Climate change is now irreversible. Much of the planet has been urbanised. Highly sophisticated technology has taken over “natural” processes, from food production to human production, like IVF programs.

Is it time to accept the reality of a lifeless, bleak future altered by humans? Or can we develop science to face the realities of a “post natural” world?

What a depressing comment NathonJ.
I feel a bit more optimistic about the world's future than you do.
Climate has changed regularly in our world since the beginning of planet earth, and will continue doing so. There is nothing surprising there.

Humans have well developed brains and they continue to evolve and think of new inventions and innovations as time goes on, so new technologies like IVF and other scientific /medial discoveries will continue as always.

Isn't it better to embrace all these changes and realise that mostly they are trying to improve our world, not destroy it?

I'm not as pessimistic as Nathan...but Suse...."Climate has changed regularly in our world since the beginning of planet earth, and will continue doing so. There is nothing surprising there."

Straight out of the denier's handbook.

It's never changed this rapidly without a universally cataclysmic event....any explanation for that?

Poirot, I am not denying climate change at all am I? What I wonder is with each new record of climate event there is always a "...not since 1938, 1945, 1920 has it been so bad". So, what caused it back then?
I am just not convinced it is us mere humans 'causing' all the current climate problems, other than some pollution related problems.

We have only had climate reported and recorded by humans for a minuscule amount of our Earth's history, so unless you have ESP, or are spoken to regularly by one of the supposed gods out there, you and I have absolutely no idea whether this type of climate we are having right now has not happened before.

Dear Nathan,

Science will allow you to survive, it is extremely effective at that, but it will never make you happy.

Take refuge in God - and find comfort even in the darkest of times.

Suse,

The rate of current warming is so rapid - change like this has happened before but it usually takes many many thousands of years on a geologic time scale. On that same time scale the human induced release of carbon into the atmosphere is equivalent to a "sudden outgassing"

But I don't have time to get back into this right now - there's plenty of info out there if you wish to understand what you are talking about.

Suffice to say, yes climate has always changed, yes, humans are merely an organism on the earth occupying a small climate niche in which it was possible to build civilisation....if we screw it up because we used our intelligence, but not our wisdom - the planet will continue on its merry way.

Hi Poirot,

I'm not so sure about the speed of climate change: sea-levels have risen - what ? 5 cm in a hundred years ? Since the end of the ice Age, 12,000 years ago, sea-levels have risen around fifty metres. That's an average of 45 cm or so, every hundred years. Probably most of that rise was in the first couple of thousand years so, i.e. 1.5 metres every hundred years, and about, say, 5 cm every hundred years after that ? But five cm is hardly Noah's Flood.

Incidentally, a recent TV clip of a Bangla Deshi island being flooded failed to mention tectonic subsidence in the Brahmaputra Delta as the Bengal Plate tilts up in the west and down in the east. Naughty !

Suse,

I agree with you that:

"Humans have well developed brains and they continue to evolve and think of new inventions and innovations as time goes on, so new technologies like IVF and other scientific /medical discoveries will continue as always."

And so it will be with the development of technologies to combat and reverse climate change. Medical research has made amazing advances in the last generation. And after all, world food production has doubled in the last forty years, when Paul Ehrlich et al. foretold mass deaths by starvation by now. The proportion of the world's population, even as it grows, who are starving each night is constantly shrinking.

So, like you, I am not a human abilities denier.

Cheers,

Joe

This conversation is hilarous. In the Middle East people are losing thier heads daily and you are worried about some fantasy. The only thing climate scientist need to be concerned about is that the funding keeps coming so they can sprout their nonsense.

Oh yes Runner, and you know better than all those hilarious scientists don't you?
You must feel humble in your own presence...

I honestly don't think government should be spending millions of dollars, likely to billions, in research re climate change.

I don't think anything will come from it. It will simply see large loads of something, (like money) poured into something that's simply not fixable, due to huge amounts of human interference with nature and growth in terms of areas like consumerism and overpopulation. Most Australians, won't want to change current lifestyles either.

