The Climate Change issue is at boiling point, literally !
Alarmists & Deniers are everywhere. They both claim to know but do they ?
The most common attacks on the realists are that they should do "something" about Climate Change. I have asked on several occasions for people to explain what they envisage by the term "something" but no replies to-date.
The first reality people must agree on that Climate Change is a natural on-going & that there is excessive pollution which is more than likely adding to increased warming & general degrading of the atmosphere.
Should we curb travel, plastic, fuel consumption, industrial activity etc etc ? Should we start by making the first move or should we continue to tell others to do "something" ?
Who'd be the first to start complaining if we curbed travel, food packaging, air conditioning, heating, the number of cars on the road, computers ?
Would anything we do here in Australia have any positive impact at all on the Globe ? How could 25 million Australians convince the 7 billion others to take notice of what we propose should be done ?
I'd like to see contributions to this thread on solutions, not the usual barrage of sarcasm.

Something went wrong with the title of this thread.
It should be Define the meaning of "Something ".

Dear Individual,

Those who want something done about climate change mean that they want others to worry about it too and give attention to their own worries, they basically want a shoulder to cry on, they want others to identify with them, they don't want to feel that they are alone.

Yuyutsu,
With the massive hysteria that even affects elections, no-one can possibly still think that they're alone in their concerns about what we're doing to our atmosphere & the natural environment.
Define "something" in the context of climate change alarmists' call for action by Govts. !

Thorium Salt reactors sound like the best "something" that I've found.

That said though, I wish the focus on global warming was on something that is real instead of not. Pollution, giant trash collections, and smog are real. That's enough of a fight isn't it? Like you Individual I'm tired of the hysteria of global warming.

Global warming is real, so is the fact that we exist under a finite Sun, and it's about time that someone worried about the looming danger of its extinction.

Solutions Individual. You can't even define the problem. GW theology is totally heretical and unscientific. Lets pour our energies into real environmental challenges rather that waste billions more on Government handouts to rent seekers.

"Alarmists & Deniers are everywhere. They both claim to know but do they ?"

What? Deniers everywhere?

No mate they aren't. You might find a little cabal here on OLO and a few down at the local RSL but on the whole the majority of Australians not only accept the science but are willing to spend significant dollars to help mitigate it.

"In 2019, six in ten Australians (61%) say global warming is ‘a serious and pressing problem’ about which ‘we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’."
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/australia-climate-change

Just 10% believe "Until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs" which doesn't make them deniers but rather sitting on the fence skeptics. The actual number of deniers would be far less.

So mate proper deniers are truly outliers.

Indy, you'd have to be blind and deaf not to know what the "something" is. There is much debating here on OLO about what to do, or not do, about it.

The electorate wants something done towards bringing down CO2 concentration. There is a proven, affordable pathway, it is nuclear, and a renewables plus storage pathway that is an unaffordable fantasy down which Oz is heading.

If you would stop expending energy on opposition to any response to reducing emissions and focus on a solution instead, it would greatly raise your relevance in the debate.

Luciferase,
Thanks for the first bit of solution put forward. But, isn't it the GW warmist camp that is vehemently opposed to nuclear ?

Hi Steele,

Please correct me, I'll deserve it:

1. Average world temperatures have risen by about half a degree Celsius in eighty years, or about three degrees in the next five hundred years if we do nothing;

2. Sea-levels, taking all the ups and downs of continental and coastal changes, have gone up about one inch every decade for the last few decades. So if each of us survives for the next five hundred years, the water will be up to our chests. A bit like twice-daily tides, but all the time.

Right ? Wrong ? Give me some evidence and I'll become a believer. Otherwise I'll proudly stay a Denier.

Actually, I've always thought that pollution is a vastly more important issue.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Individual,

They are not alone, but they FEEL alone.

They call on governments because they lack the skill to recognise and communicate their feelings to those who can help. Instead they objectify their feelings and address the resulting "objective" to government because it is government which is "supposed" to be able to produce objective results, but as their feelings are subjective, no objective measures can remedy their gaping pain, so they keep asking for more. How possibly can an emotional problem be solved using physical means?

Yuyutsu,
The basic question is, what can Australians do or should do in your opinion to have a positve effect on fighting GW & general pollution.
What will you contribute & do without from now on ?

Dear Individual,

Nothing I contribute or give up would help fighting GW: even if I give the GW-believers all I got - my wealth, my home, my clothes even, even if I be freezing in winter and burning in summer, that would change nothing because the GW daemon is in their minds, not outside in the environment. Short of religion and trust in God, what they need is good therapy.

As for general pollution, the only thing we can and must do is to reduce human population drastically. I already did my part by having no offspring.

Dear Yuyutsu,

"because the GW daemon is in their minds, not outside in the environment"

http://i.imgur.com/lKNZVZO.png

Earth temperatures over10,000 years http://www.google.com.au/search?q=global+temperature+graph+10000+years+nasa&biw=1067&bih=487&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=WW3JPJ7L5_bobM%253A%252CKuHLnec84QfmRM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-k

Natural cycles of sun and planets change Earth climate between hot and cold periods naturally, and the Earth is much colder than the hottest periods of the past.

Nothing I contribute or give up would help fighting GW:
Yuyutsu,
Thank you for your comment & proving the point !

Hi Steele,

Dead silence was the stern reply.

So am I on the right track ? An average of one degree rise every 160 years ? And an inch-rise in sea-level every ten years ?

If I am more or less right, then isn't this global warming, a.k.a. climate change, a.k.a. climate crisis - oops, I should write climate !CRISIS! - just a neo-capitalist scam ? Somewhere for the affluent but extremely socially-concerned Greens to park their money, with sure hopes of good returns ? Alongside the former oil-and-gas energy companies making their profits from subsidies ?

Another question from a fool: do wind towers and solar farms produce more CO2 in their construction (and maintenance, repairs, etc.) than they save in their lifetimes ?

No rush :)

Joe

do wind towers and solar farms produce more CO2 in their construction (and maintenance, repairs, etc.) than they save in their lifetimes ?
Loudmouth,
I have asked the same question over the years, never did get any answers. Just imagine the pollution from the manufacture of electric car batteries alone ?

Dear Loudmouth,

Forgive me mate but I'm just pretty tired of it all at the moment. We have had multitude of conversations over this and for you to suggest you are ever likely to change your mind is disingenuous in the extreme.

In our area the major river stopped flowing for three months this year. Three generation families on the river have never experienced it. Our koala populations are being decimated because they can no longer get their moisture requirements from the leaves they eat but now need standing water to survive. This has lead to investigations of the health of gum trees in a significant park and it has found gums are dying off in unprecedented rates many over 100 years old. It is projected within two decades the area will lose all its major trees and will be just scrubby woodland.

In the farming community down here there is deep concern about the impacts of climate change and many have voted against Liberal for the first time in their lives in this election.

I get there is a lot of people on this forum who live in areas where GW impacts aren't as evident yet, but just as Queenslanders don't want 'southerners' telling them what to think we certainly don't want northeners or anyone else telling us GW is a crock. It isn't. It is very real and it is impacting our environment and our farms and our water catchments.

