year ice is disappearing , permafrost on islands off Siberia are thawing leading to erosion, sea ice volume is decreasing. These are all facts; temperature has been increasing in the Arctic too. All these factors have been developing over decades, there are changes from one year to the next; but, all the trend lines are going in the wrong direction. Around 75% of sea ice volume has disappeared since 1979; as volume and sea ice thickness decrease less energy is required to speed up the process.

    The Murdoch press has no credibility in relation to the science of climate change; e.g., Newman positing an ice age.

  139. Chris Harries

    October 26, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    Trevor(#93), quoting Matt Ridley (one of Britain’s foremost climate change sceptics) in The Australian, is no recommendation.

    I had read Ridley’s article a couple of days ago and mused over the fact that he was once a fine science writer, but in the past decade has become a lackey for the carbon burning industries over there.

  140. TGC

    October 26, 2016 at 10:14 pm

    #92 – thanks for this piece of positive outcome from getting rid of all that ice.
    Anyway- that aside and in order to draw down even more ‘scurril’- Matt Ridley, ‘The Australian’
    October 25- page 8 Get stuck into that #89 and
    co-horts.

  141. Chris Harries

    October 26, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Yep Trevor (#90) and when the Arctic ice melts that will enable greater access to more oil resources from under the sea floor. We can share a laugh about negative feedback loops, but they are seriously real.

  142. davies

    October 26, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    # 80. You got those new-fandangled safe space filter glasses on? You can find nothing on Mann claiming he has won a Nobel Prize? And the CCCEP fraud is a beat up? And I ask again what was wrong with the peer-reviewed Ranga paper?

    Firstly on Mann, the original complaint against Mark Steyn and others was the accusation that the defendants had committed the hitherto unknown crime of “personal defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient”. That’s pretty darn clear Mann thinks he has won a Nobel Prize. Anyway he is called out on this claim and his first response was to sneer and state ‘if he wasn’t a Nobel Prize winner how come he had this official looking Nobel Prize Award certificate in his very office. The picture link can be found on the Mark Steyn site. Under ‘Politics and War’ and then Defend Free Speech and then Nobel Pants Prize. You will need to take your safe space filter off otherwise you will only see blank pages…

    He has peddled the Nobel Prize winner claim in book jackets, websites, promotional advertising and biographies given to organisers of events he is speaking at.

    Just to be clear here, if you win a Nobel Prize you get invited to Oslo to meet the King of Norway and receive a Nobel Medal. You do not receive a piece of paper run off at the IPCC and signed by a serial sex predator.

    CCCEP fraud. When you extract money from someone or thing under false pretences it is fraud. CCCEP included in their submission for even more funding a number of research papers that were not theirs, a number that had been completed before the CCCEP had existed, and a number that had nothing to do with climate change. So are you going to stick with the side or are you going to stick with principles?

    I am fully aware of Hans von Storch’s opinion on climate change and despite that seems to keep his principles over sides. Which is why when he says the hiatus is a problem for the models you should take notice. It is why when he rails against the many scientists “who see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people. This is another legacy of the 1968 generation, which I happen to belong to myself. In fact, it would be better if we just presented the facts and scenarios dispassionately — and then society can decide for itself what it wants to do to influence climate change.” And of course von Storch’s views on Mann’s hockey stick which he has described as crap and junk.

    It’s good to see abs that you have taken on the role of referee. I’ve been warned and called out so it is only a matter of time before I receive my first yellow card. Mind you, does this mean you also patrol your side? For instance, anyone including some authors who state 97% of scientists rather than climate scientists do they get a warning from you? It is a big difference considering climate scientists make up around 1-2% of all scientists.

  143. TGC

    October 26, 2016 at 1:43 pm

    #87 Queensland may have to return to coal mining for it’s income if ‘coral tourism’ comes to an end.

  144. Keith Antonysen

    October 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    Trevor @ 83

    Your point about optimism doesn’t make sense to me; if you are in a burning house people make every attempt possible to escape. People do not remain in a house because they have the view everything will be ok in the end. Objectively we know what fires can do; and so, seek to escape.
    In the same way, we know that CO2 has an impact on global warming; the warmth created has a multiplier effect through the creation of extra water vapour, and through permafrost thawing allowing for organic matter to breakdown the organic matter and create methane.

    Another analogy might be after visiting a Urologist who has done a biopsy, you choose to do nothing after being told you have an aggressive prostate cancer. A biopsy being an objective measure of how serious the prostate cancer is.

    The basis for denying climate change is ideological, psychological and religious. The neo conservative will argue against the need for regulation. Anthony Watts, from the site whatsupwiththat (WUWT), has been asked why he has been pushing so hard against climate change science. His answer was that he is against government regulation and endorsed small government. Anthony Watts is not a scientist nor are many others who blog against climate science.

    All major science Agencies such as CSIRO are very clear about supporting anthropogenic climate change. Yet, people can be inside a burning house metaphorically and see no need to get out; or, are given a medical diagnosis after a biopsy has been completed and won’t accept the need for treatment.

    Jon at 80, has put effort into scrutinising davies post about von Storch, Dr Mann and The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, and once again found the comments to lack any credibility. It is classic denier technique to try and ruin people’s character/reputation to create doubt. Blog sites have been created; often supported by fossil fuel interests to create doubt about particular scientists and science generally; especially when the particular scientists have a huge profile. The hockey stick concept has been shown a number of times since it came to provinence through Dr Mann. The aim of denier blogs is to have people such as davies push their message further.

    The IPCC has suggested BECCS as a means to create a safe guard, scientists are clearly saying we should leave fossil fuels in the ground, we need to create huge tree planting schemes, and research is being carried out to learn how CO2 can be neutralised.

    Chris Sharples has written a number of papers; including having identified areas at risk of being effected by sea level rise in Tasmania.
    It leads to many issues such as placement of infrastructure such as highways, placement of airports, sewage plants etc etc. Miami is already having to deal with these matters through blue sky floods when there are king tides.

  145. Chris Harries

    October 26, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Amidst all the huffing and puffing on blog sites, there are hundreds of serious professionals who are working day n and day out on climate change information and education.

    Here is the CSIRO / BOM combined portal.
    http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/

    They’ve just issued the 2016 Climate Update, summarising shifting weather trends around Australia.
    https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-climate-2016-bureau-of-meteorology-and-csiro-67717?

  146. Kim Peart

    October 26, 2016 at 7:42 am

    Great Barrier Reef: Most coral now dead north of Port Douglas off far north Queensland, scientists say
    Ben Millington, 26 Oct 2016, ABC News Online
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/great-barrier-reef-coral-now-dead-north-of-port-douglas-qld/7966162?section=science

    “Eighty to 100 per cent of coral reefs surrounding Lizard Island off far north Queensland are now dead as a result of coral bleaching, scientists say. The ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University visited 83 reefs stretching from Townsville to the Torres Strait earlier this year and revealed the worst recorded mass bleaching event in the reef’s history. Professor Andrew Baird said researchers conducted the same survey this month and had already visited the first 50 reefs between Townsville and Lizard Island. He said the results were confronting. “What we’re seeing now is lots and lots of dead corals,” he said. “On most of the sites around Lizard Island between 80 to 100 per cent of corals are gone — there’s not much coral at all, north of Port Douglas”.”

  147. Kim Peart

    October 26, 2016 at 7:26 am

    State of the Climate report 2016: Extreme heat events increasing in duration, frequency and intensity
    Jake Sturmer, 26 Oct 2016, ABC News Online
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-27/extreme-heat-events-increasing-in-duration-frequency-bom-report/7965650

    “The duration, frequency and intensity of extreme heat events have increased across large parts of Australia, a climate report has found. The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO’s biennial State of the Climate report also found May-July rainfall had reduced by around 19 per cent since 1970 in the south-west of Australia. The report offers a snapshot of how Australia’s weather has changed over the last two years.”

  148. Kim Peart

    October 26, 2016 at 7:15 am

    The war between pro-development and conservation is decades old, but in actual fact there was never a war, because the vast majority of conservationists are totally focused on the Earth, which suits development, which has a focus on the belly of the Earth for carbon energy power.

    Development doesn’t want to think about any other option, and conservationists don’t want to think about any other option, so in fact, they end up on the same side, where the vast majority of conservationists use everything carbon energy development produces.

    An alternative, a third way, I explore in comment #30.

    We are now in extreme danger, because how will atmospheric CO2 not go beyond 800 ppm, and how will temperature rise not go beyond 6C, which will be the herald of a dead Earth, warned of by James Hansen, explored in the doco-film ~ The Age of Stupid ~ which draws on the 2007 book by Mark Lynus ~ Six Degrees ~ a journalist who spent a couple of years reading the peer-reviewed documents to see what the science predicted.

    We need thinking and action at a level that will allow us to survive, allow us to win back a safe Earth, allow us to get CO2 in the air back below 350 ppm, so temperature rise can be brought back to under 1.5C. Overshoot is the case now and is about to go through the roof, and if we have no idea about what do do, actual work that needs to happen now, we are dead meat sizzling on the barbecue of a hot Earth.

    As I said in #30, the third way has not been tried yet, but has been avoided when it was possible in the 1970s. To claim the third way was not and is not possible is simple to be yelling that humankind is incapable of building an atomic bomb and maintaining an arsenal at a level for all my life that could eliminate all life on Earth.

    Now there is another bomb, the carbon bomb, which we have all helped to build, and there is currently no plan to defuse it.

    What is the plan to get CO2 below 350 ppm ASAP, and during the overshoot period, cool the Earth?

    If only the $355 billion being spent by the USA to upgrade their nuclear arsenal were being invested in the third way, the space way, we could have a crack at survival, and collaborated with China and Russia with a space-survival option, that could deliver peace on Earth.

    While conservationists are giving so much power to carbon energy development, the third way is deprived of oxygen, which has been the case since the 1970s.

  149. I Got Gas

    October 25, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    The current mix of all AGM gases equals the same effect as almost 480ppm of plain vanilla CO2.

    Major changes are going to happen.

    What to tell the kids?

    If the Arctic ice cap is likely to be gone by 2030, worthwhile future career paths are going to be very different.

    Candlemaking Master Class?
    Bachelor of Earth Gardening?
    Diploma in Home Defence?
    Apprenticeship in Castle Masonry?

    Or are we just going back to the school of very hard knocks?

    Discussing solutions seems an exercise in futility if the current level of AGM gas is to linger for decades, regardless of our actions.

    The only solution is to turn off the CO2 tap now, which means turning off the current economy, and starting a new one.

  150. TGC

    October 25, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Well, #81..and ‘seriously’ -I take a different view from ‘Chris Sharples’.
    Some may have noticed I tend to refer to the contribution number (#) rather than any ‘name’- which may or may not be ‘real’- because a response is to the contribution- not to the ‘person’
    and….
    whilst respecting #78’s presentation- I still insist on ‘adapting’ and therefore can object to
    “catastrophic” to describe “levels of climate change”
    I am, most emphatically, incorrigibly and recalcitrantly, of a much more optimistic view.
    Now, is it a fair question?- who will achieve the best outcome- those who note that there is ‘climate change’- thankfully- but decline to panic- or those overwhelmed by a sense of impending ‘catastrophe’?

