Climate change

Wish our government would take it's head out of the sand and start making a plan for the infrastructure to move it around:

Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever

 

Stumbled across this whilst listening to a podcast this morning, seems Exxon's own scientific research has shown for almost 30 years that human's are causing climate change through the burning of fossil fuels, yet at the same time they spent 30 years paying for advertorials written in ways so as to cast doubt on the subject.

The analogy has been said before, it's like the tobacco companies in the 50's, knowing that their products caused cancer and advertising the contrary.

Profit over the Planet.

Inside an investigation into Exxon Mobil’s climate change misinformation

I'm half way through listening to the podcast below, its pretty interesting and where the above Exon reference came from. Dr. Suzuki (a geneticist) makes mention of visiting Port Douglas and diving the Barrier Reef when he was much younger, then returning again more recently and coming out of the water in tears as to how much of the Reef has died and how he will never dive it again (he has a second home in Port Douglas), yet we are hell bent on digging up more coal than protecting what we have left.

Why it’s time to think about human extinction | Dr David Suzuki

 

thanks for the heads up - some morning listening (an subsequent action) methinks

 

OMG - this is brilliant! Powerful! Shud be watched by all our politicians (and really everyone)

 

The Pentagon "gets" it:

"Last year, a Pentagon report found over half of the military's bases worldwide would suffer from climate change-related weather extremes, such as drought, flooding and high winds."

US bases could soon be under water. The Pentagon is defying Trump to save them

 

Why are we doing this to our one and only planet?

"June 10, 2019 - NOAA scientists are forecasting this summer’s Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone or ‘dead zone’ – an area of low to no oxygen that can kill fish and other marine life – to be approximately 7,829 square miles, or roughly the size of Massachusetts"

NOAA forecasts very large ‘dead zone’ for Gulf of Mexico | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 

If you don't like the moths - think about the pygmy possums ... as the pyramid of ecological systems start to crash

Decline in bogong moth numbers leaves mountain pygmy possums starving

... and from the US. As humans, we are at the apex of the ecosystems and hence the most vulnerable to collapse

“There is reason to worry,” says lead author Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, a researcher at the University of Sydney in Australia. “If we don't stop it, entire ecosystems will collapse due to starvation.”

Why insect populations are plummeting—and why it matters

 

... and the problem with micro/nano plastic is that scientists suspect it can cross the blood/brain barrier in those with high blood pressure, increasing the changes of dementia

You are ingesting one teaspoon of microplastic a week, study finds

 

If conservative organisations like this are greatly concerned, then that should ring alarm bells everywhere.

 

Venus was destroyed by runaway global warming... it used to be covered in water and had an atmosphere, then CO2 took off, a powerful greenhouse gas, something triggered it, and the oceans evaporated. Now only CO2 is left with water vapour blasted into space over time by solar radiation.

Bit depressing really, could be Earths future sooner than expected with the catalyst of manmade global warming, possible all large animals including mankind will be extinct in a few hundred years, unable to withstand temps as they surge past 100C.

 

If you want a glimmer of hope - go and see 2040

xx

 

Slightly off topic but ... yassssssssssh

Adani coalmine: minister loses legal challenge on water pipeline assessment

"But the ACF said the government’s concession in the case is a demonstration it has not properly scrutinised Adani’s plans."

Not properly scrutinised was a given - it was being pushed thru for political purposes, although the mine is highly automated and will not supply many jobs.

 

I read recently that the Coral over on the WA side of Australia is actually growing (while the GBR is shrinking).

Anyone know anything more about this?

 

References? Citations?

 

The skepticism around the 97% claim comes from doubts around being able to calculate it.

That is to say, how would someone work it out?

You would need to know the total number of scientists in the world (or is it climate scientists, or climate studies?), speak with (or read) them all to get a yes or no opinion on it, then perform the division.

There is also an argument that science is not a democracy nor is it ever settled. At one stage the consensus was that the world was flat. Then new data comes in, and we all take on a new understanding and our understanding of the world is constantly evolving.

 

Have done some basic searches. This article from 2018 mentions the Ningaloo reef is growing.

This article from 2009 mentions the GBR is also growing (but will stop by 2050).

I can't understand how they can predict something this far out given how horribly wrong all previous predictions have been (re-watch An Inconvenient Truth from 2006 to see some examples).

 

I think it's fantastic to view the 'others' side. This is how we all learn.

I have done this, and here is my understanding in a nutshell:

• It is a poorly defined issue and generally presented as a binary one - you are either all FOR climate action (and whatever measures, lifestyle downgrades and taxes it proposes) or you HATE the planet and want to trash it. I don't think anybody out there believes that we should not look after the planet. Practically nobody thinks we should be dumping waste into rivers and oceans and so forth. It all becomes a question of 'how much', and I can see the argument here - if every country had the population density of Australia (even with our 'wasteful' lifestyle), and managed waste responsibly as we (mostly) do, this would be a non issue, the planet would probably be able to repair itself at the rate we impact it. If you take it to a silly extreme, even us breathing is bad for the environment.

• The main 'argument against' relates to the 'climate alarmisim' nature of the debate. We have been told the world is going to end next Monday for the last 30-40 years. Take a look back at Time magazine articles and so forth - 70's it was global cooling, 80's we were supposed to run out of oil, in the 90's the ozone layer was going to burn us all to death, 00's global warming, in the 10's there was a re-brand to climate change because it started cooling again, now it's climate emergency / extinction emergency. Apparently back in the 1900's there was panic because we were going to run out of whale oil and wouldn't be able to heat or light out homes. It's easy for them to site An Inconvenient Truth (2006) to see all the stuff that didn't eventuate (without any real change in our behaviour, in fact we are probably taking more flights, use more cars and so on).

• There is doubt around the intentions behind the push for climate action. Some believe it's got nothing to do with actually caring for the environment and everything to to with bringing in new taxes, some believe it's a gravy train $$$, some even believe it's to usher in a global government that sits above all sovereign nations to tax and rule over them.

• There is also a push-back because some developed world people believe it's the third world doing all the damage (10 rivers are responsible of 90/95% of all ocean plastic waste), whilst we are at each others throats over plastic straws and bags. Obviously this doesn't mean we should just trash the environment also but it does give some perspective.

• Another spin on the last one is that anything we could do wouldn't make a difference until China and India do the same. We have 6-7 coal fired power stations while China is building 400 (or something, don't quote me!). Obvious chicken and egg situation here.

I think they're all the main points. Hope this helps.

 

Like this.

Climate change

If the methodology was incorrect, then that would have been pointed out by the reviewers. If you have an issue with the methodology then feel free to challenge these papers publicly. Let me know how you go.

 

• Ozone layer problem was real. The fact that you doubt it, really says a lot.
• Nope, there was no cooling, this is basically a climate denier argument. And again, this really says a lot.
• So "An Inconvenient Truth" was wrong. Are you saying the millions of hours of peer reviewed research pointing to multiple convergent lines of evidence is wrong?
• I'm not interested in religious nutters telling me the world will end Monday.
• I don't need 100% proof that climate change is real, even 10% is enough, its called prudential risk management and is something that is discussed in terms of investing. Do you need 100% proof to take out insurance on your properties?

When you publish your paper killing climate change, let me know.