But just a note, global temperatures have not increased .5 degrees in 80 years, it has been 2 ½ times that and continues to accelerate.
http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/

Now you lot can piss all over the legitimate concerns of the better informed all you like, but what you are also doing is 'eating the futures' of our youngsters who have tried to make their voices heard. This election was all about selfishness and you lot are shining examples of just that.

Now just let me get over the disgust I feel at the moment for those who prosecuted inaction on climate change in this election.

SteeleRedux,
Climate change is on-going, no voting Left or Right can solve that. Climate change is global, not localised. This year we had the first reasonable wet season rains in 40 years so, with some luck there will be a return to some wetter seasons over the coming years.
I don't know where your area is but along the Murray it's definitely overuse of water rather than climate change.
During handing out how to vote pamphlets we had several windy moments that brought fairly heavy downpours. I watched how all that water simply washed off the parking area & into the drains & straight out to sea onto the GBR. Now, how many roads, carparks, airfields, driveways etc are there now all over the country ? Instead of the water being absorbed & filtered through the soil into the ground it just runs off in minutes. Is it any wonder we're running short of water ? We need reservoirs & dams & refill the groundwater. A Bradfield scheme would be a great long-term project but too many are still against it despite the obvious benefits environmentally & economically ! More moisture in the ground would probably result in more moisture everywhere & provide more rain all up. Fewer people washing their cars would help too I'd imagine !
I think wasting less water & building fewer run-off areas could keep atmospheric temperatures from rising !

once because people were smart enough to know the climate always changes and goes in cycles we built dams and cleared land. We are to 'smart' for that now!

Sorry, Steele, I'm just going by the change from one record temperature in Adelaide (in 1939) to the latest earlier this year: 80 years, and half a degree rise, if that.

So how about sea-level rise ? Any more than an inch every decade ? Please tell me about the Nile Delta, or Bangla Desh.

Of course, Australia has always been a land of droughts and flooding rains. Christ knows what some GW adherent would have said back in the 1890s, or the 1910s, or the late 1930s, or the 1960s. As for floods, I wonder what such an adherent would have said in the late 1950s in NSW.

Some of your examples are rather irrelevant in relation to your arguments about the Greenhouse Effect. Sorry, Climate CRISIS!

Still not convinced :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Absolute crock mate. This is what you claimed; “I'm just going by the change from one record temperature in Adelaide (in 1939) to the latest earlier this year: 80 years, and half a degree rise, if that.”

No you were not. This is what you said;

“Average world temperatures have risen by about half a degree Celsius in eighty years, or about three degrees in the next five hundred years if we do nothing”

Anyway God strewth mate, are you really comparing a single record in Adelaide to the Berkley datasets on yearly averages?

We really don't have anything to discuss do we.

And no my examples are entirely appropriate as the rainfall predictions for SW Victoria set 15 years ago have married completely with what we are experiencing. Now you might go and search for alternative causes but global temperatures are rising, predicted rainfall deficits in areas like ours are being realised, environmental damage is being done and I can tell you one thing for sure any neanderthal on climate change tends to get short shrift down our way and rightly so.

individual
It's not a matter of curbing activity, but of making it environmentally sustainable.
The first moves have been made more than twenty years ago, both here and overseas. But we have done much less than most developed countries, and other countries (including China) have used our inaction as an excuse to do less.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Joe,
I thought I answered your question before: wind towers and solar farms produce NOWHERE NEAR as much CO2 in construction and maintenance than they use in their lifetime. It used to be a sensible question, as back in the 20th century they were both less efficient to manufacture and less effective in producing electricity. But the technology's moved on, and nowadays the CO2 in construction and maintenance isn't even in the same order of magnitude as the amount saved.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
>GW theology is totally heretical and unscientific.

What is this "GW theology" that you refer to?
Is it the concept of stewardship? If so, why do you regard it as heretical?
Or is it that you think the idea that God doesn't micromanage the climate (but instead leaves it to the laws of physics) is heretical?

It's not a matter of curbing activity, but of making it environmentally sustainable.
Aidan,
How do you then propose to sustain without curbing ? My idea is to reduce emission spewing sport by 50% now. Motorsport will be more enjoyable over two or three hours instead of 24.
Reduce food plastic packaging now to an only necessary level not a frivolous one.
Another big reduction in emission could be achieved by reducing unwarranted Public Service travel. Create a more effective long haul rail freight network to reduce road transport emission.
There must so many good ideas for alternatives out there if only people brought them up in forums like OLO.
We all know that so many of the present practices are so inefficient so why do some people insist we continue to use them ?

Adan,

So presumably it would be cheaper to make wind towers and solar panels etc., using renewable energy ? Is that actually happening yet ?

Steele,

Good point. Adelaide is not the world. It doesn't even have much of a Heat Island Effect :)

Joe

individual,
There are great efficiency gains to be made in many areas, packaging being one, and switching to rail transport being another. But we certainly don't want arbitrary travel bans, and your motorsports comments are downright silly (24 hour races are rare, and changes to how the industry operates are a matter for the industry; they shouldn't be externally imposed)

Rather than curbing what we can do, we should include the price of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere in every activity that puts CO2 into the atmosphere. That's not something we could do immediately (it's too expensive with current technology) but it's something that should be done before 2050 (and if we fail to make big emissions cuts soon, the need for such a policy is much more urgent).

_________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth,
>So presumably it would be cheaper to make wind towers and solar panels etc., using renewable energy ?

There are two problems with that presumption:
Firstly, when electricity is generated it goes into general supply; it's not really a case of "electricity from here is used for this; from there it is used for that" though it's possible for contractual arrangements to simulate that situation.

Secondly, most of the CO2 produced in their manufacture does not currently come from the generation of electricity.

Aidan,
Motorsport is a sport that goes on for two or three days on end, so yes, we can confidently say 24 hrs.
It's not only the hour meter of the engine that counts, it's the producing of the vehicles etc is so polluting as is the production of windmills & solar panels.
We DO have some very frivolous yet highly polluting activities where not a single thought is given to the environment.
We need to sit back as a society & work on changing our mentality & only then can we make progress in arresting the progressives' regress !

Hi Aidan,

"most of the CO2 produced in their manufacture does not currently come from the generation of electricity."

Yeah, well, that was my point: how much CO2 is produced in the manufacture (and maintenance, etc.) of all of the components of a wind tower, compared to the CO2 that is saved by not using coal ? i.e. before they are in operation ? More ? Less ?

How much CO2 is produced in the manufacture (and maintenance, etc.) of all of the components of a solar array, compared to the CO2 that is saved by not using coal ? i.e. before they are in operation ? More ? Less ?

Being fairly naive about it all, I've been assuming that wind towers and solar arrays produce no CO2 at all in their operation. Are you suggesting that, somehow, they actually produce CO2 in their operation ?

Joe

Loudmouth,
Yeah, well, that was my point: how much CO2 is produced in the manufacture (and maintenance, etc.) of all of the
>components of a wind tower, compared to the CO2 that is saved by not using coal ? i.e. before they are in operation ?
>More ? Less ?

Are you a compete idiot? I've already told you it's MUCH LESS.
Likewise with solar.
Repeatedly asking the question won't change the answer!

I apologise to other readers here for stating the obvious, but just to be clear: when I said "most of the CO2 produced in their manufacture does not currently come from the generation of electricity", I was referring to the generation of the electricity used in their manufacturing, not the energy they generate.