So in that context nature has been taken over and can now only provide a few options to human beings. The best option I'd argue, if people want some change, on environment or health is to leave this to the private sector.

For example, I take five medications per week, for five medical conditions I don't want, but if I don't take these I will end up physically ill. I highly appreciate specialists and doctors I see in regards to the conditions I have, and this should be the focus, not government misleading the public, that climate change can be reduced by a set year or certain medical conditions are fixable.

That's being realistic - not negative.

Loudmouth: The proportion of the world's population, even as it grows, who are starving each night is constantly shrinking.

True, but the problem is they are in third World Countries that breed like flies. So the Cycle isn't self sustaining. The First World feed them, they breed greater numbers, then they starve again. They then fight amongst themselves & blame their predicament on the First World. The First World is forced by the Vocal Minority of Greenies & PC People into feeling guilty so we feed 'em again. Vicious Cycle.

I have no doubt we will find a way to deal with carbon, as an alternative to reducing it to unachievable levels. After all, words are cheap.

If you asked the majority of people to choose between a job and a decent lifestyle, of an unrealistic reduction in carbon, I recon most would choose the job. I cant see how we can have both.

Solar power is being taken up in huge numbers by Australians,
Because they have recently improved the system and made it more affordable.

The overpopulated countries like China are driving the coal consumption.

I tend to not believe all the hysteria about climate change.

Yuyutsu
Where was God when times got very dark for the Jews at the time of the holocaust. The Jews were a very religious people who believed strongly in God. Didn't save them though did it. Strike out by yourself into the wilderness for awhile, nature will cut you down and you will be dead very quickly. Without penicillin a simple scratch could become infected and you would die from blood poisoning.
Half the people on earth today wouldn't be here without medical science.
If left at the mercy of the natural world that God is said to have created, humans
Aren't that special.

CHERFUL you may be interested to know that a very large research project by Swiss & German universities has recently published very unpopular results. Unpopular with the research community that is.

They have shown that solar panels, at the very best are an energy sink. None of them can ever produce, in their working life, the same amount of energy required for their production.

We have long known that windmills are a total loss. Without tax payer subsidies they can't survive, & even with them increase the cost of electricity to the consumer to unsustainable levels. There are currently thousands of wind turbines in California that were simply abandoned by their owners the moment their subsidy contract expires. They don't even generate their maintenance costs in the real world.

Spain & Germany who leapt into wind power in a big way, have the most expensive power in Europe. Spain became a cot case of course, & Germany is using a number of sideways stratagems to reduce the growth of wind farms, without actually admitting they were wrong.

Dear Cherful,

<<Where was God when...>>

How irrelevant!

My advice was for Nathan, regarding what he, Nathan, can do to help himself in the face of certain difficulties.

For the one who takes refuge in God, the world matters no more. Should Nathan accept my advice and take refuge in God, then no matter what happens around him, not even if he be physically treated as the Jews at the time of the holocaust, none of that will touch him, let alone trouble him.

Has been, thats been known for decades about solar panels, it's the old 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story' scenario.

In my view the only way forward is nuclear power. We have the raw materials so its inevitable one day. All that is required is to find a safe way to deal with the waste.

Solar and wind power advocates are just dreamers. Imagine how many solar panels WOULD NOT have been installed if not for the subsidies.

The installers are making a killing, and that's the ones who use quality gear, and I know because I have family members installing solar.

$1800 per day profit is not uncommon.

rehctub,
I went from supporting nuclear energy to opposing it, and now I think I've gone back to supporting it.
I think its the only way we can lower energy costs on businesses an consumers and make industry and manufacturing in our nation more competitive.

SOL, P and Nathan,

True, the climate has always been changing, but GHG emissions have been pushing them higher they would have been.

False, the world is going to end. Greenland, Finland and Alaska are likely to benefit, while more equatorial countries will fare worse.

As for reducing emissions, when the greenie pinheads are prepared to consider the only proven base load with zero emissions i.e. nuclear, then they might get some support from rationalists to reduce emissions without ruining the economy.

