Is there any irrefutable evidence that any action by man will have a positive effect on climate change?

If there is no firm evidence, which I don't think has really ever been discussed - so fiery has been the argument on climate change itself - then any money to be spent on just 'hope' should be kept to help repair the economy.

Precisely, ttbn.

The entry-level questions are: what is irrefutably happening (virtually nothing), what could we do about ameliorating adverse impacts (virtually nothing) and what would such amelioration cost (trillions, for no result).

Another anti Climate Change thread. When the oceans cool and Glacial ice stops melting you may have a chance of denying climate change is happening.

Co2 at 400 parts / million did not get there on its own. So just another rant to appease a handful on Conservatives that can not have any change what so ever.

the climate has been changing every day for millions of years.

do you really think paying a carbon tax on the air we breathe to the international banksters is going to the improve the environment?

why are the left wing elites so desperate to make the 1% of the 1% even richer?

Quote ttbn
"Is there any irrefutable evidence that any action by man will have a positive effect on climate change?"

No but there is plenty of evidence that we can have a very negative effect on the atmosphere and climate.

1 Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase surface temperatures.

2 Adding CFCs to the atmosphere destroys ozone at altitude and further enhances surface warming.

4 Surface global warming causes a dramatic net loss of ice, reducing the earths albedo and amplifying the warming further.

5 Warming oceans amplify the intensity of tropical storms and further enhances global warming.

6 A warming climate moves climate zones towards the poles thus increasing the size of desert zones north and south of the tropics of Capricorn and cancer.

7 Burning fossil fuels produces photo chemical smog and harmful particulates.

8 Activities by man has added incredible amounts of dust to the atmosphere, the consequences of which are probably bad.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-02/indonesia-forest-fires-could-become-worst-on-record-nasa-warns/682446

Calwest. Succinct, clear and hitting the nail precisely on the head. Well said!

doog. "Co2 at 400 parts / million did not get there on its own". So, the millions of years wherein CO2 fluctuations have greatly exceeded these levels, (more 'up' than down thank heavens), at 270/280 ppm extinguishes plant life; so where did those fluctuations come from? ie, well before mankind came down from the trees.

ttbn. That's twice today that I completely concur with your comments! spooky innit?

Warmair,

Right. There is no evidence that man can reverse of alter climate. End of story. Don't waste the money. Accept, adapt to climate change and spend the money on something useful.

In round terms if that $660m only created 10 Mt of new real emissions reductions instead of the claimed 47 Mt the abatement cost would be $66/t. Some of the actions the ERF paid for would have been done anyway perhaps required by law. For example state EPA rules require landfills to prevent methane release. There is no need for the Commonwealth to pay them anything, particularly from consolidated revenue. Other actions are difficult to verify such as the claim frequent burning of NT savanna reduces atmospheric CO2.

What is particularly galling is that Foreign Minister Bishop has been skiting about the ERF at international forums. That makes Australia look stupid then again most other countries will probably fudge their figures as well.

Quote
ttbn
"Right. There is no evidence that man can reverse of alter climate. End of story."

That is exactly the point once we have vandalized the atmosphere the climate will respond in ways that will most definitely be harmful to humans, numerous animals and plants. We have no practical method by which we can remove CO2 or other any other pollutants from the atmosphere once we have put it there. The simple solution is not to put there in the first place. The idea that green house gases do not affect climate is scientifically untenable.

So its going to cost money to stop vandalizing the atmosphere therefore we should not bother, makes me wonder about the sanity of humans.

Oh Dear; Still carrying on about the wrong argument !

doog, mentioned the 400 ppm of CO2 where around 130 ppm has been created through burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution. The origin of CO2 can be established through the isotopes displayed...applied science.

We know that carbon has been created and stored over millions of years; in geological terms we burn fossil fuels (carbon) in a few moments in geological terms.

The 11 year ARM study displayed the relationship between CO2 and infrared light...applied science in a real setting.

There have been 5 major extinction periods; 4 created through volcanic action creating much CO2, the other apparently a combination of volcanic action and being hit by an asteroid.
Volcanic action has virtually been flat lining over the last decades.

While those who were pushing the view that we were having a hiatus in relation to temperature increase; Oceans (Pacific, Atlantic and Indian) were secretly taking up heat. Check out "the blob" in the Pacific, notice how it is holding more warmth in the higher latitudes than during the 1997 el nino event.