As for what happens during their operations: maintenance, monitoring, cleaning etc will produce some CO2 (largely from the use of vehicles) but the amount is trivial. And where concrete is used, it will absorb CO2 from the air, though nowhere near as much as was released when the cement was made.

_________________________________________________________________________________

individual,
Motorsport has few active participants but many fans. Practice and qualifying (which take up most of that time) are ignored by most of the fans, but do play a vital part in making the main race faster and more exciting. And motorsport has resulted in great efficiency improvements in vehicles.

Aidan,
That's a near perfect cop-out !

Anyone see Annastacia Palaszczuk on news re Adani. Hilarous.

runner,
Why was it hilarious?
And why won't you answer my question about what exactly you regard as heretical?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

individual,
Do you have any objective criticism of it, though? Or do you regard it as near perfect because you don't?

You seem to be advocating a bureaucratic system of externally imposed restrictions on how industries can operate. Is that really what you want? If so, why?

on how industries can operate
Aidan,
No, it should be on how industries should operate. Environmentally more considerate !
Sport & entertainment in general could easily survive on less than half the emission & still be profitable & enjoyable.

'runner,
Why was it hilarious?
And why won't you answer my question about what exactly you regard as heretical?'

come on Aiden

Last Friday Palaszczuk was Queen Green and less than a week later she is champion of ADANI.

Also heresy is something that is false or perverted. Believing that stopping coal mining is going to affect the climate is false and needs science perverted (pseudo science) to form a case. The gw relgion is unravelling quickly but not before destroying many industries. British Steel looks like going under with idiotic 'carbon credits' having to be paid to the EU. Do you really think steel isn't going to now produced by countries not paying bribes to the EU. Man made GW is a false religion with many charlatans in the renewables industry and others cashing in while destroying economies and business.

Aiden says, "Are you a compete idiot? I've already told you it's MUCH LESS.
Likewise with solar.
Repeatedly asking the question won't change the answer!"

Well no it won't change the answer from a greanie ratbag, but would anyone with a brain pay any attention to a greenie ratbag. Sorry Aiden, but your assurance is not worth the paper it is printed on.

It is required that to be a greenie, you have to remove your brain, & accept as fact, no matter how obviously crazy, any bit of garbage handed down from authority. You Aiden have obviously done that, or you could follow the math on CO2 production for both windmills & battery manufacture, followed by solar panels & electric cars.

Not one of these bits of technology can live up to the hype. The same goes for transport fuel using ethanol or biodiesel. Have you noticed Indonesia getting a bit cranky with the EU. After years of encouraging them to produce palm oil for the EU recommended diesels, they suddenly don't want Indonesian palm oil any more.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if these greenie idiot bureaucrats could get something right for once. Yes unlikely for that strange religion, but it would still be nice.

Hasbeen,

Your argument looks a lot like:
• All cats have five legs
• Aidan disagrees
•Therefore Aidan has five legs
• Therefore Aidan is a cat!

You may feel you've won the argument, but even on this board, where the proportion of people who agree with you is much higher than in the general population, most people would look at your assumptions and reasoning and conclude you're stupid.

In the 20th century, low EROEI (that's energy returned on energy invested) for wind and solar electricity generation was a big problem. Indeed even in the early 21st century the environmental benefits of solar panels at high latitudes were questionable. But the technology's moved on, and even the cynics adjusted their arguments to suit the new situation. They couldn't credibly argue EROEI to ever be below 1, so instead they said it needed to be above the arbitrary figure of 7 to support an advanced society, then tried to fudge the EROEI figures by claiming non-energy inputs could be converted to energy inputs.

runner,
Nobody who'd been keeping up with events could possibly have claimed last Friday that Palaszczuk was Queen Green. Her government's idiotic new regulation requiring electricians to do the job of labourers when setting up solar farms is devastating the renewable energy industry in that state.

You're replicating Hasbeen's mistake of assuming what you think you know to be true regardless of the evidence. That's pseudoscience; real science does the opposite. Believing that increasing the atmospheric CO2 content won't affect the climate is false and needs science perverted (pseudo science) to form a case.

You're reference to "the gw religion" shows you to be a heretic. Instead of serving God you are serving the greed of the neocons who called it a religion to make it seem illogical to their fellow atheists and evil to the more gullible of the Christians. You should be exposing lies, not spreading them!

As for British Steel, its having to contend with carbon credits isn't new. Though it is an obvious hindrance to profitability, it's one of many. I'd expect the uncertainty surrounding Brexit to be a bigger factor at the moment.

600 million people voted in India (24 times the total population of Oz), and that may have only been 70% of those eligible to vote. Wow!

1 billion = 40x Oz; 7 billion = 280x Oz. Our (Oz) footprint?

But, we have to save the planet?

Ok, it's the principle, the example that counts. If we do nothing, how can we expect other developed nations to do more?

We need to accept as fact that Climate Change is real, is happening, because that is what most of the developed world believes and accepts - irrespective of what may be the relative contributions of 'natural cycles' as against industrialization and fossil fuel use/combustion.

Receding sea ice, polar ice caps and glaciers - with coincidental sea level rise and land loss; intense and frequent storms; extensive droughts; unusual intensity and frequency of floods - in many places. These are not good signs.

How about we set aside any doubts about the reality of Climate Change, and focus solely on the question. What to do? How to react?

Problem 1 = world population. Overpopulation?
2. Increasing food production demand.
3. Looming oil crisis.
4. Increasing affluence, and material demand, worldwide.
5. Increasing immigration pressure.
6. Deteriorating living conditions and increased conflict in many parts.
7. Selfish, narrow attitudes; inward focusing; over-competitiveness and unwillingness to share.
8. Unreliable United Nations mandate and operation.

While major world powers either reject any need to act or fail to do enough, all we can do is go nuclear, implement the Bradfield Scheme and the like, and build dams, increase forests and food production, and increase our defense capability - so as, in total, to endeavor to insulate Oz from inevitable future crises.

Saltpetre,
Common sense doesn't appear capable of ever catching up to stupidity. It'd be very interesting & worthwhile for someone to do a study on how a Green's mind works, if it works in the first place that is.
Clear thinking genuine environmentalists must be just so utterly dismayed at that kind of mentality !
The Greens are to the environment what the ALP is to Labor !

The Green's are not Green- they are watermelons- Green on the outside Red Trotsky Communist on the inside.

Like the life of an awful box of chocolates...

Attend the closed conference of the Greens and the CO2 atmosphere in the room is thirteen times that of the Earth and no one complains. The volcanic eruption in Bali has increased CO2 in three days greater than all the human population in one year. The Earth thrives on CO2 as it promotes vegetation growth that cleans the air for mammals.

Research done by NASA on Ice core reveals the Earth is cooling and we are approaching another mini ice age. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1121903/nasa-news-scientist-ice-age-antarctica-find-this-date-spt

http://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

Green Peace founder says Global Warming is a hoax, to gain control of peoples minds.
www.technocracy.news/greenpeace-co-founder-global-warming-is-a-complete-hoax-and-scam/?fbclid=IwAR1HJUQYOIYcOBjyp56HdbpFKhnHchh4FQFcmB3p5ZdJA8Gl52

Josephus, try reading those articles you hot linked to. An ice age is not imminent - it's predicted in 50000 to 60000 years. The CO2 level in a room is irrelevant - the issue is the effect of CO2 on global climate, not on room habitability, so of course nobody complains. And though CO2 does have a positive effect on vegetation growth, the change to the climate it results in generally have a negative effect.

