It may well be true that in the past the Earth experienced rapid climate change that was not due to man made CO2. However there are now 7.4bn of us who require a benign climate to reliably grow food, enable fixed address coastal living and to draw water from streams.

Another reason to take some pain in moving away from fossil fuels is to prepare for sudden shortages; case in point east Australian gas. We have a false sense of security over oil but there have been several price shocks in the last 30 years so another could be lying in wait. As to climate change I suggest our limits to coping are already stretched. If days of 45C become the new normal for southern mainland capitals clearly that is a problem that could take trillions to fix.

If you accept that manmade CO2 is hastening climate change then we should wear the cost of reducing it with the bonus of becoming more resilient. Today's young children shouldn't have to rapidly face problems that in all probability have been worsened by today's adults.

I liked the beginning, and then puzzled at the end. I never learned what exactly 'pollution' was, and how we are not dealing with what aspects of it, and how that is endangering what bits of what environment.

I used to care and try to minimise the amount of chemicals I place in the atmosphere, but since the atmosphere was polluted with the political deception called "global warming" (later changed its name to "climate change"), I care no longer about adding some more chemicals as well, as this would make no real difference to an already-toxic environment. Next we only need to add some radioactive elements to this beautiful cocktail!

This filthy academic inspired and supported scam of what is it this week? Very rich people with their private jets and waterfront property are saying poor people give up money to them, it is disgusting.
I believe that we should demand the ABC report the apology that the UK Chief Scientist made about his mistakes in saying diesel was not as bad a pollutant as petrol is. This was the pinnacle of science fiction (literally) and resulted in massive losses caused by you disgusting academics. You will turn people away from science. Mind you, who treats you and your dopey mates as anything other than the modern equivalent of a court jester? Making up rubbish for your betters.
Philosophise that!

GOOD ARTICLE, GOOD POINT, ITS THE POLLUTION THAT'S THE PROBLEM, THE WORLD HAS NO SYSTEM FOR COMPING WITH SOME OF THE JUNK WE PUT IN THE AIR AND WATER. CO2 IS A NATURAL THING AND THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS THE PLANET USES, NEEDS IT AND DIGESTS IT. I DO THINK THE CO2 BUINESS IS AN INDUCED DISTRACTION FROM THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT WE ARE HARDD AT WORK POISIONING THE EARTH WE LIVE ON.

Don't Worry,

Your caps button is stuck. What I've done is to shove a match stick into the space around it, so that the bloody thing never works ever again.

In Adelaide, we had a very short, mild Summer, with only a few days over the old century (Australia in Summer: it gets hot, folks, and always has - surprise ! ) and currently it's bloody cold. No worries, that's just standard variations, they happen all the time. But I wouldn't mind a bit of global warming.

And, Taswegian, so would the plant life of Australia: more CO2 in the atmosphere means more for plants to take up, and in the process, use water more efficiently (remember when they used to call it the 'Greenhouse Effect' ? Strangely quiet about that these days). CO2 is good, cold is bad, from the point of view of many plants.

I don't live too far from the beach, but I haven't noticed any sign whatever of coastal erosion (apart from the usual seasonal effects). The sea level doesn't seem to have risen - if it did, much more of the beach would be gone, maybe fifty metres further inland for every 10cm sea-level rise. Beach houses don't seem to be in danger: prices are rising steadily. Maybe they're fools ?

So yes, agnosticism may be the way to go.

Hmmm, what's the next Chicken Little panic ?

Joe

From the article:

“… given that the world has continually been experiencing climatic variation, how can we be certain that any present warming is at least partly attributable to human action?”

Because the evidence suggests that we are still supposed to be experiencing a cooling trend:

http://skepticalscience.com/should_earth_be_cooling.html

“… surely the vast majority of experts can't be wrong? Sometimes they are. History clearly attests that the scientific consensus hasn't always entailed scientific truth.”

Yeah, this is a fallacy that anti-vaxxers commit too:

http://vaxopedia.org/2017/05/03/science-has-been-wrong-before

It’s interesting to note that the past examples cited when this claim is made are always really old ones where the initial claim was not based on reliable evidence or methodology.

