Climate Change

[Baloo]

I'm not smart enough to debate the science of climate change, nor do I have enough time to watch YouTube videos to declare myself "well informed". But I've no doubt that the weather has become "weird" over the last decade or so. What used to be fairly predictable, or common, weather, is now all over the place.

Whether that's climate change or the result of people being mass vaccinated with government controlling 5G chips during covid, I don't know.

When most climatologists believe the data tells them that the current rapid change in climate is due to manmade factors, I'll believe them. When a YouTube educated vax denier nutjob, or a mining/drilling backed politician or "think tank" tries to argue the opposite, it's time to switch off.

 

[TigerForce]

I've heard someone say that too many bombs in the air from both wars near Europe have caused stranger weather with many storms and heatwaves affecting the UK and European cities.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I'm not smart enough to debate the science of climate change, nor do I have enough time to watch YouTube videos to declare myself "well informed". But I've no doubt that the weather has become "weird" over the last decade or so. What used to be fairly predictable, or common, weather, is now all over the place.

Yes Melbourne has always been called 4 seasons in one day but at least it used to be consistently inconsistent.

 

[Big Tiger]

I just turned 50.

My memory of growing up in the 80s and 90s was that Melbourne weather in the summer ran on a pretty consistent 7-10 day cycle.

The cycle would start in the low 20s, then mid 20’s, then high 20s and so on. By day 7, the weather would be in the low-mid 30’s. Occasionally it would drag out to 10 days and we might get a day or 2 in the high 30’s. Sometimes it would hit 40… Then we would have a summer storm, a cool change and the cycle would start again.

Maybe my little anecdote isn’t entirely accurate. Childhood memories can lean towards positive cognitive bias. However, I don’t have any doubt in my mind that summer weather in Melbourne nowadays is different compared to when I was growing up. It’s not as consistent as it was.

This is reminiscent of Daniel Andrew’s and co covid science. Finger in the air, best guess, I think/reckon and say it positively, say you’re folllowing the science and call anyone that disagrees a science denier and away we go.

Funny, I’m in my 60s and remember long droughts, often significant water restrictions, lots of bushfires, some crap summers that were cool, others that were hot and both low and high dam levels growing up.

Seeing a lot of feelings on here and not a lot of science, it’s called weather and it changes all the time. We’ve had much higher warming well back in the past if anyone cares to check. But that’s why we changed the name from global warming to climate change so we can capture any changes in weather.

 

[FNQtiger]

Seeing a lot of feelings on here and not a lot of science, it’s called weather and it changes all the time. We’ve had much higher warming well back in the past if anyone cares to check. But that’s why we changed the name from global warming to climate change so we can capture any changes in weather.

To what do you attribute the rapidly rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the past 200 years, if not for human activity?

 

[tigersnake]

FMD. Nats get 6% of the vote but 80% of the media. Murdoch can sniff an opening.

I could write an essay, again, demolishing the wrongness on political, ethical and economic grounds, but what would be the point? Its been done and done and accepted by anyone with a brain.

I will muse on an aside: every single farmer I know, have spoken to, or have seen interviewed in the media accepts that climate change is real and have for years, decades. They are on the front line and are getting on with it, dealing with it as they always do, while wanting action. So who are all these flat-earth FRNJs National party constituents who are supposedly driving this pissant parties knuckle-dragging policy?

I suspect its not farmers, but rural urban book-burning cookers.

 

[Scoop]

I just turned 50.

My memory of growing up in the 80s and 90s was that Melbourne weather in the summer ran on a pretty consistent 7-10 day cycle.

The cycle would start in the low 20s, then mid 20’s, then high 20s and so on. By day 7, the weather would be in the low-mid 30’s. Occasionally it would drag out to 10 days and we might get a day or 2 in the high 30’s. Sometimes it would hit 40… Then we would have a summer storm, a cool change and the cycle would start again.

Maybe my little anecdote isn’t entirely accurate. Childhood memories can lean towards positive cognitive bias. However, I don’t have any doubt in my mind that summer weather in Melbourne nowadays is different compared to when I was growing up. Its not as consistent as it was.

Yeah that feels right.

Now, feels like summer is only January and February and it’s just constantly hot without breaks.

Decembers feel much cooler. And the best time of the year is March-till the end of June.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Cheap energy is the fuel of population growth, GDP, capitalism.

We aren't going to be able to have our cake and eat it IMO.

How we get to some kind of logical transition that doesn't overly punish society is going to be a very difficult (if not impossible) navigation. Whoever goes first is at risk of destroying their own economy. If no one goes first the impact to society could be enormous.

I feel kind of dirty saying it, but the nationals - we will copy what the rest of the world does as a target makes a lot of pragmatic sense. We can still support things that make/almost make economic sense that are greener (not green hydrogen) - but not be completely black and white about good/bad.

One example.

We have Qld and USA fracking for gas. This is a lot, lot cheaper than gas explored, developed and eventually abandoned offshore at needs a high gas price to warrant investment. Guess what the Vic government banned and now whinges about Qld exporting. Coal not being used here, but being exported and burnt elsewhere another one. It is hard to argue we aren't hurting Australia's economy at least in the short term for a global leadership position in climate change, and with doubtfully any impact to global emissions giving we are exporting all the fossil fuels we aren't burning ourselves. If it doesn't stay in the ground, it's a pretty ridiculous position.

The impact of high energy prices (food, heating/cooling, manufacturing) hits the poor the most - and more people struggling is going to lead to more crime. I'd imagine some of the recent crime increases are driven by this.