What is the source of your claim about the Bali eruption?

The opinion of Patrick Moore is irrelevant.

Not directly related to the topic but interesting nevertheless. It'd explain some of the degradation of the GBR.
From
Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment: Strategic Assessment Report 2014

Large amounts of unexploded ordnance (such as cannon shells, missiles and bombs) and chemical warfare agents were deliberately dumped at sea throughout the region at the end of World War II. The largest post-war dumpsites were offshore from Cairns and Townsville. Chemical warfare agents were also dumped off Townsville, Bowen and Proserpine in the late 1940s. The Australian Defence Force has retained some records about the locations of these dumpsites, but the details of precise locations, quantities and types of materials are unreliable. These dump sites form an important part of Australia’s World War II heritage. When they are identified, an assessment should be conducted to evaluate how to preserve and record this heritage while also protecting the environment and human safety.

Dear CM,

You wrote;

"The Green's are not Green- they are watermelons- Green on the outside Red Trotsky Communist on the inside."

Besides being a really tired cliche, since you have made the statement why don't you give us an explanation as to its veracity.

Besides being a really tired cliche, since you have made the statement why don't you give us an explanation as to its veracity.

SteeleRedux,
That's a bit rich from one who ranks among the highest to leave question to them unanswered !

Dear individual,

Really? And here I was thinking I always answered non-flippant, non-rhetorical questions that are put to me. If you are able to furnish a recent example of where I haven't done so I will endevour to rectify it.

Over 30,000 scientist deny human use on the planet causes climate change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3ydkkpeAPN9-KbeqEPtSKZ1xiD2TIh-G0ck6F9EPXVxDmn0IhYQyx4kis

Dear Josephus,

Did you really just post a video from the Heartland Institute and expect us to take it or you seriously?

Come on mate, it's just a vehicle for the Koch brothers to keep chipping away.

Do you have anything of substance to contribute?

Really?
SteeleRedux,
yes really, just go back over the many open-ended posts inviting you to comment on. I suppose your excuse is that they're all flippant !

Dear individual,

Yup. I think that might be exactly what I said.

So point me to one you think qualifies.

SteeleRedux,
post the name of one reputable scientist in Earth science who has public papers that demonstrate CO2 harms the planet; and humans currently cause climate change other than by Earth previous natural history.

Farmers are currently pumping CO2 into the soil to promote growth because the soil is depleted in carbon. Soil respiration is a key ecosystem process that releases carbon from the soil in the form of carbon dioxide. Carbon is stored in the soil as organic matter and is respired by plants, bacteria, fungi and animals. When this respiration occurs below ground, it is considered soil respiration.

http://phys.org/news/2017-10-ingenious-approach-co2-soil.html

Josephus,
I notice you still haven't provided the source of your extraordinary claim about how much CO2 was released in the latest eruption in Bali.

Yesterday I criticised you for failing to comprehend the content of your hotlinks. Today I see another example of that. Farmers are NOT pumping CO2 into the soil, and doing so would NOT promote plant growth. What farmers are adding to the soil to promote plant growth is solid carbon (in the form of charcoal). Its role is similar to clay or to organic carbon in the soil - it makes nutrients available to plants. Some of those nutrients are in there to start with, but most are dissolved in the water in the soil until being adsorbed.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of what's occurring. Would I be correct in deducing that you don't understand the Greenhouse Effect or CO2's role in t?

View from a bloke who knows the Reef !

http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56720

Aidan, The Earth has had previous Green house effects caused by volcanoes. This resulted in our coal being formed.

Every volcanic eruption that occurs on planet Earth is full of pollutants. Not just ash and dust, mind you, but also carbon dioxide: one of the strongest greenhouse gases on our planet. In the largest cases, a single volcanic plume, lasting only hours, might add many millions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Aidan & Josephus,

According to Wikipedia, "The chemical composition of wood varies from species to species, but is approximately 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen, and 1% other elements (mainly calcium, potassium, sodium, magnesium, iron, and manganese) by weight.... Wood also contains sulfur, chlorine, silicon, phosphorus, and other elements in small quantity." [I'm presuming that means 50 % by weight.]

Wood is good, therefore so is CO2.

Look around you - wood is everywhere. Its growth depends on the availability of CO2: the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more and quicker it is taken up. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2 due to the processing of sugars etc. in our bodies (by liver and lungs). It's our friend.

Our Great Barrier Reef is mostly made up of fossilised coral. Coral is mostly calcium carbonate, CaCO3. Our Reef depends partly on the availability of CO2.

Surely we can grow vastly more trees, and process the ones we cut down more efficiently ? Win - win !

Joe

Dear Josephus,

You asked;

"SteeleRedux,
post the name of one reputable scientist in Earth science who has public papers that demonstrate CO2 harms the planet; and humans currently cause climate change other than by Earth previous natural history. "
Sure.

"Earth science encompasses four main branches of study, the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, and the biosphere, each of which is further broken down into more specialized fields."
Wikipedia

James Hansen

"James Edward Hansen (born 29 March 1941) is an American adjunct professor directing the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is best known for his research in climatology, his 1988 Congressional testimony on climate change that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

Josephus,
My deduction was correct. The Greenhouse Effect is not synonymous with global warming; it's an ongoing phenomenon that has affected this planet since its formation.

Before we go any further, I just want to make it clear that the Greenhouse Effect does not work the same way as an actual greenhouse. Those work primarily by stopping the heat being carried away by convection, whereas the Greenhouse Effect works by absorbing and reemitting radiation.

Warm objects emit infra red. The warmer they are, the more they emit.
The sun emts a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including infra red, visible light and ultra violet. When these reach the ground, they are (largely) absorbed and heat it up..
When the sun heats up the ground, the ground emits more infra red
Therefore there is more infra red radiated out to space from the earth than it receives from the sun.
Greenhouse Gases (like CO2) absorb infrared and reemit it in different directions. Because most of the infrared is going upwards to start with, the greenhouse gases result in more of it going downwards, warming the planet again.

Please note that the above is a simplified explanation so that you can understand what's going on and why CO2 has a warming effect. If you think of something I've omitted, DON'T assume the climatologists aren't already well aware of it.

BTW, CO2 is actually a pretty weak greenhouse gas - over 99% of the infra red goes straight through it without being absorbed. However it's much more prevalent in the atmosphere than other greenhouse gases, so aside from water vapour, CO2 has the most effect on the atmosphere. Water vapour quickly condenses out, so its role is mainly as a feedback mechanism: the warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapour it can hold before it condenses.

>In the largest cases, a single volcanic plume, lasting only hours, might
>add many millions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Have a look at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/global-carbon-emissions-hit-record-high-in-2018-according-to-iea/10941378
Humans were responsible for emitting 33.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere last year.

Hi Aidan,

"Humans were responsible for emitting 33.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere last year."

And how much is taken up annually by the environment, naturally ? What's left over that we have to deal with ? And why not deal with much of it by re-forestation and other productive uses ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,
>And how much is taken up annually by the environment, naturally ?
Currently about half.
http://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjmqwb/plants-are-losing-their-capacity-to-absorb-human-co2-emissions

What's left over that we have to deal with ?
The other half.