--

Yuyutsu,

‘Climate change’ is a term that has been used for just as long as ‘global warming’. The claim that a change occurred is a lie conjured up by deniers based on the myth that there is a hiatus in the warming, to make it look like scientists are fumbling around, tripping over their own lies. Here’s a paper from 1956 talking about "climate change":

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

One other little point Mark, that you need to add if you are to look at the whole story philosophically.

It takes dozens of us mere mortals slaving away, doing something productive, to support just one academic, waxing philosophic in his ivory tower.

To do things productive enough to support the huge proliferation of these academics we have recently experienced requires not only millions slaving away, but for those millions to be slaving with the help of vast amounts of energy. To increase their productivity sufficiently the keep these academics in the style they demand has consumed vast amounts of energy, which still can only be practically supplied by a combination of burning fossil fuels, & by nuclear reaction.

Perhaps you should add to your philosophical discussion, that any increase in CO2 can be laid at the feet of the leisured class, much of it peopled by academics.

Not that the CO2 is of any importance, but the fact is that any society can only afford so many leaches sucking it's life blood, & academia is greatly exceeding the number western society can continue support

There's some compelling phenomena that simply can't be ignored or dismissed as just cyclical!

That said, the choices that we have to effectively address the issue are fraught with quite massive sovereign risk and players determined by any and all means to avoid that risk!

The profit graph and their increasing returns being the most compelling issue for a very powerful few, with all their skin in fossil fuel or big nuclear!?

Were this not so, we could move as soon as tomorrow to begin to address the issue with the means we have at our disposal!

And they are ultra-cheap, walkaway safe thorium based carbon free energy, coupled to new space age low cost desalination. that together puts low cost water into former desert regions to turn them back to what they were before us.

And in so doing massively reduce poverty and want. And with it most of the current stimulus for armed conflict! It really is that simple and easy as!

All that prevents that is Benedict Arnold politicians and power brokers with an agenda, that's focused on very narrow vested interest, rather than our ultimate survival and that of the planet.

Venus is inside the so called Goldilocks zone so are we and Mars. However Venus, whose atmosphere is largely Co2, Carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide is the hottest planet in our solar system! Whereas Mars has most of it's heat trapping Co2 frozen out as dry ice in her polar regions, which makes it very cold!

Those irrefutable salient facts and on the ground realities, should remove any trace of agnosticism!
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

So ....... are you suggesting that we cancel any plans to live on either Venus or Mars ? Wow, that limits our options.

Maybe the sea-level is rising: those stone walls along Sydney Harbour would surely show signs of that ? Cm by cm ?

And day after day, on the Weather page of the Australian, they also list the hottest and coldest days ever on that particular date. Again and again, it seems that it was hotter in 1884 and 1916, etc. than in 2017. But live in hope.

Of course, one major way to limit CO2 production would be to stop Indians from using wood and cow dung for their fires. They could probably get used to raw food, in time. A bit harder for babies to digest, but never mind, they should think of climate change and realise they're doing their bit. By the way, how's the air-conditioning going this morning in Balmain and Richmond and Burnside ? Cold enough for you ? Never mind, just turn it up a bit.

OR, of course - since clean-coal puts far less CO2 into the atmosphere than cow-dung, perhaps all Indians could get all of their electricity - i.e. the same levels eventually as we are all used to - from coal-fired power stations, hundreds of them. Win ! That would need Australian coal and iron ore, helping to employ tens of thousands for a very long time. Win ! AND, at the same time, massively reduce the level of COs that would have to be produced by cow-dung to match the levels of electricity use that we take for granted. Win ! They could use it as fertiliser. Win !

So, what's not to like about the Adani project ? Coal production in Queensland for the next hundred years of growth in India - win-win-win-win-win!

