Recently the Climate Commission issued a report in its The Critical Decade series on Extreme Weather looking at the issues of
- Drought, and
- Sea level rise.
At Radio National’s The World Today Professor Lesley Hughes, a Macquarie University ecologist, talked to Eleanor Hall.
The report looks at extreme weather experience in recent times, such as that documented in the Commission’s report The Angry Summer, puts it in a broader context using the latest science and then uses that as a window to project into the future. The message is plain. The climate has shifted, expect more and more extreme weather and we need to act now.
we really need to view all these events not in isolation but as part of a trend for the future. We need to prepare for them and we need to do our absolute best to cut greenhouse gases to stabilise the climate to prevent them getting to the point at which we cannot adapt.(Emphasis added)
The results surprised the scientists working on the report, but if anything the predictions are conservative. The sooner we act the better.
Here’s a selection of what they found:
- Heat records are happening three times more often cold records.
- Heat waves, not flood and fire, are actually the most significant natural hazard in Australia in term of loss of life.
- Sea level rise of 0.5m could lead to increased incidence of flooding by several hundred times, up to 1000 times in some places. An increase of 100 times means a 1-in-100 year event happens once a year on average.
- Ninety countries, representing 90% of global emissions, are committed to reducing their emissions and have programs in place to achieve this. As the 15th largest emitter in the world, Australia has an important role to play.
- Much more substantial action will be required if we are to stabilise the climate by the second half of the century. Globally emissions must be cut rapidly and deeply to nearly zero by 2050, with Australia playing its part.
- The decisions we make this decade will largely determine the severity of climate change and its influence on extreme events that our grandchildren will experience. This is the critical decade to get on with the job.
The graph on sea level rise shows signs of bending upwards:
If a quickening trend is established scenes like this one from Mandurah, WA could become increasingly common:
In fact at some point, possibly in the second half of this century, we’ll lose our beaches. (That’s me, not the report.)
Greg Combet gave climate deniers a serve as well as his political opponents. Certainly according to this piece by Graham Readfearn they deserve it:
The University of Queensland survey found only about one third of Liberal/National politicians accepted the world was warming because of human activity. This compared to nine out of ten Labor politicians and practically all Greens.
Which raises the question as to how representative our politicians’ opinions are of the Australian community.
Graham Readfearn again reports on impressive new research by a team led by Professor Joseph Reser of Griffith University’s School of Psychology. They found that 83% of Australians
have the science about right – climate change is happening and humans and natural cycles play a role.
Only a tiny percentage – about 8 per cent or less depending on the criteria – could be considered genuine climate science deniers.
People simply trust scientists much more than they trust the media:
Some 53 per cent of people gave a score of five or six to the scientists – indicating a high level of trust. On the same measure, the Government rated poorly with just 9.4 per cent of people. The media scored a disastrous 5.1 per cent.
Then we have this from the United States:
a recent survey conducted by the Center for Climate Change Communication (4C) at George Mason University of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents found that a majority of respondents — 62% — said they felt America should be taking steps to address climate change.
In fact, more than three out of four survey respondents said that the United States should be using more renewable energy sources, and that those renewable sources should be implemented immediately.
The fact that nearly 80% of Americans have experienced extreme weather since 2007 may have affected opinion.
Paul Gilding thinks that victory is at hand for the climate movement.
Far from being at society’s margins [the climate movement] has the support, to various degrees, of virtually all governments, and many of the world’s most powerful political leaders, including the heads of state of the USA, China and other leading economies. It counts the CEO’s of many global companies and many of the world’s wealthiest people as active supporters – who between them direct hundreds of billions of dollars of capital every year towards practical climate action.
That is the reality of the climate movement – it is massive, global, powerful, and on the right side of history.
We are at the most important moment in this movement’s history – in the midst of two simultaneous tipping points that create the opportunity, if we respond correctly, to win – eliminating net CO2 emissions from the economy and securing a stable climate, though still a changed one.