  151. abs

    October 25, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    oh, how we descend so quickly….

    davies, i not sure how to engage in a rational fashion with much of what you write.

    you repeatedly fail to acknowledge your attempted misuse of a cherry picked statistic yet instead begin ranting about all manner of irrelevant stuff. yes Mann is irrelevant to my #23. do you get that? i entered this thread to call you out, your defense of your actions was a failure and it now seems that you intend to hurl random, irrelavent, made-uppy-stuff (that you present without any reference/citation) in a messy fashion. you are welcome to present yourself that way, i have no ownership in it.

    i present evidence in an standard accepted scientic fashion. ie full quotes, quote in context, journal article citations, links to reputable websites or organisations, etc. information presented in a way so as to keep debate rational and comprehendable, acknowledgement when I engage with information that is beyond my professional level of expertise. it pretty basic, really. occasionally i have a cheeky jibe. most importantly, if i am caught out misrepresenting something (by accident, it is foolish to do so intentionally as one looks a fool when caught), then I acknowledge I have done so. as I said, you are free to present yourself how you wish, but it reflects upon yourself.

  152. Keith Antonysen

    October 25, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    Chris @ 68

    Politicians presently are showing a knack for action in relation to climate change; though also make mutually exclusive decisions.
    In the US there is the battle in relation to the Dakota oil pipeline, some of Prime Minister Trudeau’s policies are excellent; yet, oil carrying pipelines are also an issue. In Britain there is talk of extending the Heathrow Airport runway, and here in Australia development of the Galilee Basin is still promoted. Those developments will lengthen the time fossil fuels are used.

    In relation to how long it will be before the Arctic is ice free, scientists generally agree it will occur about 2030; some others are suggesting within the next three or four years. The trend line which has been created in 1979, shows that 2030 is quite a conservative estimate. Once the Arctic is ice free, it means that the energy used to melt sea ice can then warm the exposed dark waters.

    Waters off the East Coast of Tasmania have been recorded for a number of years, it will remain true for 2016:

    http://oceancurrent.imos.org.au/news.php

    The IPCC safe emission projections are based on a technological solution … BECCS … Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage. Till so far the technology has not been developed.
    Research into BECCS has been happening; though till now the results have been disappointing.

    Trevor, at 74

    Chris Sharples has a professional background in relation to climate change, having written a paper relevant to Tasmania. So Chris’s view can be taken seriously.

  153. Jon Sumby

    October 25, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    @69,
    Your claims are false. The claim about the The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy ‘stealing’ 11 million pounds is wrong – they did not. That claim was manufactured to discredit that Centre because it is run by Sir Nicolas Stern, author of the Stern Report, and denialists use every chance they can to distort the situation and try and damage his reputation. Same with your other claims.

    Charles Driscoll, who got $3.65 million, admitted results of his study were predetermined.
    This one is just silly but it floats around on the denialist websites. He didn’t admit to that because he didn’t have to.

    His research was projecting death rates under different scenarios of change in air pollution levels if different aspects of the US Clean Air Act were used. His results were ‘predetermined’ to the extent that the results were directed by the modelled changes under different applications of the Clean Air Act.

    This is a common technique. I read a paper a couple of years ago where death rates in the elderly from heatstroke were estimated under different climate change temperature scenarios for Brisbane. It is also done in the reverse.

    The ABC studio in Toowong, Brisbane, was closed and demolished because a ‘cancer cluster’ was detected among the staff there. This is where a particular cancer is clustered at a higher than normal levels expected from modelled background rates of the cancer being found in the community.

    You cannot answer the simplest of questions #66. Has Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize like he claims?
    Again this is false. I had a read of his CV (a.k.a. résumé), in the long list of his awards and honours I found this: ‘2007 – Contributed (with other IPCC report authors) to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize’. This is his personal document written by him; he doesn’t claim to have won a Nobel Prize.

    I went to his website and on the front page is the same line; he doesn’t claim to won a Nobel Prize on his website. This is just an attack on his reputation, the same as with Stern.

    You going to bag out von Storch too?
    I find it funny that you reference von Storch. I have known of his work for years. He is a climate scientist and in basic terms one of the things he does is review colleagues work and if he thinks something is wrong with their analysis or modelling he points that out. He does this to improve the science, not to debunk it. This is a normal and good part of how science works. I think it is funny you reference him because he doesn’t deny climate change at all.

    Here’s a couple of quotes from the 2013 Der Spiegel article that you missed when giving your quotes:

    ‘SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

    Storch: Why? That’s how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It’s never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality.’

    And:

    ‘SPIEGEL: Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?

    Storch: I don’t believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.’

    He also gave evidence before a US House committee where he said:
    ‘Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.’

    He also said, in 2013, that it could take about five years of research before we know if the ‘pause’ was real or an artefact. It took two years. In 2015 there were several research papers that showed there was no actual pause, no hiatus, global warming was continuing and rising.

    Here’s a quote from one of them.’Our study raises the question: why has so much research been framed around the concept of a ‘hiatus’ when it does not exist? The notion of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ demonstrably originated outside the scientific community, and it likely found entry into the scientific discourse because of the constant challenge by contrarian voices that are known to affect scientific communication and conduct.’

    Your post at number 69 is wrong and is just a repeating of denialist statements that are debunked distortions of the truth. With a healthy dose of conpiracy thinking added.

  154. Chris Harries

    October 25, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    I will briefly side with some of the climate change disbelievers on one annoying issue. Really poor media reporting on some occasions.

    Yesterday the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued its annual status of world energy and in doing so proclaimed, in a carelessly worded summary, that renewable energy this year has overtaken coal in terms of world energy capacity. Wow!!

    Now to the uneducated (and this includes many reporters) this news was gleefully but wrongfully interpreted as ‘renewable energy has overtaken coal in the generation of electricity around the world’. This is not just a small error, it is just plain stupid and massively wrong. But that did not stop the faulty news from spinning around the world, including in social media.

    The reality is that wind and solar power combined generates about 6 percent of world electricity. Coal and gas fired electricity provide early 70 percent. http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/electricity-sector-2.png

    What the IEA was trying to report was: In the past year more renewables electricity than coal based electricity was added to world production’. While this good news is certainly welcome, too often miseducation by media can be really annoying.

    Given that most mass media outlets are politically conservative, this is not an issue of political bias, but it does demonstrate how hard it is for educators to get across the most fundamental information when data is naively misinterpreted then spread around by well meaning wishful thinkers.

  155. Chris Harries

    October 25, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    That all sounds very logical, Trevor (#74). I think everyone agrees that we will have to ‘adapt’ to climate change, though that’s an inappropriate word. Replace ‘..adapt..’ with ‘..cope as best as we can..”.

    The fault in the argument isn’t the basic notion of adaptation. When looking at adaptation policy and doing the economics for, say, 4 or 6 degrees warming planners come to the same conclusion. It’s not possible to adapt to catastrophic levels of climate change.

    The natural and overwhelming response of both people and government is to conservatively ‘put up with circumstances’ rather than do the hard yards.

    We actually have to do both at once. If society neglects the priority to reduce emissions then adaptation in the long run will be to no avail.

  156. abs

    October 25, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    #74- “And…#71 ‘Chris Sharples’ is just a name on the screen and no more deserving of being taken seriously because it appears to be ‘real’ than – well- ‘TGC’”

    well, no!

    a simple google search of reveals a human, whereas a simple google search for reveals nothing but the Tasmanian Gaming Commision, and I don’t believe that is the responsible party for “TCG”, Trevor.

    yours truly
    Dr (anonymous) Abs

  157. davies

    October 25, 2016 at 11:48 am

    What no comment on this!

    “The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at London School of Economics stole $11 million in taxpayers money for climate research they claimed to have done. They hadnt.

    Is that intellectual dishonesty or what! Perhaps no comment because some of you realise that the Chair for the CCEP is none other than Lord Nicky Stern. You know the guy. The Stern Review plus many other examples advocating drastic action on climate change. What a crock.

    We have Mann claiming he has won a Nobel Prize when he hasn’t. We have Lord Stern’s CCEP claiming taxpayers money for research they did not do. And we have the total re-write of what the scare mongerers were saying 10 plus years ago.

    No, there was no one claiming there would be wetter wets! Just in Australia, you had Tim ‘the dams will never fill again’ Flannery, Evans at the BOM saying droughts are the new norm, several Greens pollies pushing the droughts will be worse and for longer (including Bob Brown).

    The other main line was catastrophic sea level rises due to all the ice melting around the world. So again you had Flannery stating sea level rises comparable to an 8-story building, that ABC numpty Robin Williams claiming sea level rises of over 100 metres and Bob Brown claiming sea surges of 5m plus whilst, from memory standing just outside Green’s HQ which was on the pier a bare 2 metres above sea level!

    Wetter wets were not mentioned and I don’t remember more extreme weather being mentioned apart from super droughts and snow being so rare in the northern hemisphere that children will wonder what it is!

    But this is what happens when you pick sides and slavishly follow ideologies. Your principles are left far behind.

    Just noticed the abs admission that Mann has a big ego but his claim to Nobel Prize is irrelevant…

    No it’s not irrelevant, and you know that which is why you still won’t state Mann lies about his Nobel Prize. Because if he lies about that what else has he been lying about?

    So knutti and co, by tweaking and modifying existing models to include new information, but information we were told was already included in the modelling, manage to prove the current hiatus is within the range of the modelling.

    Even if they are completely right, what it means is the science is hardly settled. And you cannot help the feeling that further adjustments will be necessary to keep the models close to the actual temperatures.

    What it also means is there are natural variables that lower temperatures. So the chance of a catastrophic rise in temperatures is even more remote than it already was.

  158. Chris Sharples

    October 25, 2016 at 11:45 am

    #74:- “And…#71 ‘Chris Sharples’ is just a name on the screen and no more deserving of being taken seriously because it appears to be ‘real’ than – well- ‘TGC”

    One big difference though – its my real name, you can google me and find out who I am, what my professional background is, even where I live if you’re smart enough (NB. I’m the Tasmanian one, not one of the multiple UK Chris Sharples’…). I’m not ashamed of my views so I don’t need to hide behind an acronym or some other unidentifiable screen name.

  159. TGC

    October 25, 2016 at 10:58 am

    #68 One by one the people that matter on the ground have decided, through their own hard experiences, that climate change is upon us.

    1. People who work in the firefighting services.
    2. Hydro Tas planners.
    3. The fisheries people.
    4. The farming community.
    5. Local government planners
    6. National Parks personnel
    7. Keep adding….