Joe

This sums up the author’s dishonesty:” , hopefully discovering more evidence that sways us consensus-leaning agnostics ever-closer to the acceptance camp. "

He is not an agnostic, he is a supporter of the climate fraud.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
He relies on the consensus, which is not based on science, but on ignorance and dishonesty, on frauds like Hansen and Gore.
You are a climate fraud supporter, Mark, but feebly trying to pretend that you are not.
Any honest scientist acknowledges that there is no science to support the assertion of any measurable human effect on climate, so support for the climate fraud is based on dishonesty or ignorance.

We all have some work to do in order to help in this issue,let us help by refusing to pollute the earth with the use of junks chemicals.

Hi Hasbeen, I think you have a nice point.

What a load of ‘philosophising’ – or ‘waffle’ to be more precise! The author does not even define what he means by ‘pollution’.

As he is an adjunct research associate with Monash University, why does he not apply the scientific method when it comes to researching climate change.

No Joe, wasn't suggesting relocating to our nearest solar neighbors. Just making a case for the effects and counter effects of Co2 as applied to climate change or the green house effect, which arguably is all that makes Venus the hottest planet in our solar system.

As for coal, we can mine and use currently wasted thorium instead, then use it in place of coal to power our homes and massive new energy dependent, high tech industry.

Permanent high value highly paid manufacturing jobs will trump temporary mining any day! And given the huge savings available in doing so, really power up the overall economy!

Then using that massively cheaper energy, desalinate copious water using the latest deionization process, which doesn't require pressure, just flowing water, that is given an electric shock a la dialysis to quarantine the salt to one selected part of the flow sheet, which is immediately returned.

This then makes up to 95% potable water from sea water. And at quarter of the cost of traditional desal. Meaning broad scale irrigation with that cost effective water is eminently affordable/doable; and were we to use our nuts instead of burying them, we could turn the economic tide and rescue our ailing coal fired economy, to instead invite in unprecedented universal prosperity and food production on an hitherto, unknown scale and use up the record Co2!

Climate change doesn't have to be bad news, just an opportunity to massively improve the lot of all Australians as well as begin to roll back poverty and unmet need, wherever it exists and with that, remove most of the stimulus for armed conflict and millions of displaced (drought effected) persons!

Agnosticism (burying the head) addresses/resolves none of this or any other problem! Finally, a good businessman knows when to cut his losses and get out! And in that context, we just need to get out of coal!

The greenhouse effect should be seen as an opportunity to turn the entire planet into a big productive greenhouse, as opposed to sitting on our hands watching avoidable desertification.
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

As you suggest, thorium reactors may be eventually the way to go, but in the meantime, I hope that Adani goes all out to provide India with enough coal to lift 1.4 billion Indians, as quickly as possible, out of desperately poor lives which demand CO2-producing wood-and-cow-dung-fires - the cancer rate amongst Indian peasant women must be be horrific, causing problems which must rank almost with the uncertainties of kale availability in Balmain.

Once that's done, and if thorium-based energy production is up and running, we can all go with over to that instead. Hopefully, in the very near future :)

Joe

Alan if you want to try science, you do need to understand what you are talking about.

It is the depth of the atmosphere on Venus, not its composition that generates it's temperature.

We have Co2 as a gas and carbon as a particle.
It is undeniable that the concentrations of Co2 in the atmosphere are at their greatest levels since co2 was measured. And who put all that extra Co2 into the atmosphere.

We can not blame volcanic action to cause climate change this time as in the past.
Glacial ice have a coating of black carbon, which in turn is helping ice melt.
Rising temperatures have been largely absorbed into our oceans, creating an undercutting of glacial ice.

Weather patterns are becoming more volatile as the years pass.
These events are caused by nature being compromised. unless we change our ways we are in for a torrid time.

To deny anything is happening is ostrich activity and will aid nothing.

There is no such thing as cyclical when it comes to climate change there has to be a trigger

Wake up on OLO.

The hyper-polluting system that gave rise to relevant debate on this thread article should be reconfigured to involve complete science and not just selected science to market alternative energy sales and profit.

Its way past deadline for action to stop or slow or reverse ocean ecosystem devastation including of the Great Barrier Reef.

Get over the CO2 nonsense, and that's what it is. Non sense.