Hi Butch & HasBeen,

Am I right in suggesting that not only are solar and wind power generation systems more expensive, but they also produce more CO2 in their manufacture and maintenance than they 'save'. i.e. less CO2 would be produced in the world if solar and wind power systems were not manufactured at all ?

As for nuclear power, have any generators built in the last twenty years had any major problems, spewing radioactivity into the atmosphere, etc. ? And how many generations of nuclear technology are we on from twenty years ago ?

Of course, nobody in their right mind should build nuclear power plants anywhere near fault lines, but - away from mountain ranges - how much of Australia is free of fault lines, and has been for billions of years, i.e. forever ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hasbeen, rehctub and Loudmouth,

It was known throughout the 20th century that solar panels were net energy sinks. But technology has improved since then, and they now require a lot less energy to manufacture. Even in northern Europe you can expect them to generate several times as much energy as it took to make them.

If one university study has concluded that everyone else has got their figures wrong, I'd like to see why. But I'm very skeptical of that claim, having previously seen studies which tried to convert non energy costs (such as insurance) into an energy equivalent in order to make renewable energy look worse.

As for wind turbines, nobody nowadays seriously claims they produce more CO2 in their manufacture and maintenance than they 'save'. It's not even in the same order of magnitude.

"...having previously seen studies which tried to convert non energy costs (such as insurance) into an energy equivalent in order to make renewable energy look worse."

Yes, those studies show solar with storage would barely break even on an EROIE basis, and advancement in the technology would not advance the situation greatly. Doing the same calculation for nuclear leaves it with EROEI to burn.

Of course, EROEI is not the whole story, but it does tell us that solar requires preposterously massive infrastructure including, backup storage and fossil-fueled backup (to meet residual, inevitable intermittency problems) to meet current electricity and transport needs (let alone growth). That cost will obliterate the cost of the nuclear option.

Re growth, that is met by building even more solar infrastructure, whereas nuclear can be built with little extra cost to ramp up as needed.

All we have to do is get over the unreasonable fear of radiation.

We've been here before and I'm going back to my Weeties. Keep dreaming, Aidan, that beautiful world will always be just over the horizon, while we need action now.

When people talk about advancement, nature is never or virtually mentioned anymore, because there is no place for it now, in terms of human living. There are some benefits like water, air and a surface to walk on, soil and elements like trees for example.

But most of this is declining, so any living benefits are small, to non existent. A belief in something (more spiritual, is fine), but it realistically can only go so far, in terms of day to day living.

In terms of human driven advancement, one medication I take, took three years (to change) in terms of its use and purpose and that was very slow.

So if there is going to be any change, it has to be substantial, but the majority of people (in countries like Australia) won't accept that, so relying on nature to survive on, isn't viable, ethical or fair.

The small elements of nature that are left will pay the price for that. Technology now is the only real option in that context.

NathanJ, any number of studies have found the solid fact that there are more trees in Oz today, than were growing here at first settlement.

In many areas where the first explorers found a savannah lightly treed, as developed by aboriginal fire stick hunting methods, today is impenetrable garbage scrub under a thick covering of trees.

Much country once developed to farming & grazing has been allowed to go to similar useless scrub.

Perhaps you lack of mobility leads you to false impressions. I have sailed much of the east coast of Oz. I could show you many stretches of coast of over 100 kilometres where the only evidence of man is the odd automated lighthouse, & an occasional boat. We have so much useless bush that statements like yours are laughable.

Has been: Perhaps you lack of mobility leads you to false impressions. I have sailed much of the east coast of Oz. I could show you many stretches of coast of over 100 kilometres where the only evidence of man is the odd automated lighthouse, & an occasional boat. We have so much useless bush that statements like yours are laughable.

Yep that is so true. There are more Kangaroo's & Emu's here too. They were even in Plague proportions in Western Australia in the 1930's they called in the Army to shoot them. It was a failure I'm told. Known as the Emu Wars.

Jayb, graziers in western regions of NSW & Qld are fighting kangaroo wars with plague proportions of roos. The only difference I suppose, they are having to fight it against the inner-city greenies, who want the rest of the country "natural" in recompense for the totally synthetic abomination they inhabit.