    Ok- so it’s a long list- but what are all those on that list actually ‘doing’ about what they believe? Mosly- from what is heard -especially on ABC Radio= and read- mostly in ‘national’ newspapers- these concerned groups are looking to adaptations to accomodate climate change.
    One suspects they all realise that ‘they’ can do little to halt ‘climate change’ and certainly can’t reverse it- even if that was desirable- and is it? So – ‘we must adapt to what is happening and plan our future operations around the scenarios the experts lay before us’
    Can anyone name any other who is actually doing something that will, without a shadow of doubt- halt-even slow- climate change. No individual can, in all probability no nation can- or will?- so adapting does seem a remarkably pragmatic response.

    And…#71 ‘Chris Sharples’ is just a name on the screen and no more deserving of being taken seriously because it appears to be ‘real’ than – well- ‘TGC’

  160. Keith Antonysen

    October 25, 2016 at 12:10 am

    We hear the nonsense from a number of sources that temperature has not increased since 1998.
    My hypothesis is that warmth causes the cryosphere to melt, thaw or regress.
    The glaciers on the Andes, Himalayas, European Alps, New Zealand Alps, Alaska and Canada are regressing. Sea ice in the Arctic is diminishing. Permafrost areas in Siberia, Northern Canada, and Alaska are thawing. Ice sheets/shelves/glaciers in Antarctica ( Pine Island, Totten, and Larsen C) and Greenland, are breaking down. Islands off the Siberian coast are eroding as permafrost is thawing. Last winter the Bering Sea was ice free.

    If the planet was cooling as some deniers suggest (WUWT had an article about 3 weeks ago); then, a break down in the cryosphere would not be a feature of what is going on.
    The Sierra Nevada has had poor snow falls which impact on an already moisture depleted California.

    Oceans generally are displaying warmth, “the blob” has reappeared on the Eastern Pacific, high temperature in the Gulf of Mexico has created rain bombs which have impacted on the South East of the USA.
    There have been some very serious Typhoons in the Pacific Ocean, an indication of extra warmth in tropical waters. Due to super storms such as Winston and Haiyan, it has been suggested that a category 6 is added to the storm scale.
    These factors have been developing over decades.

    With all those features, it is a nonsense to suggest there has been no warming of the planet since 1998. It is not necessary to take temperature measurements to show warming is occurring as the Earth is showing signs of warming.
    Hypothesis supported.

  161. abs

    October 24, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    davies,

    I am not going to ‘bag out’ Von Storch. Are you happy to accept his and Bray’s published reseach supporting scientific consensus of human causality for most of recent climate warming?

    the der spiegal article (not peer reviewed scientific research) occured in 2013, right? by now he would have had the opportunity to read – Markus Huber & Reto Knutti (2014) Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled Nature Geoscience 7, 651–656 (2014)
    abstract

    Global mean surface warming over the past 15 years or so has been less than in earlier decades and than simulated by most climate models1. Natural variability2, 3, 4, a reduced radiative forcing5, 6, 7, a smaller warming response to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations8, 9 and coverage bias in the observations10 have been identified as potential causes. However, the explanations of the so-called ‘warming hiatus’ remain fragmented and the implications for long-term temperature projections are unclear. Here we estimate the contribution of internal variability associated with the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) using segments of unforced climate model control simulations that match the observed climate variability. We find that ENSO variability analogous to that between 1997 or 1998 and 2012 leads to a cooling trend of about −0.06 °C. In addition, updated solar and stratospheric aerosol forcings from observations explain a cooling trend of similar magnitude (−0.07 °C). Accounting for these adjusted trends we show that a climate model of reduced complexity with a transient climate response of about 1.8 °C is consistent with the temperature record of the past 15 years, as is the ensemble mean of the models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). We conclude that there is little evidence for a systematic overestimation of the temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the CMIP5 ensemble.

    so I guess his …“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break” is no longer relevant

    you have been caught out using cherry pickings in a very misleading fashion. you now fail to own that. but instead you want to skip along to the next distraction.

    as for Mann, I’ll accept he has been identified as having an big ego, if you cease and desist from pretending his claim for a Nobel prize is relevant as to whether you have been caught out attempting to mislead with cherry-picked info.

  162. Chris Sharples

    October 24, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    #67 TGC (whoever you are:- deniers always write anonymously don’t they? Why is that? Actually I think I know…): What has been “forecast” (or more accurately, projected) for a long time to be a consequence of more thermal energy in the climate system (aka ‘global warming’) is more weather extremes – drier drys AND wetter wets. Which is exactly what we’ve been seeing for a decade or more.

    If you assume global warming just means hotter weather you really don’t get it (and obviously haven’t been making any effort to understand the real science…).

  163. Keith Antonysen

    October 24, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    A further indication in relation to the state of Arctic sea ice:

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvQeFLbVUAEFX4z.jpg:large

    So in the Arctic Ocean over decades we have deteriration in:

    Sea ice thickness
    Sea ice extent
    Sea ice volume
    Loss of multi year ice

    Temperature has been progressively increasing.

    We know that what happens in the Arctic has an impact around the globe; though initially in the Northern Hemisphere. Though Antarctica is not in good shape, either.

    What evidence do deniers have to debunk what is happening … none.

    Already the impact of coal was anticipated in 1912:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/coals-link-to-global-warming-explained-in-1912/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog+Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Climate+Change&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0#more-58613

    Once abrupt climate change kicks in, whether Australia has a AAA rating or an AA rating is of no consequence in comparison to the loss of life and costs incurred by extreme conditions.

  164. davies

    October 24, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    It is all about the Grants!

    The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at London School of Economics stole $11 million in taxpayers money for climate research they claimed to have done. They hadnt.

    Another example, the EPA in the US gave funding of $31 million, $9 million and $3.65 million to lead authors of their studies that found in support of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Charles Driscoll, who got $3.65 million, admitted results of his study were predetermined.

    I wonder how many ‘natural’ causes we could find for warming if governments gave just 20% of total funding for those studies?

    You cannot answer the simplest of questions #66. Has Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize like he claims?

    Hans von Storch disagrees with you and the IPCC on the significance of the temperature pausing since 1998. Here is a bit of an abstract from his interview in Der Spiegel June 20 2013:

    Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

    SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?

    Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

    You going to bag out von Storch too?

  165. Chris Harries

    October 24, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    Keith, (#64)

    In once sense it doesn’t matter that a few diehards are still holding out against scientific evidence. One by one the people that matter on the ground have decided, through their own hard experiences, that climate change is upon us.

    1. People who work in the firefighting services.
    2. Hydro Tas planners.
    3. The fisheries people.
    4. The farming community.
    5. Local government planners
    6. National Parks personnel
    7. Keep adding….

    Actually, most MPs are persuaded too, but for political reasons dare not say it too loudly. The Minister responsible for climate change simply says – in deference to the few hardline deniers in his party – that the government is a ‘broad church’. This is code for saying he disagrees with them but dare not say it too loudly.

    Nor will he do very much himself, because politics, being what it is, places short term economics over what is sensible to do in the longer term. Our grandkids don’t figure into the 4 year election cycle.

    It’s not actually psychological denial that’s the main problem. The human predicament is just so complex and big that people and governments both want to look the other way – because it hurts the eyes to look straight at it straight. It takes courage to do that.

  166. TGC

    October 24, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    #65 – and, contrary to ‘forecasts’ – it has rained- plentifully- and most water storges are pretty full.

  167. abs

    October 24, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    really davies, after days that is your response?? I …I have no words…well almost 😉

    are you attempting to persuade me that your postings are not intellectual dishonesty by feigning spectacular incompetence??

    I have provided the whole relevant piece to clearly demonstrate that you attempt to misrepresent the ‘cherry picked’ sentence.

    your ridiculous bluster in #65 (“Basically they are saying ‘heh we buggered up the modelling part but wow didn’t we nail the historical stuff!”– davies) provides a demonstration that denialist websites, not science, (mis)inform you. The quote states that natural variability means that short terms trends cannot be relied heavily upon for long term estimations. statistics and data analysis 101

    i am not interested in the side show you try to distract with. caught out, repeatedly debunked, then return with absurdity.

  168. davies

    October 24, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    So #53 what are the findings in the Ranga paper that differed from what I said? How are they wrong?

    Cherry-picking?? I give you the exact quote on what the IPCC said in regards to 111 of 114 models overestimating warming since 1998. This is a fact is it not? You want the expanded quote? Just makes the IPCC look even sillier doesn’t it? Basically they are saying ‘heh we buggered up the modelling part but wow didn’t we nail the historical stuff!’ Bully for them!

    But if you want to talk intellectual dishonesty what do you think of Michael Mann’s claim that he won a Nobel Prize? He continues to do so, despite the Nobel Prize Committee telling him to desist! Anyone can jump in here. Does Michael Mann have a Nobel Prize as he claims?

    Can anyone provide the source that 97% of climate scientists think global warming is going to be catastrophic?

    Can anyone provide the source that 97% of climate scientists think decarbonizing the atmosphere is the best way to avoid such catastrophies?

    Timely from NOAA to state that it has now been 11 years since a Cat 3 or higher storm has hit US shores. Longest gap recorded and records go back to 1858.

  169. Keith Antonysen

    October 23, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    No 63, Robin

    Deniers make a big thing of climate scientists looking for resources to continue research. It’s what scientists do generally; but deniers suggest that climate scientists are particularly rolling in clover.

    As soon as it was intimated that the utilisation of Macquarie Island would be reduced; scientists from overseas were indicating that they would be missing out on important data.

    Climate change is not a priority of the LNP; they have done everything possible to despatch Agencies dealing with climate change. The Climate Change Authority now has partisan replacements for Bernie Fraser and those who resigned with him. Since the carbon tax was killed by Abbott, carbon emissions have increased, direct action has not worked.

    A business as usual approach won’t compete with the state of the Arctic, and:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/21/scientists-just-showed-what-it-truly-means-when-a-huge-antarctic-glacier-is-unstable/?postshare=9451477067964468&tid=ss_tw&utm;_term=.ba086aa3a4d7

    First sentence:

    “If there is one story that, more than anything else, makes you wonder if global warming could cause very fast changes and hit planetary tipping points in our lifetimes, it was a moment in 2014.”

    And:

    “On Thursday, the National Science Foundation and the U.K.’s Natural Environment Research Council made a joint announcement signaling how grave this really is — they will fund a multi-million dollar research initiative to the less-studied Thwaites, in order to determine just how much it is capable of contributing to sea level rise during our lifetimes, and by the end of the century.”

  170. Robin Charles Halton

    October 23, 2016 at 12:42 am

    #62 ” A lot of nonsense is suggested that climate scientists are in it for grant”
    Of course they need the grants, they would be unemployed as well as unemployable when the money runs out.

    A recent example is the recent backflip by Federal government backflip to move from Summer occupancy of Macquarie Island back to the junketeering approach for funding all year occupancy of Macquarie Island by scientific crews, on top of a $50M for redevelopment of the base.