Ocean currents, not CO2, regulate global climate.
Weather patterns are driven by ocean currents.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/climate.html

I reiterate as I have said previously here on OLO.

AGW and Kyoto associated science did not measure and assess solar warmth absorbed and somewhat retained in historically unprecedented ocean and lake algae plant matter proliferated and increased in mass by historically unprecedented sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution.

How can climate change agnosticism be the better bet when there is dire urgent need to reduce the human source nutrient load dumped into ocean ecosystems daily? It is a worsening situation blatantly ignored in academic circles.

In the real world, algae is warming areas of ocean and lakes giving rise to increase in cloud and change in weather and climate regionally, but not globally all at the same time.

And academics hear this.
Seafood dependent island people are now suffering chronic and worsening hardship due to devastation of fish populations and small fish - food web nurseries, devastation due to numerous algae species reducing sunlight and photosynthesis.
The result is under nourished and starving tuna and other fish populations failing to breed and multiply successfully.
Whales and seabirds are starving.
Fish are not immune to starvation.
Overfishing has impact but is not the fundamental problem.

Consequences of CO2 agenda and failure to address ocean ecosystem damage and under-nutrition, include protein deficiency malnutrition and coinciding increase in maternal mortality, Diabetes II, major organ failure, overloaded health systems, civil unrest and threat to national and international security.

If academics need relevant data then go collect it.
Ignorance of the above situation is no excuse and may constitute crime against humanity and the environment

Ah another gathering of the OLO old chooks recycling the scraps of global warming denialism. I will admit to feeling a little sentimental when I pop in to see you all neatly lining up with your same old tired piss-ant arguments.

Meanwhile the rest of the world has passed you by.

Well the old hen house might be full of holes but there is very little to inspire this old fox. Keep scratching around lads at least it gives you some form of exercise even if it is only on the keyboard.

Hasbeen, used to earn my daily bread from science and can tell that an earth sized Venus has no more atmospheric depth, nor gravity than we do. What makes Venus's atmosphere comparitively thicker than Earth's is all the water vapor, that was once rivers lakes and oceans!

And where we are headed if left to climate deniers. Look, the trouble free ( 5 year road test) trials at Oak ridge, Tennessee, tells us molten salt thorium is, after being just about the cheapest energy on earth, up there with the safest, cleanest and most reliable. And given the sheer energy (planet's best) density of thorium, refueling the reactors might be needed once every hundred years.

The fact that this form of energy is carbon free is immaterial! All we need is the massive economic case, to mothball or decommission our (near the end of their economic life)coal fired power generators, then use mass produced thorium modules as very local power, to fire up all manner of previously unaffordable industry, as well as turning our desert heartland into very profitable farms, orchards etc/etc.

Meaning we'd be no longer tied to or dependent on a very vulnerable gold plated grid or those who control it to eke every possible dollar from us!

Think man, we used to have a viable car manufacturing industry!

Given wages inflation of up to 30% PA in China, it's clearly not wages forcing our manufacturing sector offshore!

I take by your risible remarks, you want our economy and manufacturing to sink further?

Service jobs are all well and good if we have a viable manufacturing sector to support and carry them! Anything else is just pass the parcel and watch debt grow! Capice?
Alan B.

warmist have been using fake news well before the term became popular. Just like the evolution fantasy the gw high priests can't reason just demonise those demanding some true evidence. Don't hold your breath.

Ala B.,

When did we have a viable car manufacturing industry? You must have a different notion of 'viable' to me.

Climate change in the past was caused by mass doses of co2 and methane released into the atmosphere from volcanic action.
There was no sewage to worry about in them days.
All the excuses this side of the sun will not reverse the amount of Co2 to 1960 levels. Natures own level of Co2 in the atmosphere, and not yours.

Creationism and evolutionism is a non debate. It belongs in the archives of 2000 year old religion. Various forms of human being have been around for millions of years. Be best kept to yourself as a personal belief.

Joe, because the cost of building thorium reactors is less than building comparable coal fired plants! Starving or poor populations would be well advised to build them instead?