>And why not deal with much of it by re-forestation and other productive uses ?
Why not indeed? That's much harder than it sounds, though, as reforestation requires a huge amount of water. Also, for long lasting CO2 removal, we have to prevent the natural decay process from putting that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Contrary to what Josephus claimed, the reason there's so much coal in the ground is nothing to do with volcanoes - it's thought to be that there was a long gap between the time plants evolved lignin production and the evolution of the fungi that consume lignin.

Considering the heating effect increased CO2 is having on the planet, your simplistic assumption that more of it is a good thing is dangerously wrong. Sure it's essential for life, and nobody's claiming otherwise, but that's irrelevant as nobody's suggesting eliminating it. The current level of 415ppm is no better for animal life than the preindustrial level of 280ppm. And it's only slightly better for plant life. Don't make the mistake of asking it to be directly proportional - the plant's certainly aren't growing anywhere near 50% faster!

As for coral, more CO2 in the water would make the calcium carbonate more soluble, as more of it would be in the form of Ca(HCO3)2 instead. But coral bleaching as a result of sustained heating is a much more urgent problem for the reef.

Hi Aidan,

Re-forestation needs a lot of water; which could be provided from rivers and desalination plants along the north coast, powered by nuclear energy, perhaps from thorium. Yes, it would cost a hell of a lot, but so does every other 'remedy'. Of course, it may not remove all of the CO2 from the atmosphere but it may contribute substantially. And more or less pollution-free too, to use the latest jargon of the anti-GW project.

But after a cycle of development, it could be paying for itself as an on-going project, employing thousands who are otherwise unemployed.

Win - win - win !

Cheers,

Joe

In 1980 Mt St Helens exploded covering forests which is now coal.

grow vastly more trees, and process the ones we cut down more efficiently ?
Loudmouth,
Too long a wait for the profit for investors. They want a return before they invest !

desalination plants
Loudmouth,
Desalination is only an alternative for small communities, larger towns & cities require so much that the environmental costs outweigh any other benefits. Desalination is like green technology, hugely polluting in the process up to the first drop of freshwater produced & then there is the power requirement..

So Aidan, are you claiming "the Earth is warming due to CO2"?
I thought that was old scare mongering science, that the claim now is "the climate is changing" is the new political scare, because they cannot explain the extreme cold last winter in the Northern hemisphere by the warming theory.

I've been around for 80 years and seen the climate change 80 times in my lifetime with hotter and colder and wetter days than we currently experience. The Earth is not a stable planet it changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadly_earthquakes_since_1900

ttp://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/top-20-deadliest-volcanic-eruptions-since-1900.html

It is true we need to stop pollution, both atmosphere and ground for a better future, but that does not change the Climate. Oral history gives us an event of great proportions when the Earth was covered by water and it was blamed on the behaviour of humans. Obviously the Ice caps would have to melt to create such a catastrophic event.

Hi Individual,

I was expecting governments to initiate and run such re-forestation schemes, and provide all the funding for vit: the nuclear power stations, the desalination plants and the on-going planting programs across the country.

Yes, it might be expensive, tens of billions every year, but we must do something to stop runaway global warming ! Half a degree temperature rise every eighty years, and an inch every decade in sea-level rise down here in Adelaide, is just too dreadful to contemplate !

Joe

Josephus,
>So Aidan, are you claiming "the Earth is warming due to CO2"?
Yes. Observations (both ground and satellite based) show the Earth to be warming, the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing, and we know why more CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet. What more will it take to convince you?

>I thought that was old scare mongering science, that the claim now is "the climate
>is changing" is the new political scare, because they cannot explain the extreme
>cold last winter in the Northern hemisphere by the warming theory.
Then you were wrong.
The theory has no trouble explaining it. Indeed the theory PREDICTED it!
Europe is much warmer than North America is at the same latitude because of ocean currents (specifically the Gulf Stream aka the North Atlantic Drift). Warming changes the ocean currents, and more meltwater from Greenland reduces the salinity of the northern part of the North Atlantic, resulting in the warm water not travelling so far north before sinking.

Thirty years ago terms "global warming" and "climate change" were used in equal measure by scientists. Many saw the latter as preferable because of people like you who thought warming theory couldn't explain European cooling. But it was "global warming" that grabbed the media's attention. Then around the turn of the millennium, the neocons in America tried (largely successfully) to get everyone to refer it as "climate change" because their focus groups had told them it sounded less scary, and less serious, than "global warming".

Earth's climate is dynamic, with lots of feedback mechanisms both positive and negative. Changes are slowed down due to the large thermal mass of the oceans. so we are yet to see the full impact of the changes we have already made. Yet most people underestimate the problem, and assume that just stopping increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration will be enough to stop the planet warming. They don't even consider the danger of positive feedback mechanisms such as decomposition of clathrates (releasing methane into the atmosphere) and reduction of marine stratus (resulting in the oceans heating far more quickly).

Josephus (continued),
>Oral history gives us an event of great proportions when the Earth was covered by water and it was blamed on
>the behaviour of humans. Obviously the Ice caps would have to melt to create such a catastrophic event.
What you regard as obvious is actually an incorrect assumption.

>In 1980 Mt St Helens exploded covering forests which is now coal.
What makes you think it's now coal?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth,
Try to contemplate the truth instead of spreading the lies. A half degree rise in global average temperatures took twenty years not eighty - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

The problem isn't just the fact that temperatures are rising, but that they're rising at an accelerating rate.

Likewise with sea levels; if we could confidently predict they'd keep rising at their current rate of an inch and a quarter per decade, it wouldn't be seen as a very big problem. But melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica is projected to result in much bigger sea level rises. Just to be clear: that's from increase runoff: I'm not suggesting the ice sheets would collapse.

And it is silly to resort to expensive solutions when much cheaper alternatives are available. There are far more productive ways of employing those who are currently unemployed.

but we must do something to stop runaway global warming !
Loudmouth,
Agree, but the only remedy is the one that no-one wants to tackle, overbreeding by & of humans !

individual,
Why do you think that's the only remedy?

There's far more to environmental impact than just population numbers, and you seem quite oblivious to the most crucial points: if the world's population treated the environment with the contempt that most posters on this board have for it, a population of even one billion wound't be sustainable. But humans are capable of mitigating and even reversing environmental damage, and when we recognise the value of the environment and treat it with the importance it deserves, we'll be able to sustain a much higher population than we have today.

Aidan,

In your last post you appear to have relayed a possibly inadvertent contradiction, and I would be greatly interested in how you might be able to rationalize these two apparent opposites:

>> if the world's population treated the environment with the contempt that most posters on this board have for it, a population of even one billion wouldn't be sustainable.<<

>>when we recognise the value of the environment and treat it with the importance it deserves, we'll be able to sustain a much higher population than we have today.<<

Maintain environment AND greatly increase human population?

I can only deduce that you must have enormous faith in prospects for an almost immediate technological breakthrough of gargantuan significance and impact, or in a mind-blowing shift in human cultural and social relations placing respect for planet Earth and all of its cohabitants at the zenith of all human aspiration and endeavor; or both such vectors concomitantly?