    I have no problem with the great work done by the dog handling crews, baiting drops, logistics,support crews and surveys on the island to remove vermin.
    Seabird numbers as well a native vegetation has benefited, what more would anyone with a reasonable environmental awareness expect.

    Even Andrew Wilkie asks if this is the right type of scientific research that Australia should continue to fund at this level, can the funding be sustained, he asks!
    It pretty obvious to me if Australia loses it AAA rating, Antarctic/ Climate Change research will be first to go.

  171. Keith Antonysen

    October 22, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    Robert @60

    Huge funds have been paid by fossil fuel companies to denier Agencies to create as much confusion about climate change science as possible. Political Parties have also received huge donations from fossil fuel companies; the Repulican Party in the US, and Labor and Liberals in Australia. Libertarians are generally against the science of climate change; it is an ideological aberration for them particularly.

    A lot of nonsense is suggested that climate scientists are in it for grants; meanwhile, fossil fuel companies have made stupendously high profits.

    Climate change has an impact in so many areas; the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere being something not usually discussed. Phytoplankton are responsible for creating a high percentage of the oxygen we breathe. Two studies which indicate that the warmth of Oceans has an impact on the amount of oygen available. One study uses modelling to come to a conclusion; the other uses photos from satellites.

    http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/20721/widespread-loss-of-ocean-oxygen-become-noticeable-in-2030s

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytoplankton-rapidly-disappearing-indian-ocean

    Meanwhile there are huge wildfires around the planet, and many large forests are subject to insect attack (USA). Tropical and Semi Tropical forests being particularly important through the rich degree of plant density that they display. Indonesia and the Amazon Basin have been subject to numerous set fires and wild fires.

  172. Boris Bogdanovich

    October 22, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Russian scientist smarter than West.

    World should be going ice age, but instead gets warmer.

    Actual CO2 effect, if including all AGM gas, is 478ppm.

    Clearly, problem is very bad. This is not lost on Comrade Putin.

    Animals and plant species rise and fall, boom and bust. People no different. Strong genes survive.

    Russian saying: “Man with Kalashnikov have strong genes.”

    Science and talk is over, my friends. What to do, bury a century of CO2? Turn off coal? Stop cars? Will not happen.

    Big problem for advanced civilisation. Maybe why no spaceman visit earth, they all dead.

    Comrade Putin sees this, sees solution. Global winter plus same-time big population cut is only solution. More humane than slow boil.

    And easy fix, only need press button.

    As you say in Oz, avagoodweekend.

    Best,
    Boris

  173. Robert LePage

    October 21, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    It is easy to pick those who are “hardwired” to deny climate change and those with an open mind.
    Anyone who cares about climate change has to be tired of the vitriolic tirades that masquerade as public debate over that issue. Climate change has become a rhetorical contest akin to a sports match, with each side seeking total victory—often through the cynical manipulation of fear, distrust, and intolerance. No wonder the public is confused. And more important, no wonder there is such a sharp divide between the views of the scientific community and the opinions of the general public.
    I earnestly implore you to read this book and expand your mind
    Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change
    by George Marshall https://ssir.org/book_reviews/entry/a_climate_of_mind

  174. Kim Peart

    October 21, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    Re: 54 ~ ?

  175. Keith Antonysen

    October 21, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    The question is: why is an Arctic Ocean free or almost free of sea ice a matter of concern?

    John Englander provides graphs which take into account CO2, temperature and sea level:

    http://www.johnenglander.net/420kyr-T-CO2-SL

    Of interest, a paper titled “Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling” … states that the Arctic was cooling prior to the Industrial Revolution ( Darrell S. Kaufman et al, Science 04 Sep 2009: Vol. 325, Issue 5945, pp. 1236-1239).

    Currently the Arctic Circle is warming at around twice the global rate.

    Wunderground appears to have captured current thinking in relation to the importance of the Arctic and Antarctica:

    https://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp?MR=1

    Last sentences from reference:

    “Arctic sea ice has been melting at break-neck speeds in the past few decades, driven by warming air temperature, warming ocean water temperature, and new, extreme weather patterns, all of which are caused by or accelerated by man-made climate change. Unfortunately, melting sea ice is a slippery slope—once it starts, it’s hard to reverse, and even under normal climate conditions would take centuries to reestablish. The lack of bright white ice on the dark ocean surface is leading to a temperature increase that likely extends beyond the borders of the Arctic, and a breakdown of the polar vortex, which is so critical in maintaining a cold, ice-conducive atmosphere at the pole. Models suggest sea ice will disappear by 2100, but most Arctic sea ice experts are calling for an summertime ice-free Arctic by 2030.”

  176. Kim Peart

    October 21, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette
    14 August 1912

    “The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.”

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/100645214

  177. Simon Warriner

    October 21, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    re 50. This poor, dumb farm worker has only one question: what is the eroei.

    eroei: energy return on energy invested.

    for the layman, the inference we seem to be being encouraged to draw is that a way has been found to turn a pollutant, CO2, into a fuel, ethanol. This is seen as good.

    If the amount of energy required to run the conversion process is greater than, or even very slightly less than the amount of energy the ethanol produced contains, then this process is a wotam. And one last question: how much CO2 is produced when ethanol is combusted?

  178. abs

    October 21, 2016 at 11:42 am

    davies, #51 and #42,

    two further posts and two comments absent of acknowledging that you have, yet again, been caught misusing a cherry picked statistic. instead you’ve gone a bit Trump-ish….

    the accusation of intellectual dishonesty is supported.

  179. Chris Harries

    October 21, 2016 at 10:14 am

    Kim (#50) please tell us about these things if or when they get into commercial production.

    There have been so many announcements from technology enthusiasts about new magic discoveries that never eventuate, I liken them mostly to the alchemists of yesteryear who tried in vain for a century or more to turn lead into gold.

    To turn carbon dioxide into a fuel, without the application of external energy, conflicts with everything that is known about physics. It’s the perpetual-energy-from-nothing dream that blokes have had for donkey’s years.

    By all means dream away but for practical purposes we can only go with technologies that get proven up and get actually built and put into service.

  180. Jon Sumby

    October 20, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Re #51.

    I have read the Zhu et al. paper.

    The ‘global greening’ you harp on about does not mean what you think it means; or how you try to spin it.

    Global warming continues and is getting worse.

  181. Robin Charles Halton

    October 20, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    #41 Chris, that sounds OK for Tasmania as I dont think there is any more capacity for raising the levels of our lakes.
    I doubt if China will be a JV partner in more wind farms as the antics with China escalates, we will have to go it alone!

    GBF is out for environmental reasons now WHA, we can accept that.
    It is believed there is sufficient coal deposit in the Fingal Valley to support a Power Station as Eric Reece had the HEC to create a proposal, not sure what has happened in the meantime!
    I think that Fingal coal is lignite, the lower grade, coal quality with poor BTU rating!

    I would think the Tamar gas fired power station dependent on the under sea “life line” should also be used in the power generation mix although I have heard it is costly to run.

    State Government believed by the Opposition not paying the Basslink cable rental now it is restored, does not sound good despite the period out of service, hate to think what is going on behind the scenes!

    It seems we are not out of the woods yet!

  182. davies

    October 20, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Trolling! Yeah right.

    Mr it does not matter what I think. I can say yes that CO2 can cause a rise in temperature. Is it the main cause for the rise in temperature since 1950, e.g over 50%, I would say it is a possibility but I rate sun activity, oceanic cycles, volcanic activity, cloud cover etc as a greater possibility for being the main cause.

    It does not matter because either way it is not dangerous. The IPCC has a range of outcomes from harmless to catastrophic. All the high estimates of warming are based on an economic and demographic scenario called RCP 8.5. RCP 8.5 can be best described as very unrealistic. It assumes that population growth stops decelerating and speeds up again; it assumes that trade and innovation largely cease; it assumes that the ability of oceans to absorb CO2 fails; it assumes that despite all of this that incomes of the average person trebles, and most absurdly, it presumes we go back to using coal for everything so that by 2100 we are using ten times as much coal as we are today.

    And anyway Bjorn Lomborg calculations show the decarbonisation approach is very inefficient and most probably futile. If it is dangerous then surely you want measures in place that are effective?

    At this point in time, the extra CO2 has been the main factor (70%) in global greening. Unless anyone here has read the paper and can now debunk it?

    The IMF is left wing. It supports the Keynesian economic model and no other. It has castigated and reprimanded every country that dares do anything bar printing more money and spending more. And gee hasn’t that been a successful economic model over the last couple of decades…

  183. Kim Peart

    October 20, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    Renewable energy: Scientists accidentally turn carbon dioxide into ethanol
    Tegan Taylor 21 Oct 2016 ABC News Online
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-21/energy-scientists-accidentally-turn-carbon-dioxide-into-ethanol/7954546

    “A team of scientists has turned a waste product — carbon dioxide — into a fuel — ethanol — in a relatively simple process. And it happened almost by accident. The US Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists were running a solution of carbon dioxide dissolved in water over a charged surface in the hopes of describing a reaction when they made their serendipitous discovery. “We discovered somewhat by accident that this material worked,” study lead author Adam Rondinone said. “We were trying to study the first step of a proposed reaction when we realised that the catalyst was doing the entire reaction on its own.” The catalyst in question was nanoscopic spikes of carbon, studded with copper nanoparticles, that was electrified to essentially reverse the combustion process. “They are like 50-nanometer lightning rods that concentrate electrochemical reactivity at the tip of the spike,” Dr Rondinone said. The solution of carbon dioxide dissolved in water turned into ethanol with a yield of 63 per cent. This type of reaction typically results in a mix of several different products in small amounts.”

  184. Kim Peart

    October 20, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    Re: 43 ~ Google ~ Sunshade in space ~ and read on.

    If you would like to know the cheapest and swiftest way to get a sunshade in space, I’ll be watching for the question.

    Re: 39 ~ When people see that CO2 is still going up and locking in higher temperature rise into the future, there will be no incentive to inspire many small solutions, that they may see as greenwash to hide the view through the glass to a working solution to the carbon problem.

    As you quoted ~ “We are f…….” ~ if we don’t get serious at the level that will fix the problem.

    Considering the volume of CO2 in the air and sea, how many gigatonnes of carbon are involved, how swiftly CO2 is rising in the air and how Nature is pretty bloody keen to get in on the act with Arctic methane release, and that there is a time delay between emission release and temperature rise, though less so with methane, I wonder if we are locking in a future for our children with 800 ppm CO2 and planet temperature rise beyond 6C.

    What kind of hell would that deliver?

    Getting a sunshade built in space may therefore be a key to our survival on Earth, with the price of inaction being no more than a death wish.

    There are a large number of other reasons for taking the space path as the way to secure a safe Earth.