Hi JayB & Hasbeen,

On an SBS program last week, a young woman described cities - as viewed from great heights - as 'splats'. I presumed she was a Green supporter, a member of the Rightful New Ruling Class, the intelligentsia and bureaucracy, for who people are splats. Cow pats. Worthless en masse, although of course, incredibly precious if inducted as favoured and unique individuals into the RNRC.

Of course, nature and humanity can co-exist, or keep co-existing since we have done for some time now. As someone pointed out, and partly thanks to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, plant life has bloomed over the past fifty years or so, with more free-life in Australia now than back in 1788.

The mass of plankton in southern oceans is increasing due to the same cause, and therefore more whales will frequent our shores.

I'm told that rainfall in West Africa has increased and that the Sahara Desert is in retreat as a consequence. The best news here is that this will mean more, and better fed and more healthy, West Africans. Wouldn't that gladden the hearts of the inner-city Elites ? Maybe not, over-population being also big on their agenda, i.e. the over-population of 'others'.

Cheers,

Joe

We have serious problems with the CSIRO claiming their CO2 readings are from some of the cleanest air on the planet. Wrong! Cape Grim is within the Roaring 40's, that whips the industrial airsheds of Argentina and Sth.Africa around the globe without stop.

The CSIRO knows this. It also knows that overpopulation is the reason for climate changes but because its payroll comes from Federal Governments whose economic growth comes from overpopulation the CSIRO never mentions the TRUTH. Instead they sprinkle fairy dust over the climate problem, make it sound unfixable and inevitable and nothing happens.

Further, there is a fact we are not supposed to know: Every year, every human (all 7billion) commits a 50 metre swimming pool of defecations into our oceans. This muck, particularly the floating fats and oils, stops CO2 absorption. So CO2 emissions whilst important are not as significant as the number of humans on the planet.

If you want to stop Climate change you must have laws worldwide to lower birth rates. No climate change = no nappy change!

Now the CSIRO won't tell that truth because they are paid by their political handlers NOT TO.

Further it ruins the main business model of most females on the planet.

But with women, I believe that once the truth is aired in large public placards they will do the right thing.

The fact that governments won't allow this in order to enhance economic growth by population growth.

What will happen now is a total climate breakdown even after extensive CO2 reductions. Lives will become unbearable and world war will erupt and rich politicians will inherit the Earth as they planned from the very beginning right under YOUR noses.

Australia can do its bit by stopping IMMIGRATION forthwith. Every immigrant that comes to Austra-leah leaves space for 2 or 3 climate killing babies and a population explosion in their old country. At least aussie girls can keep their business model if IMMIGRATION is halted.

Australia can do much to show the world how climate change can be managed.

But for God's sake Wake up Australia!

Hasbeen,

I don't dispute that there's more impenetrable scrub now, and I also know there are some areas with trees where there were previously none. But considering the vast areas cleared for cropping and grazing (and some forests destroyed by overgrazing) I find it unlikely there are now more trees in total. Do you have a URL for any of those studies?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth,

Desertification is certainly reversible, and AIUI great efforts have been made to do so around the edges of the Sahara. Water management is the key. As for rainfall in west Africa, I'm glad the drought is over but it won't be their last.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

KAEP,

Everywhere's downwind of somewhere. But Tasmania's a very long way from South Africa and Argentina, and the latter's not a particularly big pollution source anyway.

Overpopulation exacerbates climate change, but it is not the cause. Emissions are currently so great that climate change would still be a problem with a much lower population. The real problem is treating the environment as worthless.

Most humans do not poo in our oceans. Sewage does not form huge oil slicks. And waves ensure CO2 does get absorbed. Indeed so much CO2 is being absorbed by our oceans that it's created the problem of ocean acidification. [NOTE: this does not mean the ocean is getting more acidic than pure water; it isn't, but it doesn't need to to cause problems]

And birth rates are falling anyway, you don't need legal intervention.