Or, am I misinterpreting, where your focus is solely on the immediate human environment, and wherein anything (animals, plants etc) not of direct importance to human aspiration for total success and fulfillment is cast aside as 'unworthy' to survive?

I like this planet, and I'm afraid I can only consider human exploitation and uncontrolled expansion to be the greatest threat to its long term success and survival. Evolution has simply not gone far enough - but there is evidence that the planet is fighting back.

Why do you think that's the only remedy?
Aidan,
Because it is the ONLY option !
If people can't change after several thousand generations then reducing the numbers IS (no, not Islamic State) the ONLY alternative.

Individual,

If ZPG was universal, population would still rise because people are likely to be living longer this century. If hypothetically, ZPG was universal now, the world population would still rise until it more or less peaked sometime late this century and grew slowly, but only with universal increased life expectancy.

Joe

world population would still rise
Loudmouth,
rise is definitely different & preferable to exploding !

individual,
Where did you get the barmy idea that people can't change after several thousand generations?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Saltpetre,
'Tis a fairly safe option that technology will continue to develop, but solving most of the current environmental problems depends not on developing new technology but on implementing existing technology.

Likewise we don't need "a mind-blowing shift in human cultural and social relations placing respect for planet Earth and all of its cohabitants at the zenith of all human aspiration and endeavor" but we do need to treat it as very important, and we certainly need to stop sacrificing environmental objectives for short term financial gain.

We must preserve large areas of each ecosystem in its natural state, but also recognise that many (though not all) of the human constructed environments are important for other species. And we need to understand that this planet's carrying capacity is not fixed, and humans are capable of improving it as well as degrading it.

Resource consumption certainly isn't the only environmental problem, but it's the one that's blamed most on population. However when you actually look at who's consuming those resources, you'll find the few rich are consuming much more than the many poor.

Africa - 7 children per female, population 1.3 billion
India - 4 children per female, population 1.3 billion

Malthuse said production (technology, resources) increases arithmetically (talk about % increase in production ie usually much less than 100% increase), population (without controls) geometrically (2, 2+4=6, 2+4+8=14, 2+4+8+16=30 => over three generations- ranging from 20 to 30 years- population in india at 4 children per female increases by 15 times or 1500%- at a high baseline this likely exceeds capacity).

It's interesting to hear comments from those grand in vision but light on detail.

Loudmouths comment is interesting on ZPG Zero Population Growth and aging population- need to research this- but it doesn't "sound" reasonable. However given the population concerns my instinct is to turn off the baby "tap" before bailing out the population "bath"- Not sure what Loudmouth's views are here. It would be an interesting exercise to compare growth due to birth rate and that due to longer life span.

Other commentators have commented on western energy use and personal responsibility vis the environment but I would consider Aiden's view as negligent and symptomatic of a resistance to birth control by many ideologies especially Classical Liberalist (John Stuart Mill- Freedom) ones. You could perhaps argue that humans shouldn't live outside of the tropical zone due to the higher energy requirements- however much of the technological development appears to have been achieved by civilizations in these high energy zones. What would it mean for sovereignty should such a policy be implemented.

The solution is less people- this starts with lower birth rates in the cultures that have high birth rates

Maltuse says that productivity increases arithmetically and age lengthening is technologically based therefore perhaps birth rate being geometric will have a bigger impact on population than aging over the longer term. I suspect that the Trotsky Communists favour a high death rate over a low birth rate as the old remember what Communism was like "the first time"- it's easier to get the young to change than the old- so if you want to create a new world order you need to neutralize the old people. If you disrupt old communities and families- people don't have roots and are more easily transplanted.

I suspect that older people are more stable and influenced less easily than younger people but they appear to put significant effort into protecting and supporting the younger generations.

There has been some effort to change the conservative nature of older generations to become more classically liberal- for example the concept of "spending the inheritance".

There is a vast difference in the mindset of the generation that saved paper bags to the throw away generation. Consumer culture (a liberal free culture) has created this.

Overall perhaps the aging effect on population due to it's arithmetic technological nature could be just a blip- however of note is the claim of accelerating technological cycles admittedly from a low base. It has been claimed that increases in population drive accelerating technology which in turn helps drive wealth and aging population. However given the limited nature of our planet and the accounting "law of diminishing returns" with more people- we should probably manage our populations. We may not understand all the factors- the fog of war- but we should exercise caution.

Where fools rush in- angels fear to tread

It seems that much of so called modern wealth is wasted in the churn of consumer culture. The consumer generation may be the wealthiest in history but it is probably also the most wasteful.

In 1987 the United Nations Global warming report gave us to the year 2,000 to reverse Climate change otherwise we would all suffer catastrophic events. It is now almost 20 years since then and human activity and development has increased - no observable difference since 1987, except a moveable difference in Earth Plates and volcanoes. Some plates rising and lowering fractionally.

Climate zealots want to ban coal and gas energy to developing countries living in squalor and poverty. We allow them to burn wood and cow dung instead, so causing deforestation of their countries. There is insufficient copper and aluminium in the world to give everyone wind and solar power.

In 2018 the UN repeated its 12 year prediction, it failed to happen 1n 2000 when the Millennium was to end the World from the 1987 prediction; http://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 so the prediction is again given. See what happens in 2030, the same scare tactics. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of &#8243;eco- refugees,&#8242; &#8242; threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

&#8243;Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?&#8243; he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.
Brown said if the warming trend continues, &#8243;the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.&#8243;

He said even the most conservative scientists &#8243;already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change&#8243; of about 3 degrees.

&#8243;Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.&#8243;

He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.

UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

&#8243;We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,&#8243; said Brown.

Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.

Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.

The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.

This was the prediction in 1987-8 it is nothing more than to scare the population and not solve one human problem.

Canem,
>Africa - 7 children per female, population 1.3 billion
>India - 4 children per female, population 1.3 billion
Struth, if you believe that to be the case, no wonder you're so alarmed!
But you can relax - fertility rates are no longer anywhere near that high.

When Malthus referred to arithmetic and geometric growth, he was referring to linear and exponential growth respectively. His point was that if resources are abundant, human population is capable of growing exponentially. He did not claim such growth to be inevitable. And if you look at modern fertility rates, you'll see that human behaviour has changed. The countries with very high fertility rates aren't those with abundant resources; it's those hit by war or famine. People have large numbers of children to ensure some of them will survive long enough to give them grandchildren.

If you think my view is negligent then it's probably due to your poor comprehension, for I'm not claiming that's the only reason for above-replacement fertility rates, nor that high fertility rates aren't a problem. But the problem's already being addressed, and stopping population growth will not be sufficient to solve our other environmental problems.

And finally, the availability of nuclear power destroys the argument that "humans shouldn't live outside of the tropical zone due to the higher energy requirements" although even without nuclear power that argument would be very dubious.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Josephus,
You seem to be sorting to strawmen again. Can you name even one of these "climate zealots" who want to ban gas energy to developing countries? ITYF they're imaginary!

And where do you get the idea that "There is insufficient copper and aluminium in the world to give everyone wind and solar power"? The ore is abundant and the metals will be produced to meet demand.

Aiden said- The countries with very high fertility rates aren't those with abundant resources; it's those hit by war or famine. People have large numbers of children to ensure some of them will survive long enough to give them grandchildren.