Why? Because all the costs are upfront. I mean the security guard out front costs more than the fuel. India i.e. has limited uranium but arguably has the largest repository of thorium?

I mean one can it's said, walk on the Mumbai beach, pick up a handful of sand and get enough thorium to run India for a year.

Demonstrably, given the Boeing example, thorium reactors can be massed produced in factories, creating thousands of new jobs and thousands more via the usual flow on factors. Moreover, cheap energy will enable many poor homes to abandon wood and kero cookers, thus improving health outcomes.

Finally, cheap energy enables pumping clean sanitary water and running washing machines, ending years of the daily grind for women tasked with family laundry duties, thus freeing them for study or other productive income earning work!

Putting reliable water in bone dry fields and on demand is central to overcoming poverty and cyclical famine. And indeed the usual stimuli for armed conflict.

Do two things for me. download the case for thorium as a PDF, or buy a book titled super fuel. and when armed with the facts. Continue this discussion or try to make any kind of case for coal anywhere.

India is building many new solid fuel reactors and advancing ways to convert them to use thorium. This is where their technical difficulties lie?

When instead they should just build tried and tested molten salt thorium reactors. which can be fueled and welded shut, to spin away for 100 years?

It's not rocket science and the book super fuel lays out an irrefutable case, whether it's green power, or based on fundamental, best economic model!

I don't know where you'll get the book, but I'll warrant Amazon does?
Alan B.

Steele Reflux has raised his delusional head again, using the scurrilous term “denier”.
As I have asked you many times before, Reflux, what is the science being denied?
You have none. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You disappeared from the climate thread after you posted the baseless lie that Robert Carter’s complete demolition of the climate fraud had been shown to be untrue.
You gave no reference to the source of this nonsense, and I asked you to give the source or admit that you had concocted the ridiculous lie yourself.
As is your custom when you corner yourself with your dishonesty, you disappeared down your rodent hole for months.
Now that you have surfaced will you please give the source of your baseless lies about Robert Carter’s work.
He showed that the assertions about CO2 by the fraud promoters completely fail.
As his science is flawless, fraud promoters like Reflux, make baseless personal attacks.
What is your response this time, Reflux?
Disappear down the rat hole again?

yeah Doog pig headed ignorance sits nicely with the evolution fantasy.

Hi Alan,

It's available for $ 12.69, postage free, on

https://www.kobo.com/au/en/ebook/superfuel?utm_campaign=shopping_feed_au_en&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CPe0nf-N3dMCFdAHKgodNFUOOA

Also on Book Depository, postage free, for $ 22.97:

https://www.bookdepository.com/SuperFuel-Richard-Martin/9781137278340?redirected=true&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Base10&utm_source=AU&utm_content=SuperFuel&selectCurrency=AUD&w=AF45AU9S2BZZKZA80C7SACPC&pdg=kwd-104399949699:cmp-680104063:adg-32696820702:crv-151943499815:pid-9781137278340&gclid=CPbhvviO3dMCFQ1hvQodzi8FrA

If it's cheaper than coal, safer than uranium, conveniently scalable, and obviously puts less CO2 into the atmosphere, then of course I'd give it my royal backing, 100%. But it does sound too good to be true :)

Cheers,

Joe

The rise of Co2 in the atmosphere is all you need to know, about mans contribution to Climate Change.

We need a price on carbon, and a large one. The runt in his wisdom dismantled the last one based on lies.
Solar batteries need a subsidy on them for about five years.

So what is so pig headed about finding out the truth, If you think somehow everything was created from a blob of clay, that is your business. I would not say it to loudly if i was you, you might find a straight jacket wrapped around yourself.

My dear Leo Lane,

For someone like you, who has such an enfeebled notion of what constitutes evidence based science, to be calling on me to provide yet again something for you to completely ignore is not a sport that I consider worth the effort right now. Perhaps you could inspire me.

Meanwhile major companies and insurers around the world are demanding action from governments on global warming. These are not people swayed by emotion rather by seriously assessing the risks to their businesses if inaction continues.

The world is quickly leaving you behind my friend.