It's just one of many factors but is what makes the transition so vexed and isn't something we talk about. We seem to assume we can spend more on energy to be green (or pretend it will be cheaper) and not impact anything else socially..

Solar + battery behind the meter (lots of EVs) (backed up by some kind of grid (fossil) firming) may well be the model (in many parts of Australia) if you started from scratch that is cheapest overall.

 

[eZyT]

FMD. Nats get 6% of the vote but 80% of the media. Murdoch can sniff an opening.

I could write an essay, again, demolishing the wrongness on political, ethical and economic grounds, but what would be the point? Its been done and done and accepted by anyone with a brain.

I will muse on an aside: every single farmer I know, have spoken to, or have seen interviewed in the media accepts that climate change is real and have for years, decades. They are on the front line and are getting on with it, dealing with it as they always do, while wanting action. So who are all these flat-earth FRNJs National party constituents who are supposedly driving this pissant parties knuckle-dragging policy?

I suspect its not farmers, but rural urban book-burning cookers.

Yeah the vast majority of farmer know climate change is here and are pretty anxious.

Barnaby joyce what a *smile* clown

 

[Tigers of Old]

WTF? Nice work if you can get it.
Minister Murray Wattt is rightly being questioned about this contract.

Sky is the limit for BOM overhaul with cost ranging from $78m to $150m

Tender documents show the true cost of the Bureau of Meteorology's new website might be much higher than initially reported.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Midsy]

Old Billy boy must have run out ideas about how to make money from climate change.

“Although climate change will have serious consequences – particularly for people in the poorest countries – it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

Bill Gates says climate crisis won’t cause ‘humanity’s demise’ in call to shift focus to ‘improving lives’

Billionaire’s statement comes a day after UN said humanity missed 1.5C climate target and warned of devastation

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ian4]

Minister Murray Wattt is rightly being questioned about this contract.

Murray Watt is a sell-out. The cheek of him having a massive crack at the Greens in recent days over the environmental legislation after he approved the 45 year extension of the North West Shelf. He's a disgrace.

 

[Tigers of Old]

The Libs talk about power bill$ being too high but never mention insurance premium$ ever increasing.
Funny that.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Old Billy boy must have run out ideas about how to make money from climate change.

“Although climate change will have serious consequences – particularly for people in the poorest countries – it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

Bill Gates says climate crisis won’t cause ‘humanity’s demise’ in call to shift focus to ‘improving lives’

Billionaire’s statement comes a day after UN said humanity missed 1.5C climate target and warned of devastation

www.theguardian.com

Seems a shallow take to me. He made a utilitarian argument money is better spent elsewhere helping poor people( than on net zero) .

 

[Big Tiger]

To what do you attribute the rapidly rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the past 200 years, if not for human activity?

I’ve shown here previously, they were higher millions of years ago. So nothing to do with human activity. You just choose to not accept the science. Has been going up and down for millions of years but you knock yourself out concentrating on a couple of hundred years and supporting wasting trillions of dollars on utterly unnecessary measures.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I’ve shown here previously, they were higher millions of years ago. So nothing to do with human activity. You just choose to not accept the science. Has been going up and down for millions of years but you knock yourself out concentrating on a couple of hundred years and supporting wasting trillions of dollars on utterly unnecessary measures.

The main issue may well be how we handle a battery that took 300+ million years to charge running out in the next hundred or so years.

The rate of change of co2 levels in the last 100 years is nuts relative to what you are referring to.

I just don’t think we as humans can think much beyond 5-20 year timeframes.

 

[eZyT]

I’ve shown here previously, they were higher millions of years ago. So nothing to do with human activity.

You could be in line for the Nobel prize!

You should give the panel a call.

 

[DavidSSS]

I’ve shown here previously, they were higher millions of years ago. So nothing to do with human activity. You just choose to not accept the science. Has been going up and down for millions of years but you knock yourself out concentrating on a couple of hundred years and supporting wasting trillions of dollars on utterly unnecessary measures.

So, by your logic, if something has previously happened without human activity causing it, then human activity cannot be the cause. That really is a massive failure of logic.

I note that Lions have killed Gazelles in the past, so humans must not have been responsible for killing any Gazelles - same logic you just used, do you agree?

Yes, there have been very high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago, but what was the climate like back then?

DS

 

[RoarEmotion]

So, by your logic, if something has previously happened without human activity causing it, then human activity cannot be the cause. That really is a massive failure of logic.

I note that Lions have killed Gazelles in the past, so humans must not have been responsible for killing any Gazelles - same logic you just used, do you agree?

Yes, there have been very high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago, but what was the climate like back then?

DS

Trolling would be the most generous interpretation DS.

Maybe we all fell for it.

If this is your actual logic @Big Tiger can you see the weakness in it? You lose all credibility presenting this as a logic line that climate change isn’t real to most folks here. I’m not sure how you react to that but happy to engage rationally.

I thibk we can all agree with you the earth has had higher levels of co2 in the past. (I mean it had to for all the fossil fuel to get created from photosynthesis). So that’s probably firm ground to start on.

 

[FNQtiger]

I’ve shown here previously, they were higher millions of years ago. So nothing to do with human activity. You just choose to not accept the science. Has been going up and down for millions of years but you knock yourself out concentrating on a couple of hundred years and supporting wasting trillions of dollars on utterly unnecessary measures.

I asked to what you attribute the rapid rise in the last 200 years, if not for human activity. The rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is the focus of my question.