Answer- I would argue that war and famine is caused by high birth rates perhaps Aiden is arguing the opposite.

Aiden said-

>Africa - 7 children per female, population 1.3 billion
>India - 4 children per female, population 1.3 billion
Struth, if you believe that to be the case, no wonder you're so alarmed!
But you can relax - fertility rates are no longer anywhere near that high.

Answer- Yes fertility rates are a moving target. 1.3 Billion people is too many people for a country the size of India (Africa's birth rate is higher than India). They still have a growth rate that is above replacement on a land area that is beyond capacity. Therefore the Indian Government (also South America) is attempting to offshore their management issues. This transfers onto other countries in the form of poverty, alienation, etc.

In 2003 according to the CIA world fact book India had half its population under the age of 15- this is apparently the current situation in Africa. Too little was done in 2003 to address the issues and now massive immigration is occurring to alleviate the inevitable lack of economic opportunities in India. Sixteen years later these under fifteens (in four or more children families) are moving out of home and starting homes of their own. You can imagine the crush as three or more homes try to occupy the space of one in such a short time frame. When children are young they don't require on average the same resources as adults- so you don't realize the impact on the community.

If there was less people in India then Indian people wouldn't perhaps have the impetuous to move away from their birthplace.

At least Aiden seems to admit that lack of foresight seems to have caused permanent damage to the environment.

But it appears Aiden just doesn't believe in reducing the population of the world even for the environment.

The GOP says- the Democrats never do anything... But population growth is also the fault of the GOP Economic Liberals.

Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them...

Dear CM,

You claimed the African fertility rate was 7 births per female where it is under 5 and falling. You claimed the Indian fetility rate was 4 births per female where the correct figure is 2.33.

Yet when you got pulled up on it by Aiden your reply was “Answer- Yes fertility rates are a moving target.”

Piss weak mate. You overegged the figures either by mistake or design but then you tried to imply some kind disagreement exists. It does not. You were wrong and I think it would be both courteous and decent to admit it.

Up to you.

SteelRedux-

Dear CM,

You claimed the African fertility rate was 7 births per female where it is under 5 and falling. You claimed the Indian fetility rate was 4 births per female where the correct figure is 2.33.

Yet when you got pulled up on it by Aiden your reply was “Answer- Yes fertility rates are a moving target.”

Piss weak mate. You overegged the figures either by mistake or design but then you tried to imply some kind disagreement exists. It does not. You were wrong and I think it would be both courteous and decent to admit it.

Up to you.

Answer- Thanks for your feedback.

Dear CM,

Still no acknowledgement that you were wildly incorrect.

Csnem,
Excessive quoting is annoying, especially when you don't even address the points you quote.

And to say "Yes fertility rates are a moving target” is misleading, as the main feature of moving targets is that they're hard to hit. But the aim here isn't to hit an exact figure; it's to reduce the rate. And the lower the rate gets, the less important reducing it becomes.

>But it appears Aiden just doesn't believe in reducing the population of the world even for the environment.
Correct. Slowing the growth in world population s important and s being addressed. But actually reducing the population would be incredibly difficult and controversial would not enable any environmental improvements that can't be made by other means.

Aiden said-

Comment 1-

Excessive quoting is annoying, especially when you don't even address the points you quote.

Answer 1- Thanks for the feedback.

Comment 2-

But actually reducing the population would be incredibly difficult and controversial would not enable any environmental improvements that can't be made by other means.

Answer 2- I believe that the only way to protect the environment and prevent other nefarious cultural effects such as war, poverty and genocide is by reducing the number of people in the world to ten percent of its current value. In order to achieve this policies need to be implemented against high population countries to achieve this goal. Aiden is free to believe what he wants- so are others

Interesting links...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/28/a_declining_population_need_not_cause_angst_140422.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froma_Harrop

Dear Josephus,

Really?

Come on mate there are far better skeptic sites peddling this stuff than those two. What a car crash of tortured statistics and outright lies.

Give me one fact or graph that you think would stand even a modicum of scrutiny from either of them and we can have a look together.

CO2 warming destruction theory has been around since 1896 by the Swedish scientist http://www.google.com.au/search?q=svante+arrherum&ie=&oe=

Steel It is obvious that you have not read or listened to the scientist as it takes 19 minutes to listen to his report. Typical Marxist convert!
Just dismiss the objecting science as Marxist do to scare the population.

Dear Josephus,

Don't be a snowflake. A cursory look told me your links were crap so instead of wading through mountains of manure I have asked you give us one single contrary fact that these two have delivered that you are prepared to standby and we can discuss.

You instead scream about reds under the bed.

Put up or shut up mate.

Steel, You are totally illiterate on the facts on CO2 causing ocean rising. The scientist involved in the 28 minute video showed a mark made in 1704 of the height above the ocean and today the Baltic land is 3.6 meters higher than in 1704. Your flippant dismissal indicates you have swallowed the Globalist agenda, and the introduction of Marxism. Look at the video and give real opposing science to his claim. That is i.e. the oceans are gaining more water.

Josephus,
Firstly, do you yet concede that these "climate zealots" who want to ban gas energy to developing countries are a figment of your imagination? I notice you haven't even tried to name one. Likewise I see you haven't supplied the source for your idiotic claim that "There is insufficient copper and aluminium in the world to give everyone wind and solar power". Did you make that up yourself too?

Secondly, I notice you also failed to answer my earlier question as to what makes you think the forests covered by the Mt St Helens eruption are now coal. Is it because you believed what you read on creationist websites?

Thirdly, further up this thread (Tuesday, 28 May 2019 11:36:50 AM) I cautioned you against assuming that things you discover about how the climate works that aren't included in simple explanations of it (like the one I made in that post) are not already well known to climatologists. It appears I should also caution you about taking the word of ignorant bloggers who've made the same mistake. Steele's analogy of "mountains of manure" is a good one.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Canem,
Your "interesting links" are actually quite boring.
You are of course free to believe the moon is made of green cheese if you want to. But I have to say that's as idiotic as your belief that "that the only way to protect the environment and prevent other nefarious cultural effects such as war, poverty and genocide is by reducing the number of people in the world to ten percent of its current value". Not only would such a reduction be culturally catastrophic (and more likely than not, be unachievable without war or genocide) but there's no good reason it would achieve its objective. Look at how the world was in then 18th century, last time the population was so low: more war, more genocide and more poverty than today.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/10/31/2226228/we-may-not-have-enough-minerals-to-even-meet-electric-car-demand

The demand on copper is greater than the supply and means extensive mining to supply the developing world with electricity.
http://copperalliance.eu/enough-copper-drive-sustainable-transport/
Did you know?
The installation of 1 MW of offshore wind energy requires about 6 tonnes of copper, and a photovoltaic plant requires about 4 tonnes per MW generated. This is appreciably more than an oil-fired power plant (1.1 tonne/MW) or a nuclear power plant (0.7 tonnes/MW

Science is a subject based on fact, rather than emotional rants to silence those of a different view. The advocates of the human effect on climate promote the Marxist line of fear to control the minds of the population. As we witness by the school children brain washed by Marxist teachers, who wish to destroy capitalism and animal farming, because in their mind those are destroying the Earth.