Halting immigration won't help the global environment. You're correct that Australia can do much to show the world how climate change can be managed. But that depends on our taking the problem seriously. We could become environmentally sustainable, but so far we've chosen not to.

You are wrong on every count Aidan. And I think you know it.

Humans cause human caused climate change and the main problem is all wastewaters -including sewage.

I will produce papers to prove my points.

ITM 99% of humanity lives on or near rivers. They poo in the rivers or tributaries either directly or via leaching. IE 99% of all defecations and other wastewaters ends up in oceans where colloidals and oils weaken CO2 absorption and toxic chemicals kill sea vegatations which normally absorb the CO2.

Today's news

INDIA's Dying Ganges River:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-aad46fca-734a-45f9-8721-61404cc12a39

The sewer of half a million people and billions of farm animals.

Even if the Ganges' sewage was treated it would not eliminate the bulk of the fats, oils, colloidals, fine plastics and toxins that eutrophicate the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean.

The only solution to climate change is to globally have strict birth controls to bring populations in line with healthy oceans which are able to properly eliminate excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

KAEP: The only solution to climate change is to globally have strict birth controls.

And bloody big floods, Famines, Wars, Pandemics & other natural disasters in those third world Countries.

That helps keep the population down. The problem is we send them AID & they Breed up again. There are then twice as many who go on to be Jihadists, Terrorists & Pirates & try to kill the people that save them.

Hi KAEP,

Wouldn't it be great to be World King, dictating here and ordering there: Immediate birth control ! All peons to reduce defecation NOW ! Flush the Ganges forthwith !

OR, of course, India could, at huge cost and not before time, construct the infrastructure for water retention and reticulation, and sewage disposal and treatment. Indians are, after all, as entitled to both clean water and sewage disposal and treatment as you or me. And also, while we're on the subject of infrastructure, to electrification, universal education, decent road and rail networks. Putting those projects off (not just in India but in pretty much all Third World countries) has only made them more urgent, but more spatially destructive and expensive.

Yeah, it's maybe a lot easier to daydream about having absolute power, like Gandalf or that Hogwarts bloke or any other psychopath in any of those video games. Oh well, back to reality ......

Cheers,

Joe

I won't be on for a few days. I'm off to Townsville to receive my "Cross of Gallantry with Gold Palm" I've been waiting 50 years for this to come through. The 173D(S) Airborne are coming from Italy to do the presentation at Lavarack on Friday.

Jayb,

Congratulations.

Wear it with pride.

There were many civic initiatives and improvements that should be mentioned and reported in the news.

Good on you, JayB. Wow, worth waiting for :)

If you want to stop climate change the you have to stop the nappy change.

You just can't have progress when the most vocal climate change abatement proponents are the most egotistical "for my children and my grandchildren" boneheads.

Sad but so.

I will present more papers and evidence for the 'climate change = nappy change' truth as time permits.

ITM the CSIRO have got a kick in the pants by the global community who ignore their suspect Cape Grim CO2 work and just praise their atmospheric aerosol monitoring contributions. I too applaud this monitoring work as its the last major piece missing in the atmospheric climate models. The Federal Government will surely note this and give due funding as the gravitas is realised.

JayB,

Famines, Wars, Pandemics & disasters don't control the population at the moment. They actually have the opposite effect: they result in many women having lots of children so that they can be confident of having grandchildren. So the population ends up rising much faster than it otherwise would.

______________________________________________________________________________________

KAEP,

I'm still waiting for papers to prove your points. But meanwhile there's some more points for you to consider:

Climate change has very little to do with wastewater. I don't know what ITM means in this context, but your 99% figure is way off. You clearly don't understand how nature filters things.

Colloidals don't weaken CO2 absorption at all. Even oils don't weaken it much except in very high concentrations. And I can't think of a singe example of toxic chemicals reaching the sea in such high concentrations that they kill sea vegetation. Can you?

If you want to stop climate change the you have to stop net CO2 emissions. Which effectively means you have to leave most of the fossil fuel in the ground. Even if we could reduce the population, doing so would not be sufficient to solve the problem.