    Because action at a level that works has been delayed by 4 decades, there will be overshoot into a world where we will need to live on Earth more like were were living on the Moon, to survive.

    We will need to plan for arks to preserve life, and more seed banks, to get through the dangerous years fast arriving.

  185. Keith Antonysen

    October 20, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    davies, No 42

    You have not provided any experiments to show that CO2 has no, or little, impact on climate; you have been asked several times. The request has been given in relation to other articles in TT, and also deniers have been requested at other sites with the same result… none. There is a credibility gap as a variety of experiments can be provided in relation to CO2 producing warmth; examples have previously been provided.

    In relation to suggestions made to combat climate change, I realise that they might appear extreme; however, there could have been a much smoother transition had the science been taken seriously more than two decades ago. Denier Agencies such as IPA, Heartlands et al have been very successful in peddling their nonsense. We now pay the price.

    There has been a cost to health from fossil fuel emissions:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/19/british-doctors-and-health-professionals-call-for-rapid-coal-phase-out

    The IMF can hardly be thought of as a left wing Agency, it says that fossil fuels are being subsidised to the tune of 10 million dollars every minute:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

  186. Kim Peart

    October 20, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Re: 44 ~ If survival is lost, there is no local to worry about, so I suggest survival must come first, so local can be dealt with.

    With a focus on the demands of survival, the needs of being sustainable will follow, as when any community becomes unsustainable, their survival may fall under a cloud.

    The question of survival for our industrial society is a far more complex question, because of a transition process that is not finished.

    Understanding where that transition process is going is the key to our survival, because getting there will allow us to sort ourselves out, secure a state of maturity and ensure our survival.

    As in Nature, our current growth phase will lead to a mature phase, if we get to where the transition phase is taking us, but to grow without getting to the mature phase is our problem.

    This is an ecological problem, in terms of the transition from the natural world for human society as a tool maker that makes the most amazing machines, like computers, and machine networks, like the Internet.

    If we freeze in mid-transition, which is largely where we are now, growing without any reason or purpose like a cancer on the Earth, then our survival is at risk, locally and globally.

  187. phill Parsons

    October 20, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    At the other end of the sphere the Pine Island Thwaites Glacier complex in West Antarctic continues to decline. The temperature trend line indicates the rate of decline will increase. In the Last Inter-glacial the sea level rose by multiple metres to between 4 and 6m current above sea level. This now seems inevtiable. only the timing being unclear.

    Changes driven by Carbon pollution appear to rapidly accelerate at certain points in their cycle. There is no reason to doubt we will be surprised by the rapidity of change.

  188. Chris Sharples

    October 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Considering the attempted inflammatory nonsense at #42, and just in the interests of general awareness:

    An online ‘troll’ is somebody who engages in ‘trolling’ in the sense of fishing (albeit the double entendre in the term ‘troll’ is most appropriate). That is, a troll is someone who posts illogical and irritating statements online in the hope of triggering angry responses. The ability to trigger such responses in others gives the troll satisfaction. Naturally, trolls are always anonymous – it goes with the territory.

    The best response to trolling is: “Do not feed the trolls”.

  189. Russell

    October 20, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Re #40
    Think local first, survival second, and base load electricity somewhere near last.

  190. Keith Antonysen

    October 20, 2016 at 11:55 am

    No 38, Kim

    My analogy about the revolver relates to the current mess the Arctic is in. Loss of about 75% of sea ice volume since 1979 is very significant on the basis of the amount of snow and ice generally has a huge impact on temperature and climate.
    You make the same point as stated in the last sentence of my article.
    Geoengineering through placing satellites in orbit to deflect sunlight has not been discussed in anything I have read.

    Abel at No12, introduced the possibility of volcanic action.

    A film clip which discusses volcanic action created through climate change drivers; which then, impact on external pressures such as load pressure variation. The first 10 minutes or so of the clip explains much:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xndhx7KpSU0

    Robin at 40

    You stated the need for base load electricity.
    Due to the thickness of sea ice and lack of multi year ice; some people are suggesting that it is less than a decade before the Arctic is ice free. The reason being that far less energy is required to melt the existing sea ice; once that has been completed, more energy can be absorbed by open water.

    It is recklessness in the extreme to create new coal mines (LNP plus Labor); and existing coal fired power plants need to be phased out.

    Boris at 25, raised the spectre of Putin; Trump hardly creates confidence. Hilary Clinton, has a reputation of being a hawke; but, at least she is open to communication it would appear.

  191. davies

    October 20, 2016 at 11:52 am

    What do you call a person who:

    Believes CO2 is a greenhouse gas; Believes its concentration in the atmosphere is increasing; Believes main cause of that increase is burning of fossil fuels; believes climate does change; believes it is warmer now than 50 years ago; and believes CO2 probably caused more than half of that warming?

    Answer: One of your lot.

    Question: What do you call a person who believes all of the above BUT does not believe it is dangerous?

    Answer: A DENIER!!!!

    This is why you will eventually lose, despite the fact that Governments around the world are spending billions of dollars a week for your side of the argument. Your position is Extreme and you are Extremists.

    You talk of radical social transformations as if it was nothing but history shows radical social transformations cause the deaths of millions and millions of people. While you fight the extension of cheap reliable energy (usually coal-powered) to poorer countries, the World Health Organisation states that around 3 million people die each and every year from using wood and dung etc for cooking fires. Not to mention the destruction of habitats to get the wood to use for fuel.

    Your policies kill people and destroy natural habitats. And the saddest bit is even after all that destruction and death your push for renewables does nothing to decarbonise the world! In 2012 Bjorn Lomborg calculated that 20 years of climate policy had reduced global emissions by less than 1%. During that time the world had spent more than a trillion dollars just on subsidies for wind and solar power.

    Even if your whole argument is totally right your policy prescriptions are at best woefully inefficient but much more probably totally futile.

    This is why you will lose.

    Despite a fortune spent on propaganda, a huge United Nations online poll of people around the globe, called My World, to which nearly 10 million people have now responded, action on climate change comes dead last, 16th and by some margin – well behind the 15th priority, which is phone and internet access.

    Sceptics, with their shoestring budgets and zero public funding and threats of jail and loss of careers are winning. No wonder you lot are just itching for some radical social transformations! Mind you, you better hope it’s your particular socialist faction in charge in the new world order because other socialist factions are usually the first to be terminated…

    And just on that global greening paper. It was peer-reviewed. Go ahead and read it. Come back with your observations.

  192. Chris Harries

    October 20, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Keep in mind that the issue isn’t quite so difficult for Tasmania because hydro-electricity is base load. It may not rain continuously but there’s a huge energy storage in those dams. Couple this with a good back of intermittent renewables and you have even greater capability as a renewables, base load system.

    There are few places in the world that have such an array of compatible resources. But they do need to be managed sensibly. The corporate / legal fight over Basslink is an upshot of poor corporate management.

  193. Robin Charles Halton

    October 20, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Think base load electricity first and Renewables second for Australia.

  194. Keith Antonysen

    October 20, 2016 at 9:37 am

    We can sit back and debate about the need for using fossil fuels or renewable until such time as we reach extreme tipping points. As stated previously sea ice thickness, reduced multi year ice, general breakdown of the cryosphere, methane explosions, and sea ice volume decreasing at an alarming rate calls for strategies to be enacted quickly. There has been a volume loss of sea ice of around 75% since 1979 ( objective data from satellite confirming PIOMAS ); it means that around 360 km3 plus/minus is lost per year. I do not believe that to be an ideological matter; it’s happening regardless of political persuasion.

    Suggestions in what can be done obtained from a number of sources.

    At government level:

    .No new coal mines or fracking sites
    .Very unpopular, but a carbon tax
    .Close existing coal mines as quickly as possible
    .Provide leak proof caps for discarded fracking sites
    .Higher prices for airline tickets
    .Encourage electric vehicles, encourage price cost for fossil fuel using cars
    .Provide high incentives for research into a means of extracting CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it
    .Reduce speeds of vehicles on highways and secondary roads
    .Plant forests suitable for particular environment using multi species from ground cover, mid story and top story
    .Begin to move infra structure based near sea level
    .Encourage energy self sufficiency for homes using renewable energy and battery storage

    Individuals:
    .Buy locally produced food
    .Reduce consumption of meat
    .Walk wherever possible
    .Use public transport where available
    .Do not use airlines if at all possible
    .Grow a veggie garden if possible
    .Instal solar panels
    .Reduce consumption
    .Drive vehicles slower

    Dr Jason Box; Glaciologist stated around two years ago on learning about the methane explosions on the Yamal Peninsular of Siberia …” we are f…..” . There have since been further explosions in another region of Siberia. Last winter the Bering Sea was ice free.

  195. Kim Peart

    October 20, 2016 at 9:12 am

    My investigations show we are playing suicide with a revolver with six bullets and six chambers. We don’t know that yet, because the bullets take a while to reach our silly heads. The analogy there is that the impact of climate conditions takes decades to hit, from the days we pulled the trigger in the 1980s.

    We didn’t know we had a death wish back then, but in gay Pari last December the nations accepted, for the first time, begrudgingly, and without any real plan, James Hansen’s conclusion that planet temperature rise above 1.5C (now past 1.1C) is to risk a runaway greenhouse effect that can turn 3rd rock into a second Venus.

    The other half of Hansen’s conclusion, is that we must get CO2 in the air below 350 ppm to stop planet temperature rise beyond 1.5C. Now three decades beyond the day when CO2 in the air passed 350 ppm, it is as if we have fired all the bullets and now sit around waiting for their arrival.

    I agree with you that the Arctic is a real worry, but we should have figured that out when first warned about the problem in 1965, when scientists issued an environmental report from the White House. One of the authors of that report, Wally Broecker, wrote in his 2008 book ~ Fixing Climate ~ “we can no longer expect Mother Earth to take care of us – the planet is ours to run, and we can’t retreat from the responsibility to run it wisely.”

    The only question that counts, if we are not suicidal, is exactly how we get atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm, and how swiftly, before the Earth beats the humans with greenhouse gas release, from places like a fast warming Arctic region, and the problem escapes us, completely.

    We know exactly how much CO2 needs to be extracted from the air and sea, and how much is being added every day with the current annual rise of CO2 at 3ppm. The higher CO2 rises, the hotter future temperature will be, the fiercer the storms, the higher the sea level rise, the more acidic the sea, the longer the droughts, the stronger the floods, the wilder the winds. There is a point where human progress reverses, where cost of repair is unaffordable.

    Added to our woes is the tendency of nations to fight when environmental crisis affects their fiscal health. The civil war in Syria is said to stem from the longest drought. Living on a planet bristling with nuclear weapons, any global conflict may swiftly slide into nuclear madness. And if we avoid that, the satellites will be hit, risking a space junk cascade that takes out all satellites and may make air travel too dangerous, as space debris fall to Earth like shooting stars.