Gilding thinks that the rapid acceleration of climate impacts leads us to understand that “the scientific consensus on climate has badly underestimated the timing and scale of climate impacts.” The melting of Arctic ice and the bad weather are just a taste of what’s to come as it becomes clear that we are heading for “a global temperature increase of 4°C or more”. Conservative bodies like the International Energy Agency, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have issued dire warnings. Christine Lagarde of the IMF has warned that
without strong action “future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled”. The World Bank was similarly blunt about the economic consequences of our current path: “there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.”
Indeed, key mainstream economic institutions are laying out the case for dismantling what is arguably the world’s most powerful business sector, saying that most of the global reserves of fossil fuels should be left in the ground.
At the same time renewable technologies are becoming extremely disruptive so that a fundamental economic shift is already underway in the global energy market.
There are two indicators of this, with the first being the much noted acceleration in the size of the renewable energy market with dramatic price reductions and the arrival of cost competitive solar and wind. It is hard to overstate the significance of this as it changes the game completely, as various recent reports have shown.
Rooftop solar for example has grown so fast it is now eroding the profitability of major utilities by taking away their high margin income – peak pricing – and reducing demand. This is already seeing major economic disruption to companies and national economic infrastructure as this report from UBS on developments in Europe shows, with major shutdowns of coal plants now inevitable.
Reading the signs, there is increasing awareness of “the awakening giant of carbon risk, with open discussion in mainstream financial circles of the increasing dangers in financial exposure to fossil fuels” both in financing new projects in coal, oil and yes, gas, and revenue loss in existing ones.
Gilding then moves, I think, from what might happen to what should happen. The science is clear, he says. What might take 60 years under market conditions must happen within 20 years.
If we follow the science, then in 20 years we must have removed the coal, oil and gas industries from the economy and replaced them. It’s simple, it’s urgent and perhaps most importantly, it’s now achievable. (Emphasis added)
Finally Gilding evokes Joseph Schumpeter’s notion of “creative destruction”. Change will not be smooth or pleasant for many participants:
It will rather be messy, highly controversial and see huge amounts of value and employment both destroyed and created as the economy restructures around the necessary reality of a post fossil fuel economy.
It’s all sorted, then. Gilding says it’s inevitable and we have no choice.
And there’s the rub, I think. Gilding tells us what he thinks must happen, but it will not happen at the required speed or on the necessary scale unless we do make a choice. So far, we have not.
Moreover, who is “we”?
It must be all nations, or we won’t get there. World-wide emissions show no sign of slowing, with more coal-burning power plants, especially in the developing world, the main reason and the oceans taking in less than average.
In Gilding’s book The Great Disruption he paints a picture of expected growth by 2050 producing an economy which would need to run at 500 to 700 % of the planet’s sustainable capacity, compared to 140% now. The economies of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India China) for example are likely to increase output 10 times between 2006 and 2050. That’s impossible. Either the planet needs to grow or we will need to make sustainable use of it. Real change, he says, will not happen until kick the economic growth addiction, which will not happen unless we are forced to change by a crisis.
Gilding says the end of growth started in 2008. In effect, he is urging us to make an early choice, or learn the hard way.
Finally, he says that zero carbon emissions is the easy bit. Peak everything is the real problem, and, some say, the opportunity.
Just in, a UNEP report finds that large companies are trashing the planet. If they brought to book the true cost their use of natural resources they would be making a financial loss.
If Gilding’s analysis is correct, the changes he sees as necessary involve a fundamental value reorientation. That will not come easily.
60 thoughts on “Tipping point for climate action?”
The world hasn’t warmed for 17 years. The believers in climate change are getting desperate. The great global warming scam is coming undone as people wake up and realize the truth, that promoters of global warming want to take us back to the stone age and deindustrialize the world through wealth distribution.
Oh, sorry, I don’t know what came over me. I have been reading Andrew Bolt’s blog a lot. Great post.
I think that it is essential that the Coalition, and very specifically Tony Abbott, officially respond to the report.