Hi Aidan,

When you suggest that " .... you have to leave most of the fossil fuel in the ground.. ....", do you mean that the means of producing renewable energy - wind towers, solar panels, etc. - should be produced and maintained, using only renewable energy - wind, solar, etc. ?

Currently, wind and solar energy generation is many times more expensive than fossil-fuel-based energy generation. To actually construct wind towers and solar panels using only renewable energy would increase their costs exponentially - isn't that so ?

So, for example, if wind power generation is five times as expensive as fossil-fuel generation, then by using only wind power in their construction and maintenance of wind towers would kick up their cost by twenty five times.

And if the machinery used in constructing wind towers (kilns, processing, etc.) were also produced using only wind power - a la Piero Sraffa - then wind-powered electricity would eventually cost 125 times as much as fossil-fuel-based electricity. Am I mistaken ?

Given that this isn't happening, that wind towers are very likely to be currently produced using fossil fuels, there is some fudging going on: i.e. energy IN is greater than energy eventually produced. Hence massive subsidies to renewables. Isn't that so ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

"do you mean that the means of producing renewable energy - wind towers, solar panels, etc. - should be produced and maintained, using only renewable energy?"
Nuclear would be suitable as well, though I'm skeptical of the economic case for it in Australia.

And just to make it clear: the tradition to renewable energy should involve increasing the proportion of our energy used from renewable sources, not hypothecating different sorts of energy for different purposes.

"Currently, wind and solar energy generation is many times more expensive than fossil-fuel-based energy generation.:
FALSE. The cost is similar, but the cost structure is very different.

"To actually construct wind towers and solar panels using only renewable energy would increase their costs exponentially - isn't that so ?"
No that is not so. The only thing that's anything like exponential is the fall in renewable energy costs over the last few years.

"So, for example, if wind power generation is five times as expensive as fossil-fuel generation, then by using only wind power in their construction and maintenance of wind towers would kick up their cost by twenty five times."
FALSE because other costs (such as the cost of labour) wouldn't rise that much. And anyway it's moot because wind power generation isn't that expensive.

"And if the machinery used in constructing wind towers (kilns, processing, etc.) were also produced using only wind power - a la Piero Sraffa - then wind-powered electricity would eventually cost 125 times as much as fossil-fuel-based electricity. Am I mistaken ?"
Yes you are mistaken. Firstly because you're mistaken about the energy cost, and secondly because the cost is dominated by non energy inputs.

It is worth noting that the cost of wind power varies according to windiness. When supply exceeds demand the cost drops to zero, unlike with fossil fuels where the cost of fuel sets a floor price. So when industry can take advantage of this, it can lead to lower input costs and hence lower prices.

[To be continued]

Loudmouth (continued)

"Given that this isn't happening, that wind towers are very likely to be currently produced using fossil fuels, there is some fudging going on: i.e. energy IN is greater than energy eventually produced. Hence massive subsidies to renewables. Isn't that so ?"
No, that isn't so. For a new wind turbine you can expect the energy in to be about 5% of the energy eventually produced (though that's an average; there is considerable variability both in lifespan and windiness).

In the 20th century it typically used more energy to make solar cells than they would produce, but the technology's long since moved on. Occasionally there are studies that show solar cells to still be a net energy sink at high latitudes, but invariably they fudge the figures by converting non energy inputs to energy equivalents. For example to convert money invested to energy, they use the average energy cost of making a profit, ignoring the fact that money is borrowed into existence long before any profit is made.

Hi Aidan,

So, are you suggesting that renewable energy technology doesn't need any more subsidies ? Except, of course as a sort of long-term, repayable investment ?

Thanks for clearing all that up.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

Concessional loans are the best way to fund renewable energy infrastructure.

Not the end of nature but simply the reality that nature bats last. Organisms transformed the planet's atmosphere making life on earth possible. We are merely the last in a long line of organisms that have transformed the environment and unwittingly or unwittingly created the conditions for our own demise - but nature will soldier on as it has in the past. It simply has to do so without us.