    The Greens will not run with the full plan. Labor and Liberal are still living in the 1970s. It will take a new breed of survivalists who will do what it takes to extract excess CO2 from the air and sea to lead the way back to a safe Earth. I hope we have time for survival action, before the carbon bullets arrive at terminal velocity.

    What is the plan to extract excess CO2 from the air and sea, to get atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm and avoid planet temperature rise going beyond 1.5C?

  196. Robin Charles Halton

    October 20, 2016 at 8:35 am

    #35 Interesting scenario obscure Boris!
    We are heading towards a “Cold War” so to speak.

    Filipino president Durante has cut ties with the US, has allowed the expansion of China drilling for oil and gas in the South China Sea in exchange for Filipinos to maintain their “fishing rights” over areas where the Chinese navy have controlled.
    China has promised a number of transport infrastructural projects for the Phillipines.

    China’s aim is to engage with closer ties with all SE Asian countries, trade and no doubt political influence too.

    China is engaging with Joko the Indonesian President at present re trade and closer ties.

    The warning signal is clear for countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan and India who will remain close to the US.

    The peace between 1945 and the present is in the balance from now on!

    Australia alone must sharpen up its approach to bring our infrastructural requirements up to date as well as being reliable and sustainable to counteract the forthcoming global shocks of instability.

    The nation must discipline itself instead of running willy nilly with divisive Labors Green politics getting in the way of progress.

    One example Australia’s electricity base load grid is the first priority to maintain reliability, we have vast quantities of high grade coal and some gas both of which should continue to be used for power generation.

    Secondly we must maintain our metallurgic processing capability and manufacturing industry capacity, something that Nick Xenaphon is already aware of for South Australia.

    Public electricity utilities Renewables can follow base load energy sources, no problem with that.
    Government investment into small business and householders for providing self reliant solar and battery storage units.

    We have little choice with too many potential aggressors to our north, we as a vast but isolated nation must pick up on our future course, concern ourselves with our own affairs first and foremost.

  197. TGC

    October 19, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    #35 And Putin has already begun his ‘winter of content’ – could feel a real chill in the air today.

  198. Boris Bogdanovich

    October 19, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    As a recent employee of Comrade Putin may I say there are imminent plans to simultaneously deal with overpopulation and the warming climate.

    Using modern technology, Russia will start an extended global winter, while also causing a much needed reduction in world population.

    Russian citizens have been training for the upcoming events.

    While the solution, as it unfolds, may seem harsh, it will one day be deemed a heroic gesture.

    Comrade Putin decided some time ago that the horrors of AGM would be worse if he did nothing.

    And he likes to be seen as man of action.

    Australians mostly need not be concerned, unless they live near Pine Gap.

    I mention it here for my Tasmanian friends so perhaps you can prepare. May I suggest those with a vodka still and who can speak a little Russian or Chinese will prosper in the future world.

    Best,
    Boris

  199. Keith Antonysen

    October 19, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    No 28, Robin

    The economics of a business as usual approach is becoming more difficult to maintain with the onslaught of extreme weather events. In the US, Louisianna was damaged by flooding costing more than the current Australian deficit. The US had been hit by other major storms in recent history which cost an estimated billion dollars each.
    Several Innuit communities need to be moved due to shorelines being eroded as barrier ice cover is no longer available to protect those communities. As the Inuit communities are in isolated areas the cost of moving them is prohibitive.

    Kim @ 33

    My motivation for writing this article was through frustration in relation to debates about coal versus renewables. The Arctic is in a serious situation; unless immediate action is taken we will be in survival mode should the cryosphere…glaciers, sea ice, ice sheets, ice caps continue to regress. There are no signs that the process of regression has stalled.
    As time progresses, the costs go up with extreme weather events.
    Kim you stated: “… we need a plan that includes survival….” That is exactly the point I was making, we are in deadlock at present. The LNP arguably has no policy on climate change; the ALP has an improved policy; in my opinion while the Greens have a much stronger policy, it probably is still not strong enough.

    In my view we are playing Russian Roulette with climate, where there are 5 cartridges in a chamber of a pistol holding 6 bullets.

  200. Kim Peart

    October 19, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    Re: 32 ~ “Every little bit helps” but when people see that the level of CO2 in the air is still rising, delivering a higher planet temperature rise and increased ocean acidity, they will wonder if there “little bit” has been much use at all.

    The problem with the Arctic region, gunning to be ice free as it heats up faster than anywhere else on Earth, is that the volume of greenhouse gases in the permafrost and ocean floor methane hydrates is gunna hit the air, driving up the Earth’s temperature even more and ever faster.

    Melting permafrost is also releasing ancient diseases from the bodies of dead animals, and people.

    Then we can read how liquid water is being found in layers in the Greenland ice sheet, as well as draining all the way to the base of the ice and gushing out to sea. 7 metres of sea level rise there, in the Arctic.

    Instead of climate porn, we need a plan that includes survival, that draws down CO2 in the air below 350 ppm, made tougher to achieve as the oceans release CO2 back into the air.

    Only when people see CO2 in the air going down, will “every little bit” really matter an inspire action.

    With CO2 rising at 3 ppm per year, at the moment, but accelerating, how soon before 500 ppm will be our climate companion, driving up the heat, intensifying cyclones and hurricanes, floods and droughts, reducing our ability to grow food?

    Growing food will also be tougher with higher levels of CO2 in the air making some food crops less nutritious and more toxic. That is how we may lose the koala.

  201. Keith Antonysen

    October 19, 2016 at 11:01 am

    The situation in relation to the Arctic Ocean is far more serious than looking over your shoulder and seeing what other individuals or nations are doing. Temperatures are being recorded at 3C and 5 C higher than normally experienced presently, they have been recorded as being high for a number of years.

    Graphs using data from NSIDC compare what has been happening till August of every year since 2007. Straight after the minimum sea ice had been established in September 2016 there had been rapid freezing which slowed down in a startling manner in October.

    As stated in the first citation sea ice is quite thin; of great concern is that the thickness of sea ice is less than recorded in 2012 (record year for volume and sea ice extent), and more multi year sea ice has been lost since 2012.

    NSIDC data provides the following graphs of salient points of the Arctic Ocean:

    https://sites.google.com/site/cryospherecomputing/warming-potential/regional-graphs

    JDN at No6, is right about a paper having been recently published in relation to a Maunder Minimum like condition being posited for the future. Deniers took the paper to mean we will be going into an ice age; when interviewed the lead author of the paper; Valentina Zharkova (Professor of Mathematics ), stated no such conclusion had been reached by their research when interviewed by USA Today.

    https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

    CO2 levels would have been about 270 ppm or less during the Maunder Minimum; whereas, they are now over 400 ppm.

    There are other factors which influence sea ice; for example, as there is more open water the fetch lengthens allowing waves to become larger and destroy ice. New research is investigating whether waves within the thermocline (under the surface) are developing undermining sea ice.

    It is governments and large scale business that can do the most to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Individuals also can do much, every bit helps. Creating new coal mines is at the height of recklessness.

  202. Chris Harries

    October 19, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Robin (#27), I met up with some Hydro & Transend honchos back in 2009 – that’s not long after Basslink had come into being – and they said from their experience if there was ever to be a second crossing that it should be wholly owned by the Tasmanian utilities.

    We hear a lot about the virtues of privatisation, and philosophy government these days is to outsource whatever they can and leave it up to the private market to sort out management… but really, there are so many bad experiences where disparate corporate entities don’t work together because each have their own priorities… and then everything falls apart when a snag hits.

    If Basslink 1 does sink financially I’m wondering… if it is sold up for a song the state government’s agenda should then be to acquire it? Seems like a long shot, but worth thinking about.

  203. Kim Peart

    October 19, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Re: 7 ~ I read “Escape on spaceship with Mr Peart…”

    Conservationists and climate change deniers both make such statements, demonstrating they haven’t read what I wrote.

    For the record, and after an in-depth hunt through books and article over four decades, I came to conclude that only with a sustainable industrial presence beyond Earth, would we be in a position to deliver a sustainable human presence on a healthy Earth.

    I found that this work could have begun in the 1970s, but vested interests wanted the whole World to remain focused on the Earth for power, and they succeeded.

    As a consequence, we have gone four decades into the danger zone, and that’s a very long risk to take.

    We know that now, since James Hansen figured out a decade ago that we need CO2 in the air below 350 ppm to avoid temperature rise above 1.5C, which will lock the planet into a runaway greenhouse effect.

    CO2 in the air has now passed 400 ppm, with the planet’s temperature rise already beyond 1.1C.

    The volume of excess carbon in the air and sea, where most as gone, is so huge, you wouldn’t want to think about it.

    The space option is now critical, to access the level of energy from the Sun that will allow us to directly extract excess carbon from the air, if we can hear Hansen and avoid turning third rock into a second Venus.

    With solar power stations in space, we will be able to launch industry beyond Earth, and be able to build a sunshade in space, which can double as a solar power collector, to help cool our planet, because CO2 in the air and the planet’s temperature rise are both going to go a great deal higher, before we can turn the tide of death beyond terminal velocity.

    We may not be able to avoid sea level rise less then 5 metres, which I read is what the sea level was the last time the Earth had 400 ppm CO2 in the air over a million years ago.

    We can dance around the porn of how bad things are, and how very bad some people are, or we can think about how we fix the problem.

    Only members of Mad Otto’s crack suicide squad (Life of Brian) would wander around lost, declaring we can’t fix this problem.

    We can fix it, and folk in Tasmania can play a huge role in delivering working solutions.

    But, as Albert Einstein would tell us, “You can’t solve a problem with the thinking that created it.”

    It has been the collective thinking on Earth to date that has created the carbon crisis, so like Steve Jobs would say, we must “Think different.”

    The industrial way could have delivered a safe Earth, if it had gone all the way into space to make energy transition to the Sun in the 1980s, and not been diverted with greed for carbon power.

    That is a total failure of Western civilization.

    The conservation way failed to see what was really going on, so we get hell on Earth.

    The third way, the space way, is the way that hasn’t been put to work yet.

    We can flail on Earth buried up to our necks in carbon sludge, or we can lift our game to the power of the Sun in space.

  204. Russell

    October 19, 2016 at 9:53 am

    Re #28
    “GFC funding cannot continue to fund at current levels of growing demand for this type of research.”

    Why? Because FT needs more propping up and the Tasmanian Government is running out of sources to draw from?

  205. Robin Charles Halton

    October 19, 2016 at 1:31 am

    #19, In the latter part of your comment I gather that you are referring to ANARE empire that engenders itself for climate science, however the organisation creates its own agenda to delve deeper and deeper with climate science as a lever and draws on sympathy from the public through the media with exciting finds and international displays of relevance at a unsustainable costs to governments that since the GFC funding cannot continue to fund at current levels of growing demand for this type of research.

    Recently the all year presence on Macquarie Island is nothing more than another junketing exercise, satisfactory monitoring/research could be achieved during the summer especially now that the island has been cleared of vermin and sea bird number have recovered as well as native vegetation.