There is an obvious pyramid here
“Some 53 per cent of people gave a score of five or six to the scientists – indicating a high level of trust. On the same measure, the Government rated poorly with just 9.4 per cent of people. The media scored a disastrous 5.1 per cent”
What is at the top of the pyramid? My guess? “the 1%”.
BilB, I think the effect of the 8% or so of denialists on the 1% of the powerful elites is a huge problem, which Gilding underestimates.
He says ignore the denialists, because whatever you say won’t change their views and eventually they will be rendered irrelevant by the science. I think he under-appreciates how power works in society.
Brian its been the 1% (well some of them, the ones that own much of the fossil fuel industry) that have had an effect on the 8% of denialists by funding and enabling them (imo anyway). Because action on climate change will cost them money. There is probably a feedback loop between uncommitted 1%ers and denial propaganda as well, cos of the cost factor.
IIRC the only time action on climate change was actually taken seriously by “the market” was after that report in 2007 by Nicholas Stern, which talked about the actual financial cost.
The UNEP report is a good thing cos it gives figures to the costs that are constantly socialised by by big businesses.
CHINA MADE BECOMES THE CLIMATE’S DISASTER.
The climate change has became the realistic problem, there is not only the scientists as David Suzuki, Tim Flannery, Hansen, former vice president Al Gore or politician concern, but the most people recognize the planet being threatened by the weather changes. The natural disaster causes by people, but the scientific report or warning may display the fact of the dioxide released, therefore the important reason should be ignored. Likely a medical doctor give the remedy medicine to relieve patient for a while the illness cause does’t find yet.
The products label” made in China” spread through out the world market, the most China made could be harmed the consumer by contamination, poison and hygienic process, despite the low price could excite the people.
Our planet has been changing badly by natural disaster and temperature increases, but the world consumer contribute the dioxide released while buying the product from China, a largest population and also the number one dioxide delivers into sky.
Eventually, the product of western country expect match the quality and long lasting, although the price would be dearer. But China product is cheaper, therefore the quality is not durable, so the products of China have to replace many times, then the dioxide would be added many times as the same product, the reason explains China is the most carbon released in the world.
However, the poor quality of China made that help the Chinese have the job, remaining the economic growth and they become the second economic center in the world. On the other hand, China gains profit and keeping job for its people so far so good, but the world has been harming by the climate change. Buying product by China means contribute for the planet’s disaster.
Likely the electrical appliances, parts made by China, the customer have to buy many times as the same product of the western country made, so the dioxide released more. The western country product by good quality and long lasting could reduce the dioxide than China made.
No one has mentioned the collapsing European carbon price yet?
Terry, as far as I can make out they issued too many permits at the outset and then the GFC did the work for them in reducing emissions, along with other measures which in Europe are considerable.
They may not do anything to correct the market unless they increase their ambition on target emissions reductions, which is unlikely before international negotiations bear some fruit.
The EU has some countries like Poland with a severe fossil carbon addiction.
We are locked in from 2015 which will have implications for budget projections, unless we change our forward relationship to the EU ETS, which would require parliamentary approval, I think.
There’s been a bit of commentary, but I don’t have time to round it up right now.
And one might add Brian, that what has bedevilled the European carbon permits structure is always to err on the side of more permissive targets precisely so as to avoid the perception that European industries in this or that nation state will be prejudiced in their trading.
Industries that have exceeded targets for reduction, (or that could in a more onerous carbon emissions regime) don’t have anywhere near the political power of the old and dirty industries and their advocates in Brussels.
We have done quite a bit of this in Australia too, but in Europe, the Federal structure there makes for even more parochial beggar-my -neighbour politicking than here, because they continue to see themselves as separate and competing states rather than a true union. Given what has happened there during the GFC, this is hardly surprising of course.