In 2016 Munich Reinsurance stated that 175 billion dollars were lost through catastrophic disasters; some relating to extreme weather, some being through earthquakes.

https://www.munichre.com/en/media-relations/publications/press-releases/2017/2017-01-04-press-release/index.html

The New York Times has had an article about how sea level rise is having an impact on Tasmania's Port Arthur historic area through erosion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/climate/tasmania-global-warming-shoreline-erosion.html?_r=0

Katharine Hayhoe speaks about renewable energy in Texas, she says it is the State that is hit hardest by climate change in the US. Katharine Hayhoe speaks about billion dollar extreme events happening regularly in Texas:

https://www.klru.org/blog/2017/01/katharine-hayhoe-global-weirding/

In another clip in her series on Global Weirding, Katharine Hayhoe gives a history of climate change science which goes back to the 1820s.

There is something like 12,000 peer reviewed articles published in Science Journals every year about climate change (Powell), a one page essay without any references to science is not going to make any difference to what is happening in the real world.

Mark might look at concilience in relation to a number of science disciplines that support climate change; for example, changes in environment for various creatures and plants (eg Redmap).

You did not run away and hide this time, Reflux, you just ignored the questions about your lack of science to justify your baseless position.
Just a reminder of the science which you attempt to ignore:
“Given that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas (albeit a mild and diminishingly effective one at currently increasing levels of atmospheric concentration), and that some human-caused emissions accrue in the atmosphere, the question of dangerous warming was a good one to raise back in the late 1980s. Since then, with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured.”
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation."
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/5/a-dozen-global-warming-slogans/
Not surprising when you consider that CO2 from human sources is 3% against nature's 97%.
This is what Reflux has to answer, which is why he runs away and hides or gives untruthful answers like the above.

In the Munich Reinsurance reference given earlier, it was stated that extreme events had cost 175 billion dollars for 2016. The reference had indicated for 2012 the costs of extreme events had been 180 billion dollars. El Nino impacts had been identified for 2012 and 2016, it has been predicted that 2017 could be impacted by El Nino also.

Peru has already been hit by what has been termed a localised El Nino event in 2017. The Pacific waters off Peru had been very warm.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-peru-floods-idUSKBN16O2V5

Oceans and the atmosphere have been warming allowing for more water vapour to be carried.

There are a lot of benefits for Australia if there is more global warming, especially in agriculture. Not only does the ambient temperature rise, allowing longer growing seasons, but rainfall increases, especially right across the North. So the areas under crops, such as sugar or cotton, can be greatly extended, enabling higher consumption at home and greater export revenue.

If we can only develop all those massive coal deposits and export it to India, to help to lift the Indian standard of living to our level, with ample electricity fueled by coal - and provide a huge boost to our employment levels for perhaps a century until thorium energy production kicks in - then it seems to be a positive factor all-round.

It's barely ten degrees here in Adelaide. Can't wait for Summer !

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Flippancy, contrariness and willful ignorance can be a heady mix, especially for those of our vintage, but please understand why a younger person might take umbrage. The dice you are happily rolling might not land in your life time but it will undoubtedly land in theirs.

Hi Steele,

As a climate change agnostic, I recall working in 46 degrees picking apricots: they were still green on the outside but boiled mushy on the inside. But that was back around 1981. It hasn't quite reached that again. But as you suggest, it might, some time in the distant future.

Yes,we should be prepared for whatever the distant future holds, and we should be mindful of what our children and grandchildren will inherit. Of course we should minimise CO2 production or work to find ways to reduce its presence in the atmosphere below harmful levels, to below what Gaia can handle, whatever that may be.

But it's highly probable that scientific research and technology will resolve some of these issues: our children and grandchildren may well look back and ask, 'What was all the fuss about ?'

3-D human organs are barely a decade away, crop species research will probably develop varieties which love CO2, cheaper desalination processes will make much more water available across Australia. Meanwhile, more can be grown in our North thanks to global warming and higher rainfall. It's not something I lose sleep over, Steele :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe

The problem with temperatures rising over pre Industrial levels is that weather patterns become more extreme and unreliable; something farmers do not need. Farmers don't like their live stock drowned or crops ruined.