    Interesting are the environmental impacts of shipping, aircraft and heating/ living conditions impacts through fuel usage and waste control by these well paid and pampered ANARE jet setters who set their own agendas and scream when their tasks are under threat from a Federal government that is to weak to question the ongoing value and justification of the actual importance of research for saving the planet.

  206. Robin Charles Halton

    October 18, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Chris, #15 Agree wih your first statement, had the Minister Groom been more realist about Basslink II then more of the public may have accepted that reason for the basis of electricity security.

    Since the ABC News this evening it appears there is one hell of a legal battle erupting between foreign owned Basslink which is believed to be broke as the Tas Govt refused to pay the proportion of annual rental ($92M/ annum) while the undersea connector was severed!

    What happening with Basslink’s part of the rental deal while legal wrangling is ongoing!
    Unannounced shut down could occur at any time, accidental or another mysterious severing incident.

    Basslink II if that is the final recommendation by State government will require $1B from Federal sources to construct and upkeep by other than in the hands of another foreign owned company.

    Its seems to me outsourcing sections of our electricity supply to overseas companies compromises reliability.
    A lesson hard learnt by our wannabe GBE entrepreneurs, wasting taxpayer money!

  207. TGC

    October 18, 2016 at 7:33 pm

    Maybe #20 can be ‘encouraged’ to read the opening para of #22!
    But further on…not sure about the balance of #22- and the ‘economic’ issue- maybe could be put as ‘the less able a person is to afford to ‘pollute’ the planet the greater their contribution to ‘healing’ it.
    Now there are some- probably millions- whose ‘economy’ is such they can afford anything- but still contribute to seeking the planet’s healing.
    But personal observations can’t help this contributor from have a strong degree of scepticism toward many ‘environmentalists’ and ‘the sky is falling’ protagonists.
    (I hope that isn’t too much of a judgement…?)

  208. Russell

    October 18, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    Re #11
    I don’t know where you’ve been the past few months but when Tasmania was staring down the barrel of total outage (bar for bringing in 200 massive diesel gensets at astronomical cost), those who were totally off-grid were laughing. The same would have been the case in SA when 20+ distribution towers were brought down by the latest severe weather event.

    And how is it that wind turbines too expensive to install? Nichols chicken have had one for years and at least one town in Victoria has made the step. How much has your power bill gone up recently? Can you afford not to go renewable?

    #17
    Reality: Carbon deposits on ice and snow lessening reflection.
    Reality: All glaciers have retreated and ice at poles have decreased.
    Reality: 20+ electric transmission towers brought down by weather event in South Australia
    Reality: Pacific Islands have started relocating their populations to places like New Zealand (that covers your climate refugee remark as well)
    Reality: It takes 10 hectares of seedlings to replace the CO2 take-up of a single mature tree, so in what context do you explain the statement “increased its greenery by 14%”. Numbers fudging?

  209. Keith Antonysen

    October 18, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    No 17, davies please provide experiments which underpin the deniers point of view. I can provide experiments that show a developing degree of sophistication, beginning with Eunice Foote, in the 1850s, when she experimented with CO2.

    The IPCC Report you have commented on is not the latest Report; already discussed elsewhere. The 2014 IPCC Report definitely does express concern about extreme weather conditions.
    Quote:

    “Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. {1.4}” Page 7

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

    There is absolutely no doubt the Oceans and Seas are experiencing warm conditions. The atmosphere is also warmer, the outcome is that the atmosphere is carrying more water vapour and rain bombs are a common occurrence.
    Some uncommon events are happening in relation to storms; for example while Matthew was doing much damage, Nicole was forming in the Atlantic. Local commentators suggest it is an unusual circumstance; also, the strength of the storms and their longevity are remarkable.

    Typhoon Haima is about to hit the Philippines, a storm currently just short of the strength of Haiyan.

  210. abs

    October 18, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    davies, i have asked you previously to stop regurgitating cherry pickings that have been debunked.

    in #17 you repeat this “111 of 114 models…….’ yada, yada… picking again even though i have debunked your use of it in comment 100 of the thread linked below.

    your actions of stating stuff, having evidence presented on the same thread that debunks your use of said stuff, failure to acknowledge debunking and then later regurgutate the same stuff on a different thread is taken to be intellectual dishonesty.

    here is the relevant peice from my comment 100 from the cited thread-

    the whole paragraph is provided below, davies (this is not behind a paywall, so no excuse 😉

    For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial
    degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1, Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller
    warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change.

    For the longer period from 1951 to 2012, simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend (very high confidence)
    (Box 1.1, Figure 1c).

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/what-nobody-dares-say-to-you-about-climate-change-/

    when you take these snippits from dodgy websites this is what you get… i have warned you prior

  211. Chris Harries

    October 18, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    TGC (#19), as a matter of principle I try not to make judgements about individual behaviours. Cognitive dissonance is a human trait and nobody on Earth is impervious to it. It’s not productive to claim superiority over others, nor to get into green bashing for the sake of it – there’s too much of that. But we should be able to talk about cultural behaviours without prejudice.

    Flying to environmental conferences is a live issue and it is discussed a lot by participants. Each person makes their own judgement as to where their best value lies. Every person is also subject to others’ expectations and ingrained habits that have been instilled along the way.

    I would agree with you to the extent that every person tends to make excuses for their own environmental behaviours. There aren’t any saints, but it’s better to be hopeful than merely cynical. Nobody can afford to be pious. Everyone is in the same boat. Nobody is guilty until such time as they contradict their developing awareness for crudely selfish ends.

  212. john hayward

    October 18, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    The lemmings were finally revealed as non-suicidal, but the likes of davies, #17, have yet to have their MRIs on the issue.

    Jacque Lambi’s call for a blanket pardon for all soldiers accused of war crimes shows promise of reducing climate change along with the world’s population, except that many of the lucky diggers would probably be part of the problem

    John Hayward

  213. Chris Sharples

    October 18, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    #17 You’re trolling again davies (which no doubt is why you remain anonymous). No matter how many times somebody carefully points out the fallacies in your cherry-picked and mis-leading assertions in the TT comments, you just keep coming back with more of the same unsubstantiated denial-blog sourced rubbish. Don’t be surprised if you get fewer and fewer responses. You’ll have to find another hobby.

  214. TGC

    October 18, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    “This delusion allows ordinary citizens to put solar panels on their 400 square meter homes complete with 500 litre fridges their 3 litre engined 4WD outside and frequent jet setting trips to exotic places…. and think of themselves as living sustainably.”
    #15 has made similar comments previously- and I agree that there are a great many examples across the communities most Tasmanians know where the expressed concern about ‘climate change’ isn’t matched by day to day living.
    Having read #15 over many years across much media I respect the seriousness with which he addresses environmental issues – and I suspect that is reflected in #15’s lifestyle,
    Unfortunately he is probably a minority amongst environmentalists and ‘concerned citizens’ (no better example of “do as I say not as I do” than
    schools car parking – all those ‘environmentally aware teachers!…)
    At this very moment Hobart is crowded out with
    scientists discussing ‘environmental’ matters but who have blown tens of thousands air kilometres to get here- go back home- and probably come back again in a few months.
    It’s been said often for various effects but “it’s the economy, stupid” really does get to the nitty gritty of any effort to reduce environmental/climate impact-if in fact it is essential to do that. And even if it’s not, reducing a household’s ‘economy’ has to be good anyway.

  215. Chris Harries

    October 18, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    Ah Davies (# 17 ) you’re at it again. With respect, all you need to do is press the ditto button each time. By all means re-assert that you don’t believe the science or the scientific consensus, but you can do it in one sentence.

  216. davies

    October 18, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    #4 Please provide evidence of an increase in extreme weather events over the last 50 years due to human-caused climate change. Heck, I will make it easier for you, evidence of an increase in extreme weather events over the last 50 years whether linked to global warming or not. Even the IPCC has basically zero confidence in this assertion of yours.

    #5 ‘radical social transformation…’ What the heck does that mean? I am guessing your authoritarian jackboot tendencies have just come out into the open.

    #8 warming speeding up? As the IPCC has confirmed, since 1998 111 of 114 models “show a surface warming trend larger than the observations”. In other words, there is a consensus that the models are exaggerating the rate of global warming. I’m presuming you like consensus…

    #10 predictions sooner than expected! Really??? Which predictions? I can think of several high profile ones totally debunked:

    Prediction: Malaria was going to get worse – Actual: global malaria deaths considerably lower
    Prediction: Snow become a thing of the past – Actual: yet northern hemisphere snow cover shows no trend
    Prediction: Hurricanes/Cyclones would get worse – Actual: No trend
    Droughts would get worse – Percentage of the world in drought is down
    Arctic sea ice gone by 2013 – It hasn’t
    Sea level rise would accelerate drowning many isalnds – It hasn’t
    By 2010 there would be 50 million climate refugees – Actual number…0

    #12 human-caused global warming will increase chance of geological and volcanic events??? Not sure I have ever seen that claim before.

    Anyone here aware of Ranga Myneni (Boston Uni) paper published in Nature Climate Change Apr 2016? Apparently over the last 33 years the world has increased its greenery by 14%. That is the equivalent to adding a green continent about two times the size of mainland USA (18 million km2). And according to the paper the increase of CO2 is responsible for 70% of that increase!

    In the same journal another article shows a further benefit of global greening which concluded that CO2 fertilisation is likely to increase crop water productivity, for example up to 48% for rain-fed wheat in arid areas.

    As co-author Zaichun Zhu Beijing Uni of the Ranga paper says” “has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system.”

    But these benefits of CO2 increases were already known in 1908! Svante Arrhenius (the father of greenhouse theory) said the following:

    “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equitable and better climates.” Indeed we do Mr Arrhenius.

  217. Keith Antonysen

    October 18, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Since the Industrial Revolution; over a period of a couple of hundred years humans have used fossil fuels that have taken millions of years to create. What deniers want people to believe is that despite the millions who die from emissions, huge numbers who suffer from respiratory issues; that fossil fuels have no (or little) impact in other domains..

    A reference from a hyperlink provided by the first citation in article, it graphically displays how temperature has risen in the Arctic as measured from 1979 onwards.

    http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/ARCTIC_TAIR/index_80_t2m.html

    At the end of September 2016 there were wild fires in Siberia which had been burning for 6 months, and Barrow in Alaska had not received any snow. The wild fires have been picked up by satellites, the lack of snow being an anecdotal comment on Twitter.

    Climate science follows the laws of thermodynamics and experimentation has underpinned the role of CO2 in global warming. Water vapour also has an impact on climate; however, less CO2 equates to less water vapour.

    A number of times I have challenged deniers to provide experimentation that underpins their comments; not surprisingly nothing has been forth coming.
    Experiments do display the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas; we need CO2, but not too much.
    If skeptical please provide experiments that debunk CO2s role.