Josephus,
Try reading the conclusion of your last ink:
Even with the increased demand for copper due to electrifying transport and the clean energy revolution, the resources of copper on this planet, coupled with its 100% recyclability, clearly point to the abundance of copper for all current and forthcoming applications.

And your first link is about nickel and cobalt: two non-essential components of batteries. There's not even any great shortage of either of these, despite the output of some mines being better suited to steelmaking (which has long been a major source of demand). Do you even comprehend that the elements that are in the world include those which are in the ground? And that the amount extracted depends on what's profitable rather than any technical factor? If demand rises faster than supply, prices rise, causing more to be mined, causing supply to rise.

Your link about nickel and cobalt does not back your previous claim about copper and aluminium, but it may help you understand why your claim is wrong.

>Science is a subject based on fact, rather than emotional rants to silence those of a different view.
Finally something we can agree on. Unfortunately you seem to be too stupid to tell the difference, because the rest of your paragraph is a bunch of emotional rants intended either to silence those of a different view or to fool yourself into ignoring the facts.

Dear Josphus,

Oh come on mate, the bloke has more than a few roos loose in the top paddock.

He is suppose to be an 'expert' in dowsing, you know looking for water with a y shaped stick. Of course when James Randi, the bloke who exposed Uri Gellar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3vGGf-ZIkc) offered your loon a million dollars to come and get tested he wouldn't have a bar of it.

"LOOKING IN ON SWEDEN
I've described here previously how a pompous-assed "dowsing expert" named Nils-Axel Morner, associate professor of geology from Stockholm University, has consistently refused to be tested for the Pigasus Prize. A helpful correspondent in Sweden referred me to http://www.tdb.uu.se/~karl/dowsing/ where I found that Morner was tested -- amateurishly -- on a prominent Swedish TV show, "The Plain & Simple Truth," on TV2 on February 27th. Morner was first provided the opportunity to brag about anecdotal successes, then he was tested. A local celebrity -- a singer -- was involved, as is usual with these drearily predictable affairs. The singer chose one of ten cups under which to conceal a packet of sugar. He chose number seven; are we surprised? Morner had designed this test, saying that it was especially difficult for him to do. He said that water or metal could be located "right away," but not sugar. Morner blathered on about "interference" and mumbled about "influences" and "might be here" and the usual alibis, then chose number eight. Wrong. But, said Morner, it was "in the right sector!" But no cigar."

Cont..

Cont..

"There were 3 serious errors in what could have been a good test: One, the target was not selected by a random means. (3 and 7 are the most-often-chosen positions in a line-up of 10.) Two, an audience member could have secretly signaled Morner. Three, Morner was allowed to do a test of his own choice, one that he said in advance was difficult and strange for him, instead of doing one which he'd done before, for which he has claimed 100% success. Why were water and/or metal not used? This is ridiculous!
Did Morner mention that I've offered him the million-dollar prize if he can do his usual, familiar dowsing trick? No."

Now go find us someone with a modicum of respectability and we can go from there.

Dear Josephus,

Come on mate. Still nothing? There must be one decent climate skeptic you can put before us. Non-water diviners only though.

Steel, easy to discredit a person, discredit his claims the oceans are not rising, and that it is not caused by movement of Earth plates; but caused by human activity creating CO2.

Aidan, I note you also revert to childish insults, in an endeavour to supposedly in your mind to discredit. It does not move me, but rather reveals your childish mind.

Just received this from an Island that is supposed to be sinking under the ocean: The Maldives
Enjoy breathtaking luxury at Outrigger Konotta, located on its own private island. Includes return airfare, 5 nights in a Beach Villa and breakfast and dinner daily for two.

BONUSES
• Domestic flight and speed boat transfers
• Upgrade to Beach Villa with Private Pool and Jacuzzi*
• Welcome amenities and turndown service once during stay
• Complimentary use of non-motorized water sports equipment
• 20% discount at the Outrigger Trading Company Boutique
RETURN AIRFARE
5 NIGHTS
Enjoy additional bonuses to your holiday, valued at $2430*.

FROM $3699* »

Obviously they believe in business as usual.

Josephus,
There have been many "childish insults" in this thread, more directed at me than from me.

I presume you're whinging about "Unfortunately you seem to be too stupid to tell the difference..." I didn't say you ARE too stupid to tell the difference, which would be a childish insult. Instead I stated the fact that you appear to be too stupid to tell the difference, and explained why it appears that way.

Look at the rest of your paragraph after "Science is a subject based on fact, rather than emotional rants to silence those of a different view":

:The advocates of the human effect on climate
The advocates of the only theory that's consistent with the facts and the laws of physics...

:promote the Marxist line of fear to control the minds of the population.
...promote the truth even though some find it scary.
Note the complete lack of evidence of any mind control through fear of climate change.

:As we witness by the school children brain washed by Marxist teachers,
As witnessed by a figment of your imagination! You see the concerns of schoolchildren who know more about it than you've bothered to find out, so you conclude they must be brainwashed because you can't bear the thought you could be wrong. And you blame Marxists because your generation found them scary. But the world has moved on.

:who wish to destroy capitalism
Yet most of the people who acknowledge the severity of the problem would prefer to see a market based mechanism used to solve it.

:and animal farming, because in their mind those are destroying the Earth.
There are people who want to end animal farming, but it's usually the result of a misplaced concern for the animals rather than the welfare of the planet. And I doubt many of them are Marxists or teachers, as I'd expect both groups to assign a greater importance to human concerns.

Now do you see why your emotional rant makes you look stupid and hypocritical?

Josephus (continued)

As for the Maldives, the nation (made up of many islands) is severely threatened by rising sea levels. It is also heavily dependent on tourism. Do you really think their refusal to curl up and die is evidence their problem's not real?

OF COURSE business will continue. There's a lot that can be done, and is being done, to adapt to rising sea levels. But the capacity to do so is not unlimited.

Dear Josephus,

So which is it?

The sea levels in a the Maldives are not rising so there is nothing to be alarmed about.

Or they are rising but the rate is so slow there is nothing to fret over.

Or the levels are rising but the reason is tectonic plate shift.

Or the sea levels are noticeably rising but increased coral growth will mean all is well.

Any clues for us?

And by the way your bloke it a total loon and can not be taken seriously on any subject, find us another.

Thanks Steele,

You've spelt out the major reasons why the Maldives has little reason to worry.

Do coral atolls grow ? Yes. Some of the islands in Kiribati and Tuvalu are larger in area now than fifty years ago, from aerial photos, despite the removal of ground-water by diesel-driven pumps and consequent land subsidence. Atolls grow.

Is there tectonic shift in that area ? i.e. is India still running up into the Himalayas ? Yes. And its Plate is tilting down in the east and up in the west, so that Bangla Desh is 'sinking' while the Ganges valley is 'rising'. Hence flooding along the Bangladeshi coast.

Perhaps the rise of the tectonic plate, vis-a-vis the Maldives, is keeping pace with sea-level rise ?

How much sea-level rise are we talking about ? i.e. around the world ? A half an inch a decade ? While tides go up and down one or two metres, twice a day ?

"Jesus ! The sky is falling ! The sky is falling !" some may say. It doesn't seem to be, on these grounds.

Thanks, Steele, for giving us some criteria to assess, and to assure us that it's all manageable.

Joe