That is happening now, and will get worse with an increase in themperature.
Warmer oceans and atmosphere means a greater amount of water vapour is in the atmosphere, it being the reason why we are seeing more events where a month's supply of rain falls in a couple of hours.

There are those that deny a dramatic rise in co2 in the atmosphere is anything significant.
Ice core samples from the antarctic show the levels of CO2 at times of climate change or extinctions.
To say co2 is good and needed for growing is correct. like everything there can be to much of a good thing. Trees and plant life is the balance of nature.
The use of fossil fuels with the decline of trees and plant life is compromising nature to the extent of change.
These days we can not blame volcanic action for rises of co2 so to look elsewhere is a good start.
See water temperature rise is undeniable, and doing its best to melt areas of perma frost and undercutting glacial ice. The world is in a greenhouse effect and temperature is rising along with violent storm activity. How much temperature can ocean water take, whatever it is it is not normal.
Nature is uncompromisable, and its your fault.

Hi Ant,

That's strange, SA has had bumper grain crops for the last two years.

World food production has doubled in the last fifty years.

And downpours are not unique to just the last thirty or forty years. Rain tends to fall at irregular intervals, even in Australia, the land of droughts and flooding rains.

Hi Doog,

Why do growers call it the 'greenhouse effect', I wonder ? Because they pump CO2 into greenhouses to stimulate growth ?

I live not far from a beach: when I see some permanent erosion of the beach (and not just seasonal and/or storm-related), I'll start to worry. I'm surprised that you don't mention pacific atolls, the Bangla Desh submergence and the Nile Delta.

I could be mistaken but it seems that the Amazon rainforests are regenerating more quickly than expected. In West Africa, the southern temperate zone is moving bit by bit back up towards the Sahara. So yes, global warming brings better rainfall around the world.

Cheers,

Joe

as a fundamentalist (someone who believes in the fundamentals of Scripture) I much prefer the fundie secularist especially when it comes to the gw farce. To be agnostic is somewhat cowardly. Agnostics usually write so much nonsense never wanting to offend or reach a conclusion. They know their position is not sustainable. Sure there is plenty of room for saying ' I don't know' but the nonsense dealt up by the warmist makes it conclusive that they are coming from a hopelessly flawed faith based narrative.

I have just been off to check all the global temperature measures and the good news is that there has been no warming since 2016. So everyone can not sit back and relax.

As for Mark's article, there is no doubt he is a bit of a dill.

"So one has to ask: why is the debate framed this way? – why is there so much focus on the "debate"?"

Mark, in the scientific realm, there is no debate about climate change. It is accepted that the activities of humans have resulted in increased global temperatures that will continue to rise if nothing is done. The 'debate' is framed the way it is, because there are people who do not want to accept the scientific consensus and so think it should be debated. It is a classic delaying tactic, known in politics as the filibuster.

"It's as if we've completely suppressed a third option: agnosticism, the often-noble but under-employed position of not-knowing."

Mark, no-one is forcing you to take a position on climate change. You can choose to look at the evidence and consider the conclusions of the experts in climate science, or you can just bumble along being ignorant about it all. What you are going to be forced to do (at least in the collective) is make a decision. 'Are we going to continue to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and risk even more warming, or are we going to choose to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce that risk?'

And frankly, I don't care one bit whether you accept the scientific consensus, reject it or remain agnostic. Your wishes about the 'debate' are irrelevant to what the science demonstrates. However, some action has to be taken. The electricity infrastructure in Australia demands that a decision is taken.

Reflux says:” to be calling on me to provide yet again something for you to completely ignore is not a sport that I consider worth the effort right now”
The request for Reflux to reference any science which demonstrates a measurable human effect on climate, is a continual one, and Reflux has never supplied any such reference.
There is no science which shows any measurable human effect on climate.
Reflux’s continual delusional state accounts for his inability to tell the truth, and to make ridiculous assertions that he has referenced science which is non-existent.He has never referenced any science because there is no science to support the climate fraud which he backs.
He further asserts:” Meanwhile major companies and insurers around the world are demanding action from governments on global warming. These are not people swayed by emotion rather by seriously assessing the risks to their businesses if inaction continues”
He gives no reference to a source of this baseless nonsense, which is no doubt another product of his delusional, truth deficient state of mind.