The problem here is not so much that carbon trading is unworkable in theory but that in practice the European trading bloc simply isn’t as coherent as its proponents all those years ago supposed. They have never really resolved and managed to enforce anything like a common fiscal policy or overcome the anomalies inherent in a common currency. Trying to map the cap and trade system onto that has simply illuminated these issues.
it seems to me that the denialosphere is getting increasingly desperate and frenetic – some of what’s going on at WUWT recently has been flat-out hilarious, and the response to Marcott was really out of control. I think they’re watching the sea ice collapse and realizing they’re out of propaganda material. My guess is that the denialosphere will run out of steam around about the time of the next el-nino.
I don’t really think that the stymying of action has been driven or even much influenced by the denialosphere though. It’s driven by the real corporeal power of the big industries, and regardless of how the propaganda falls out, I worry that they will continue to press their case. My fear is that if we don’t act soon, sometime in my lifetime we will see a generalized agricultural failure – maybe two el ninos from now? – and the world will slide rapidly into climate fascism as the govts of the day realize that they need to act desperately to fix the problem. Then all the libertarian paranoia about deindustrialization and thought control will come true!
“That will not come easily”
Carolyne Pidcock (architect) on her blog asks the same question.
What to do?
I make the argument that we get various options at different times and time frames to make decisions that can make a difference. We need to have options and benefits clearly aligned.
For instance every 10 years we buy a new (or newer) vehicle. This is an opportunity to manage our carbon footprint down significantly.
Perhaps several times in a lifetime we will install a home PV system. Then every several years we may have the opportunity to add or upgrade parts of that system. to that end keep an eye on
(GenIIPV concept is based on this technology, Plus)
Once in a lifetime we get the opportunity to make an energy efficiency statement with a home that we buy. It is easy to make all manner of pronouncements about the magnitude of the opportunity here, but in fact we rarely have much say in what we get. Almost more importnat than the buildings carbon footprint is its ability to survive climate change driven destructive weather.
The most empowering affirmative action that we all can take is in our daily purchasing choices. The guideline would be buy to last and resource deplete the least.
Face it Brian if you want to lay blame for the failure of the warminsita cause it is entirely an artefact too many “sky is falling” dire predictions and relying on rather stupid “market mechanisms” like emissions trading schemes that have only the most tenuous connection to your desired changes to the climate.
Having had the Likes of Al Gore and Tm Flannery selling the message and with predictions so clearly wrong is it any wonder that the public just tune out these days no matter how shrill you doom-sayers become.
Its very worth while noting that the ALP election website has absolutely no mention of Climate change because even the Losers in Labor know that there is just no interest in the topic from most of the public any more.
Fascinating reading you people just wittering grimly on, and on , and on, …. But I guess Marxists did exactly that for about 50 years.
Hasnt anyone told you that your “cause” is deader than the Children’s Crusade?
Bill … assuming by “the cause” you mean “action on climate change” it will live for as long as humanity requires ecosystem services. It can’t die before the bulk of human demands on the ecosystem disappear. I daresay that moment, if it arrives, will occur long after you and I are beyond commenting on this matter.
What we worry about is the suffering before that moment. It’s regrettable that you are so glib but sadly, in any gathering of humans, there are always a few fools.
Agreed, roughly 10% according to the polls.
Is that a close up of your little greycells in your avatar there Jumpy, all of them together. Keep them in a little box do you?
This is a very serious situation for Australia, for the world. Exactly as Roger Jones has been arguing and is proving quantitatively (I believe) the effects of Climate Change will come in steps, or surges. In 1972 all of Sydney’s beaches washed away in a week. They took a year to come back. What this report is suggesting is that the next time that combination of storms, high tides, and sea level rise, they may not come back. Or at least not in the same way.
Farm Livestock can very well be hit in the same way with waves of extreme weather that do not give traditional farming the ability to remain viable, so unless the nation re-establishes a land army WW2 fashion food security could very well become a thing of the past in just a decade.
Couple these changes with steadily climbing oil prices which also seem to follow the Jones effect and economic stability will certainly become a passing memory. The reality is that there is insufficient fossil fuel left for eight billion human beings to adapt to the changes now underway.