    Also, rather than offer Kool Aide, please provide scientific evidence properly peer reviewed, by recognized climate scientists, in a non-sham journal that an ice free Arctic is of no concern.

    Anton Vaks et al wrote about the viability of permafrost as global temperate increases, they found that 1.5C and above created thawing. Permafrost areas of the planet make up a significant area; they hold huge quantities of CO2 and methane.
    So, please show credible science to show we are safe.

    Chris at 5, has it right about growth, an economic growth of 3% is considered to be good; in 10 years that economic growth becomes 30%. Earth is showing that its holding capacity of organisms; including humans, is diminishing already.

  218. Chris Harries

    October 18, 2016 at 10:30 am

    #14. Thanks Robin. There is a little problem with language. The state Premier argues the case for a 2nd Basslink on a justification that Tasmania would be exporting clean electricity to the mainland. That’s not very truthful. We could hardly make a dent in mainland consumption and are more likely be importing more than ever. He should just be open and honest say we want Basslink 2 to go ahead in order to secure electricity supplies in case of drought vulnerability.

    But to be relevant to the topic at hand, renewable energy has become a universal catch cry, as if the planet’s sustainability problems can be overcome by merely going all out and displacing coal & oil with solar panels, wind turbines and batteries.

    Going for that insurmountable goal as a fixit solution has created a widespread cultural delusion that we can have our cake and eat it too – as if the only mistake society made was to choose the wrong technology for producing electricity. This delusion allows ordinary citizens to put solar panels on their 400 square meter homes complete with 500 litre fridges their 3 litre engined 4WD outside and frequent jet setting trips to exotic places…. and think of themselves as living sustainably.

    There are many really good, earnest people pushing the renewables barrow, but the singular focus on that issue has allowed a belief that industrial civilisation, built upon a foundation of dense energy (delivering net energy at 100:1) can be sustained on very dilute energy sources having an net energy return of 5:1 – with very little disruption.

    The world has no choice but to switch to renewables as rapidly as possible – or nuclear energy for those who have confidence in it. My point is that failure to seriously attend to the other 95 percent of the sustainability dilemma will force engineering solutions that are very risky for humanity. The environmental movement’s fixation on supply-side solutions, though popular, will counterfoil its aims in the long run.

  219. Robin Charles Halton

    October 18, 2016 at 12:55 am

    #5 Chris, Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
    Based on the recent SA power failure events and Tasmania’s vulnerability with Basslink I would expect that State governments as a priority have little choice other than restore the electricity networks to reflect energy security first, this obviously leaves further investment for Renewables in a lesser position.

    Climate change anxiety will take last place the consideration for secure modern living standards which is dependent on a secure electricity supply.

  220. pat synge

    October 17, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    As an aside, I will make the point that surprisingly few people take advantage of solar water heating. Evacuated glass tubes are efficient and inexpensive. Even in relatively cool climates such as in Tasmania.

    With many homes using as much as a third of their electricity heating water widespread adoption of this simple technology would have a significant impact.

    Generating electricity to heat water is an inefficient process.

  221. Abel Adamski

    October 17, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Robin.
    I am afraid you are stuck in the economist solutions trap.
    Davies and TGC, I don’t think you comprehend the magnitude and extent of the changes which will include geological and volcanic as well as extreme weather.
    Action should have continued from when it started in the 1970’s, but the economic rationalists and fossil fuel lobby groups killed that off as they began their campaign of confusion and sowing doubt..

    Many of those that understand do live near the sea to enjoy that whilst it can be enjoyed, science had anticipated we had until, late this century.
    Physics and Nature unfortunately seem to be saying lets get it over and done with.
    Re the Maunder minimum.
    It will scarcely register, just a slowing down of the accelerating warming.
    What will make a difference will be the increased volcanic action, especially if a couple of Super Volcano’s decide to pop which the major changes in mass distribution on the surface will make more likely. Now that will trigger a mini ice age, but short lived also due to the high atmospheric CO2

  222. Robin Charles Halton

    October 17, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    #2 Its a fact of life that most of us dont want more of unreliable renewables, less of reliable base load power which is less expensive to run and maintain, hence more reasonable power prices for the public.

    100% Renewables is impossible especially for a public electricity utility to be able to provide reliable energy generation.

    I am suggesting a figure of 20% Renewables for a vast country as Australia which contributes very low emissions compared to many countries close to each other in Europe where there is a need for Renewables at the risk of less reliable electricity services, hence the reason some use “Clean” nuclear power for generation.

    Its a catch 22 situation but where Australia should be looking to harness affordable reliable base load power from the best of our high quality black coal resource and constructing state of the art power stations close to coal sources as possible.

    Gas generation is fine but more expensive, more CSIRO and UTAS research is required for more efficient units.

    Wind turbines, although in the mix of renewables are grossly expensive to install and have their limitations, after the after math of the over indulgence by South Australia towards 40% Renewables, no other State would entertain Wind turbines in their mix of electricity generators anywhere near that extent.

    That places in doubt the Heemskirk and Cattle Hill (Lake Echo) wind farm proposals in Tasmania which requires private investment, the South Australian experience has completely quashed any chance of investors coming foward.

    In order to be reasonable towards your desire, its not impossible for homeowners and small business to invest in solar with state of the art battery storage generation to offset the public grid. To attract this type of personal investment the Greens should divest their energy by pushing for a government subsidy for solar as consumers become less dependent on the public grid.

    Smaller wind turbine units are being developed in Japan as Ted has recently shown on one of his current articles, could be the answer for domestic users and small businesses, once proven, again the government has to show leadership by reducing public grid dependence.

  223. Russell

    October 17, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    ‘Climate Change’ has been under intensive scientific study since the 1970s with all the predictions coming sooner than expected. Couple that with increasing severe weather events in number and ferocity.

    In my opinion, nothing will be done because the handful of humans in a position to do something won’t.

    History dictates that when mother nature sets out to rectify some inbalance she does it in a big way and does it without much warning, but with all her might and all of a sudden.

    One consolation is that most of the people of the world sitting on their hands sipping lattes and twittering will be first to disappear, near the sea.

  224. Got Me a Go Go Mobile

    October 17, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    And here’s a little more on international car sales … https://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/

    And here’s coal consumption … http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_5.pdf

    Coal consumption has flattened out, but would it not have to be cut in half to make a difference to AGW?

  225. Got Me a Moat

    October 17, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    It appears abrupt climate change has started.

    Take a look at the latest from NOAA … http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201608

    The past five years on the graphs suggest warming is speeding up.

    Things that have happened so far …
    *Gulf of Carpentaria mass mangrove die-off
    *Great Barrier Reef mass bleaching event
    *USA lobster fishery has moved north
    *Record-sized Australian cyclone (Yasi)

    To those who believe the world is taking action, see the record car sales last year … http://www.dealermarketing.com/new-car-sales-set-record-in-2015/

    That’s hardly the action of a world fighting climate change.

    There are many bad things converging now, it’s a good time to build a castle with a moat and a good air-conditioner.

  226. davies

    October 17, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Not a week goes by without another doomsday scenario. I wonder how many predictions the good Doctor has made over the last 20 years? And how many came true?

    Thankfully there are a number of options for the true believer to avoid doomsday scenario:

    Drink the Kool-Aid

    Give the Kool-Aid to everyone else…particularly to skeptics!

    Pray to Gaia

    Move in with all those socialists spouting doomsday scenarios yet strangely live right on the water (Rudd, Flannery, Gillard, Suzuki, Gore etc)

    Escape on spaceship with Mr Peart…

  227. JDN

    October 17, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Yes, Climate change is real.

    However, 95% of models used to make predictions have failed to quantify solar activity accurately.

    For the next 30-90 years, we are going to be observing increases in ice volume, as well as lower mean temps as our sun heads towards a Maunder Minimum.

    We are lucky, as this will allow us more time to cut back on fossil fuels and increase Nuclear/Renewable options.

  228. Chris Harries

    October 17, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    Many naively think of this contest in terms of ‘for’ and ‘against’.
    For renewable energy. Against coal.
    Naughty government versus good people.

    In reality, climate change is an inconvenient truth for both people and government in equal measure Though government has control of more levers to deal with the issue, the public will generally do anything to preserve its comfort zone. Climate change still has luke warm public traction, as we know from widespread opposition to the carbon tax, even if polling suggest that a majority is concerned.

    Even within those who want action there actually a triangle of interest. There are two sets of technological advocates, the hard technology people who believe in engineering our way out of trouble. Then there is the renewables advocacy lobby, which believes coal can be simply replaced by solar and wind energy whilst at the same time stressing that the economy and lifestyles will hardly be affected.

    Then there is the third corner of the triangle that puts the need for radical social transformation above new technology. I belong to this corner. New technology represents about 5 percent of the solution.

    The climate predicament is much more a values problem than it is a technological one. So long as society remains underpinned by the growth ethic and consumer values, then all the huffing and puffing that we do on the renewables front is pretty well useless. I say that whilst according full respect to, and admiration of, those who lobby on that front.

  229. Chris Sharples

    October 17, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Sometime soon I’m expecting to start hearing governments and insurance companies announce that we can no longer afford to completely rebuild and recover from infrastructure damage after repeated extreme weather events, and that we need to start prioritising our recovery efforts on key assets. That is inevitable as the effects of climate change bite deeper and more frequently.

    To any sane person that will surely be the turning point at which we realise that economics, complacency and greed have failed us and we are in real trouble. But I fully expect the denial to continue even then.

  230. TGC

    October 17, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    #1 “It really looks too late to reverse the warming trend…”
    So, as many have remarked before- let’s get used to it, adjust to it, and get on with it- and, particularly, stop spending vast amounts of money on trying to reverse it
    It may mean the end to a whole lot of ‘jollies’ for climate change experts who have become accustomed to flying around the world to attend ‘crisis’ conferences.

  231. Helen Hutchinson

    October 17, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Of course we have the means to control climate change but we (the world) don’t want to do it.

    Stopping carbon emissions completely is the first step. In addition we need to cut back on the use of energy and using the tools we have – solar, wind, water and wave energy – to help us get to 100% renewables as quick as we can.

    We need to be on a war footing and go on to carbon coupons until we get it done.

    Humans spend trillions on wars and war machines so let’s divert some of this to the real emergency.

  232. Mike Bolan

    October 17, 2016 at 11:36 am

    It really looks too late to reverse the warming trend Kieth. Given our penchant for believing that politics and perceptions to be more important than the external ‘real world’, it’s hard to see any of our government systems working to protect us. Arctic ice is apparently the main driver of undersea ocean currents that travel thousands of miles and carry nutrients and a range of species. These currents then create feeding grounds for fish and other species. The implications include – no ice/no currents/disrupted ocean ecologies. It would be great if we had some means to control climate change however our fantasy that the pseudo-science of ‘economics’ is our highest priority it seems that we’re screwed until we can change our thinking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top