Without greenhouse gases the Earth would be a ball of ice.
CO2, a main greenhouse gase, is measured at several locations and is increasing.
The Oceans are warming, and the atmosphere is warming, it allows for more water vapour to be carried in the atmosphere.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

Warming topography has caused glaciers around Earth to regress, e.g. Glacier National Park, only 25 glaciers remain of 150 recorded in the mid 1800s.

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/151021-glacier-national-park-melting-vin

What is happening in the Arctic:

http://youtu.be/9NP0L1PG9ag

The volume of sea ice is decreasing, the ice thickness is decreasing, and sea ice extent is decreasing shown by trend lines displaying decades of data.

Meanwhile we still have journalists suggest completely wrong views on the cryosphere (snow and ice) e.g:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet-the-telegraph-christopher-booker/

There is nothing agnostic about science, either data fits a hypothesis or it does not. Nor is it a case of having faith in science; objective data is what supports science.

Doog,

Try to see the wood through the leaves.
The problem is not sewage, the problem is nutrient from all sources including sewage and land and seabed use that amounts to overload - over supply - nutrient pollution.

I think similar nutrient overload occurred previously but a long time ago and in a big way, e.g as science indicates, when a meteor or asteroid hit our planet and threw up a massive amount of soil and nutrient into the atmosphere and ocean worldwide.

Loudmouth,

Don't forget longer droughts, longer periods of cloud, longer cold periods including longer more severe snow storms and cyclones.

Does anyone think out of season cyclones are linked to human impact on weather?

Successful agriculture is already like a virtual lottery and I think lack of brains to reduce nutrient flow into ocean ecosystems is realizing a less and less chance of a win overall for most people.

I am confounded by apparent lack of OLO poster ability to comprehend impact of virtual forests of algae plant matter underwater. There is still all the waffle associated with CO2 as the culprit.

It's too bad world ocean ecosystem water quality is all worsening unchecked.
Never mind consequences for our children and their children because the impacts and consequences are happening right now.
Once upon a time Australian CSIRO scientists knew that river (water) ecosystems could be degraded and reach a point of no return.

Whatever happened to free thinking?

Reflux seems to have retired to his rat-hole again.
This is a copy of my comment after which he disappeared last time, about a year ago:
:”Reflux made the baseless assertion that Robert Carter’s science, which nullified the science put forward by Reflux, consisted of “proven falsehoods”.
Reflux has been asked how and by whom these alleged falsehoods were “proven” .
Reflux has not replied, which is typical of his mode of handling a situation, where he has cornered himself with his dishonesty. Rodent-like, he will disappear into the crevices..
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 6:02:47 PM”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18187&page=0
Perhaps after another year he will intrude his delusional presence on another climate thread. He should then have the civility to answer my question about his baseless assertion of “falsehoods” by Robert Carter, whose flawless science demolished the fraud promoters' attempt at science. There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate.

In the very latest edition of Science is an article about the loss of glaciers world wide:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6338/580?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2017-05-11&et_rid=33552183&et_cid=1321806

Summary:

"Global glacier volume is shrinking. This loss of Earth's land ice is of international concern. Rising seas, to which melting ice is a key contributor, are expected to displace millions of people within the lifetime of many of today's children. But the problems of glacier loss do not stop at sea level rise; glaciers are also crucial water sources, integral parts of Earth's air and water circulation systems, nutrient and shelter suppliers for flora and fauna, and unique landscapes for contemplation or exploration."

Munich Reinsurance stated that 175 billion dollars in damage was created by extreme events in 2016.
Billions of dollars are being lost in 2017 also, the film clips below cover the periods 21 - 30 April '17, 1 - 6 May '17 and 6 - 9 May 2017:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZHooRRpP-I&feature=share#t=696.339705737

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip2D1LpvUrc