Do you have anything substantive to add or is taking potshots from the sidelines all that you’re capable of?
Here some more complete information on the VWXL1
The review is a little negative but watch the video not at all bad.
If you drive to work in a car 5 days/week, you can reduce your commute emissions by 20% by:
Working at or near home one day per week. OR
Working 20% closer to home. OR
Riding your bike to work one day per week. OR
Using spare public transport space one day per week. OR
Sharing a car with someone else two days per week. OR
Commuting in a car that uses 20% less fuel. OR
There are plenty of other things mere mortals can do that collectively do make a difference.
Some Australian commute data:
66% of workers commute by car
Over 90% of these cars are driver only
further to what BilB said at 16 there are issues around fertilizer & there is increased risk of war.
you made it!
great reading on the R&R controversy as well.
The Guardian reports on a carbon bubble that could crash like the GFC if proper carbon pricing is put in place, and could be very bad for the environment if not…
So, if the majority of people support action on climate change, both here and in the US, why aren’t our politicians taking action? Well, the Gillard government is, but the Coalition are apparently largely in denial.
Why is Gonski being opposed given the majority of the electorate support it? Why did gun background checks fail to get through the senate in the US? Why are European leaders agreeing to more and more austerity even though their people don’t want it?
As another commenter noted, it is the nature of power that needs to be understood here. But, like climate change, just because we know the cause, it doesn’t mean the solution is simple, unfortunately.
That article is also interesting for this:
Well, Faustusnotes, it seems that Gina Reinhardts untold billions may never actually be told. And here kids were doing the right thing in realising their fortune in the present rather than their old age.
If Ginas profit projections are as wrong as the Climate temp computer models then she’s in for a rough time.
And deservedly so.
Those climate computer projections aren’t nearly as bad as The Club of Rome (yet).
Jumpy, are you able to tell us which of the models in that graph are used by the IPCC and which aren’t? Because the models can be very accurate, and your source hasn’t specified his data selection method.
A real skeptic would have noticed that …
Na, not a denier or skeptic fn, just a bloke who has seen too many lies on both sides and refuse to panic.
Found that graph HERE on my musing through the Web.
I spose you will now scream ” untrustworthy lying source ” and ” only MY sources are correct.
They say that on the other side too.
Probably insult me too, that’s OK if it helps you, I’ll smile regardless. 🙂
It doesnt matter which models are used by the IPCC if every single one is wrong.
Yet another case of only seeing what you want to see and disregarding the rest.
For starters 3 of those models track the satelite date quite closely.
Apart from that the satelite temp data does not include humidity, or atmospheric moisture content for the averaged effect. Also not included is the atmospheric circulation rate (moving air contains kinetic energy). Humidity contains huge amounts of energy and acts as a temperature moderator. The energy in the atmosphere is every much what the models are predicting but the manner in which it is held is still being determined. The models I believe have not taken account of very significant changes in atmospheric circulation. Some of this research is only now underway with attempts to measure and better understand upper atmosphere air movements.
Apart from those observations, what faustus notes.
Here is a policy quote from the GWPF source of Jumpy’s link
“We regard observational evidence and understanding the present as more important and more reliable than computer modelling or predicting the distant future.”
In other words focus on the short term not the long term according to Lord Lawson whose real incentive is cost reduction.
There is another probable cause for the deviations in the satelite data and the models is that where the models included the cooling effect of the Pinatubo eruption, because that occurred before the predictions were run, they do not show the effect of the Icelandic eruption or the South American volcanic release, whereas the satelite data does.
There is way too much scope in there for cherry picking and Jumpying to false conclusions.
the blogroll is out of date and I’m not on it!!!
When you find a formula for commenting you stick to it.
1.Start with Insult– 2. Bloated conjecture in the middle–3 end with insult.
Even did the ” double comment ” version!!
Good for you.