Extra warmth in Oceans and atmosphere leads to a greater amount of evaporation. Over the last years there have been huge deluges; currently North and South Carolina and France have been hammered.
Earlier this year Estonia, Texas and Oklahoma were hit by severe flooding.

Just making blanket statements that man has no influence on climate does not stand, unless it can be proven that the 130+ ppm of man created CO2 since the Industrial Revolution has no influence on climate.

The irony is that scientists employed by ExxonMobil were telling management about how the burning of fossil fuel has an impact on climate back in the 1970s. Management sought to ignore their professional scientists and as a result Senator Whitehouse (US) is contemplating taking legal action currently.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warmin

Man has influence in how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. To believe otherwise is like falling onto a busy train line and not hurriedly scrambling for safety.

Pompete Before we came down from the trees Volcanic action influenced the rise and fall of Co2 .

Nature controlled Co2 levels with climate change before humans came along. And there is nothing to suggest anything will be any different this time, unless something is done to counter the increasing Co2 in the atmosphere.

With the level now at 400 PPM nature has been compromised to the point of overbalance. And that has caused ocean temp to rise and ice melt is getting more and more each year.

People see more surface ice forming, but that is the result of the fresh water from the ice melt freezing at a lower temp; than brine water. So that disappears each spring, then more glacial melt starts each summer.

The worst thing is warmer water is undermining the glacial ice and it breaks of in lager chunks, adding to the increased glacial flows.

Ice land is not all ice, under the ice is a gigantic lake, kept liquid from warm earth from volcanic undertones. With some ice shelves up to 3 km’s thick, and being undercut by warmer water ice calving is increasing in mass . Of course when ice is in the water it is irretrievable. Ice that has been frozen for for thousands of years is now melting.

Ice melt has a helper at putting more Co2 into the atmosphere with ice melt comes bare ground which is frozen, “ perma frost “ as that thaws out more Co2 escapes, Plus Co2 overload stored in our warming oceans are causing Acidification, [or less alkaline water] which will dissolve the shell of shell fish.

Personally to get the ice melt to stop and oceans to cool we need to pull back co2 levels to 1960 levels. The quicker that happens the less sea level rise, as it is now sea level rise is inevitable to keep happening for the next 30 – 40 years.

The longer action is delayed that figure will blow out accordingly, and with ever increasing amount of years for a solution to take effect.

Given that there is no scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that global warming is man-caused, if Morrison were really serious about cutting expenditure, he should cut not only the ERF, but also all government subsidies to the renewals development industry, all monies that support the so-called environmental charities, all monies paid to international environment funds, all monies to be spent on direct action, and of course all climate-change related funding in the department of the environment and in universities.

Raycom, the science of climate change has been about for many decades, John Tyndall around 1859 was a pioneer. In the 1970s scientists employed by ExxonMobil were acknowledging man created climate change.

By suggesting that man created climate change is not real you are stating you know more than CSIRO, Royal Society and NASA and other peak scientific bodies. In making your statement you need to provide proof, otherwise it is in the realm of a nonsense statement. NASA has just sent a capsule beyond Pluto, they know something about the atmosphere and outer space; you're claiming you know better. NASA supports the view that man has created damage to the climate. We all know there are natural variations in climate, it just so happens man has placed extra tensions in the climate system.

As stated above in an earlier post the 11 year ARM study has definitively shown the relationship between CO2 and infrared light through applied science.

Ant: "In making your statement you need to provide proof, otherwise it is in the realm of a nonsense statement."

The application of scientific method calls for the proponents of an hypothesis to test whether it is correct or incorrect. However, no one has succeeded in tabling the empirical scientific evidence necessary to prove the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Rather than spoil a good story by acknowledging the inconvenient truth, proponents (including the corruptly-influenced IPCC, ideologically-biased national broadcasters (ABC, BBC, CBC, TVNZ), politicised science organisations (CSIRO and science academies), vested-interest and unprofessional scientists and entrepreneurs) resorted to unscientific means, viz. asserting, alarm-generating unvalidated climate models, politicising, propagandising, denigrating and shouting down anyone with an opposing view.

So Raycom, you are suggesting that John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and Callendar who were pioneers of climate change decades before the 1970s were committing fraud? ExxonMobil scientists were telling management about climate change in the 1970s. Were the scientists employed by ExxonMobil committing fraud?

Headline in relation to ExxonMobil scientists:

"Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions."

Quote from article:

"...It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert."

from:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Where there is a clash between making profit and science, sadly those seeking to make profit push against science. It has happened with the tobacco industry, drug industry, asbestos industry and now fossil fuel industry.