(@16 is still my favourite )
and the question remains, Jumpy, what are those 44 climate models and why are they special? They don’t seem to match the uncertainty ranges for the IPCC AR4 models. So why has Spencer selected them? Do you just believe everything you read, or can you present an explanation of what those 44 models are and why they were selected?
They said 44 latest, are they wrong?
Jumpy, I’m afraid when you see Roy Spencer and John Christy’s names you have to suspect cherry picking. Any recent temperature series that has 1998 well above what follows is suss. Try GISS for example, or better still Tamino’s Comparing Temperature Data Sets.
At some point on the night of September 14, between about 7.30 and 8.30pm, a parade of defeated Labor MPs will start holding media conferences. There will be those, such as David Bradbury and Graham Perrett, who will remain Julia Gillad loyalists to the end, and say things like “We didn’t communicate well enough with the voters …”. And then there will be those long time Julia Gillard sceptics, such as Darren Cheeseman and Laura Smyth, who will be a bot more frank in their assessments. They will say things like “Of course the carbon taxt cost us votes”, and “Our supporters never really accepted the need for a carbon tax”.
At this point the floodgates will begin to open on this topic, and those currently positioning themselves as “mavericks” (formerly known as Rudd supporters) – Crean, Ferguson, Fitzgibbon, Bowen – will open up on this issue, and the decision of whether to wave through the abolition of the carbon tax will be thoroughly tied up with the question of leadership after September 15. Labor policy on the carbon tax will become in part a referendum among the remaining Caucus members on the Gillard/Swan leadership from 2010-13.
Bloated conjecture? I call it hypothesising. Prove it wrong, Jumpy, or counter claim, that is how we move forward in a discussion, and the really import points are worth repeating. The veiled “read anything you like into it” suggestion that all greens are idiots was worthy of retort, I thought.
The net gain was the unearthing of a transitional denialist “foundation”, GWPF, based on an over opinionated politician and a tame scientist with the, at least openly stated, aim of minimising personal loss at the expense of all others, using, yet again, all of the old methods of the tobacco industry. I say transitional in that the denialist arguments have changed to a degree reflecting their failing position. Very much the point of this thread.
What I find intriguing, though Jumpy, is that you usually arrive with a running mate. Is that your form of emphaSith?
Man made global warming is a great big con. Most people now see that and the desperate attempts by the Left to shore the falling facade just makes them look ridiculous.
You know we are laughing at you.
No it isn’t.
if you think it isn’t real you are ignorant or a scammer.
Which is it Johno?
av @ 19, there is a lengthy review of Gwynne Dyer’s Climate Wars at Climate and Capitalism, and another one here.
He based the book on a series of interviews with national defence operatives and climate scientists early in 2008. Many of the latter were scared out of their brains, but unwilling to speak publicly.
In general terms he sees food scarcity and conflict over water leading to mass migration in the 2020s, with Russia already gaming 100 million Chinese heading for Siberia, northern Europe closing the border at the Alps, the US-Mexico border becoming militarised, Pakistan and India in conflict over water (only one of 11 rivers used for irrigation rise within Pakistan’s borders, etc etc.
thanks for the reviews – i’ll put them on my device for later. i read dyer’s book in 2009 during a visit to the old country, it was in every bookstore there. i was depressed for most of the year after, i’m certain because of the shock of it. he clearly knows his military stuff & has access to military people who have confidence enough in him to unburden themselves & frankly tell it to him as they see it. whether or not individuals in national populations acknowledge climate change, military strategists are planning for it. its not in the remit of experienced military planners to waste resources on threats to the realm that don’t exist, so why are they planning for it if climate change isn’t real? -a.v.
The military take on resource wars and global warming is interesting; I’ve been noodling around Australian military sources for some time looking for their forward plans for securing food and water in the future with not much luck so far … however, I know that there are plans in situ that will be uncovered in time.
Will Hutton, seeing few signs of hope but pinning his faith in democracy and “stakeholder capitalism”.
Neither. Just someone smart enough to see through the BS.
The Left just doesn’t have the self awareness to see how ridiculous it looks with its mindless defence of a theory that is hopelessly wrong.
Yeah, ignorant it is.
I hypothesise that this week, 15-21 April 2013, had the same amount of normal weather, globally, as 15-21 April 1913.
Prove it wrong and we can move on.
Johno is a libertarian and Catallaxy regular.
I assume Jumpy is another Catallaxian, Jumpnmcar.
Apparently libertarians don’t do science.
I was Jumpnmcar here too but folks called me jumpy, so I changed it.
I’m me, not a LPer or Cat or any other pigeon hole member you can rebuke by association.
What pigeon hole sums up your entire collection of beliefs ?
Johno is one of the 8%, in time will be out of luck and hasn’t actually said anything that matters. Please ignore him.
Jumpy on occasion contributes something of interest, but the point he brought up @ 25 is really off topic. He does derail threads at times.
Sorry Brian about @25, It was a reflex comment to a jealous insult of a successful Australian lady and her relationship with her kids.
In an attempt to atone
World Energy Council Sustainability Index Released
If the Greens are serious about co2, they’re gunna hafta compromise on nuclear and dams.
I doubt they will.
You’re probably right, Jumpy.
But that isnot the point.
In 1813 the oceans surface water was colder.
Shell fish were forming complete shells.
Glaciers were not declining at anything like the same pace as they are today.
There was no ozone hole
One in a hundred year storms rarely occurred 3 times a year.
And so on.
The world was changing, but at nothing like the pace of today. That’s what it’s all about.
High pressure systems deliver warm sunny days and icy nights, Low pressure systems deliver cold, rain, and snow. The energy intensity of the interplay of the systems and where that is applied is the delivered effect as far as weather is concerned. The real disaster is the heat in the oceans, the acidity of the oceans, the expanding tropical zone, the shifting ecology zones, the loss of stored fresh water, the rising sea levels, the loss of forests, and the loss of biodiversity. ….. And….all of that has occurred in less than two hundred years.
As far as you mowing your grass in your suburban back yard is concerned, you could kid yourself that nothing has changed.
“In 1813 the oceans surface water was colder.”
Measured by whom, how and by how much?
“Shell fish were forming complete shells.”
And still doing it now.
“Glaciers were not declining at anything like the same pace as they are today.”
Got me there, i’ll look 2morra.
“There was no ozone hole”
Not co2 related.
“One in a hundred year storms rarely occurred 3 times a year.”
Bullshit, prove it.
Most of the other stuff is down to population growth not co2.
By the way the ocean ph is 8.2ish, if anything it is slowly less basic, any scientist that says the ocean is getting ” more acidic ” is an instant red flag for me.
But never do people here criticise exaggerations that kill your credibility.
( No agro is intended in this comment, brain to text is not my best thing )
(( catch replies 2morra, bed time.))
Now you’re just making stuff up, Jumpy, because the answers don’t suite you, or you just can’t read very well. All of these points have been well proven by science and covered here at length over time.
You’ve obviously got a lot of catching up to do so here is some basic start off reading for you.
We can continue when you have achieved competency in this subject.
jumpy and johnno and anyone else – for those of you that think climate science is some lefty plot, you have been scammed by the scammers.
The great big con is that AGW is not happening.
The film Thin Ice by Simon Lamb is available on vimeo today (I dunno how long for tho).
Also worth reading.
Yep! They saw you coming.
The good news is that the majority of LNP voters havent fallen for it if you follow Brian’s links.
The majority of LNP MPs have though.
This disjunction always suggest the work of paid lobbyists rather than educators.
That’s funny, because anytime someone tries to argue that there really is a fundamental difference between “more acidic” and “less basic” it is for me an instant red flag that someone is trying to muddy the waters with diversionary tactics about ultimately meaningless semantic issues…
I just read today that Australia now has solar panels in 1 million homes so that’s gotta be a good thing, right?
Comments are closed.