Climate change wankers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11958916/Paris-climate-deal...

".. International Energy Agency (IEA) was still predicting [in 2009] that solar power would struggle to reach 20 gigawatts by now. Few could have foretold that it would in fact explode to 180 gigawatts - over three times Britain’s total power output - as costs plummeted, and that almost half of all new electricity installed in the US in 2013 and 2014 would come from solar."

" The old energy order is living on borrowed time. You can, in a sense, compare what is happening to the decline of Britain’s canals in the mid-19th century when railways burst onto the scene and drove down cargo tolls, destroying the business model.

" Technology takes no prisoners. Nor does politics. World leaders have repeatedly stated that they would defend the line of a 'two degree planet’, and now they are taking the concrete steps to do so. Fossil investors have been warned. "

Fact is, this is happening, key countries are onboard and there's "new" money to be made in renewables development so a lot of traditional players are jumping ship. Combined with technology improvements around efficient operation methods, which may see unit energy inputs drop by factors of between 3-6 and there's a chance this may actually be pulled off.

good on ya mk1, I've been doing very similar to you regarding diet for quite a while. the first thing you realise is how much meat Australian actually eat. big chunks of steak frim the pub for $15 bucks that would feed 6 Japanese at least. bacon and egg breakfast, meat pie lunch, it becomes a bit gross when you become aware of it. so you look for more vegetarian options and they're just too bloody expensive. vego options in asia are sooo cheap. australias pricing is all fucked up not least to encourage healthy eating. we need to pay the true costs of production, that reflects all costs, and weed out entrenched subsidies that encourage gluttony and reckless abandon.

disagree on the nuclear, as one wise man said the other day in response to Finkel (appropriate name) any nuclear we look out now is for a switch in date of 2030, by that time renewables will be so developed we won't need nuclear. and why would you want it anyway? it's proving to be rthe most expensive option

Only thing missing now is a price on carbon pollution so the current market failure of energy economics is addressed, but that will happen.

Blindboy, Craig, new tech around carbon capture is being developed presently. There may be a road out of this bog heap yet

Sypkan, new nuclear tech may be a way to break down existing waste to safer levels. Take your point about feed in time though, but I read somewhere recently (can't locate now) that China may be looking to throw some money at getting this off the ground. Having said that, I'm not advocating for it as I really only know the basics, just that a debate on the topic might not be as bad as we think.

I'm getting amazing soups and broths where I m currently and they only have the smallest slices of actual meat in there, along with a tonne of herbs and veg, so damn good!

Want to see the future look in the past - Easter Island

mk1 wrote:

While it's good to know what the biggest polluters are, that doesn't mean they are also the easiest to reduce. Its the cumulative total of atmospheric carbon that matters and units produced by one method in one location are largely interchangeable with any others. Its the same logical error of stating that australia is small so it doesn't matter, when in fact one unit of carbon reduction in Australia is as good as anyone elses' (blinded by ratios and percentages).

Having said that, I have been moving to a lower meat diet for a while. I swapped to kangaroo for red meat some time ago and then tried to limit the shitty processed meat intakes when eating out (cheap pies, etc) and focus on enjoying good quality meat a little less often. Now in asia, its easy to be on a low meat diet. To be fair a lot of that motivation came from health considerations as much as environmental.

Methane is not interchangeable with carbon, it also works differently as a greenhouse gas. Removing methane from the atmosphere has a significantly quicker impact in terms of cooling than removing carbon.

I would also contest that changing your diet IS the simplest AND most effective change you can make to your person habits in terms of having an impact on climate change. Changing your diet is pretty easy, I mean people go on all manner of kooky diets regularly. If the largest impact you can have as an individual is changing your diet why wouldn't anyone at least consider it?

I admire the modifications you've made with your own diet, it's interesting living in Asia the portions and types of meat in the diet are quite different as you pointed out, despite many regions moving toward higher caloric diets with more red/meat.

Tb I hope you scored. As for nuclear of course it matters what I and others think, finkle is never gonna have the last word. My position is that unless nuclear can be produce safely ie cold fusion and until there is a solution for dealing with the waste it's a disaster waiting to happen, we are behind the eightball trying to mop up after the industrial revolution do we really need to create another situation that future generation will have to clean up after?

Sorry timfoil my bad - off on a tangent there!!

Tangents are the best part of this discussion, when you got time you should take a look at that doco I'd like to hear what you and others think about what he's got to say.

Blindboy to state what will happen from anywhere between 200-2000yrs is outrageous..statements like that make alot of people like me just shake their heads in bewilderment.
Seriously none of those predictions are facts.
Science cant even say what will happen in 5-10yrs let alone 200-2000.
What are you gunna do ? Build multimillion dollar sea walls on the off chance it may happen?
For a self described intelligent person thats a pretty bizarre opinion piece to come up with.
You can't even call it a fact.
And people wonder why 'hayseeds' like me are so off this 'climate science' bs.

But barley , fear sells.

barley you really don't think I am going to waste my time responding to that do you? Go read something sometime. You just might learn that there are people who know more than you. Guess what? I' m one of them!

I'm over it. Just can't be bothered now.goes around in circles..

tonybarber wrote:

But barley , fear sells.

Yeah, it certainly does ... lets see recent examples that immediately come to mind.

"Stop the boats"
" Stop the tax" (carbon)
"Stop the tax" (mining)
"Labor's debt and deficit"
"The budget emergency"
"Labor will always tax you higher than the Liberals"
"Lifters and Leaners"
"Labor is wanting to tax your retirement"
"IS is coming to get us"
"Death cult"

Very insightful of you Tony

Temperature distribution. Average temperatures follow a normal distribution and so produces a bell shaped curve when graphed. As the planet warms this graph will migrate by however many degrees. This of course is concerning since now rare extremes of high temperature will become much more common. The assumption in many studies has been that the graph will retain its same basic shape as it migrates but recent research suggests that it may not. Existing data shows a flattening of the graph over recent decades. This means that the distribution is extended at each end and its maximum height (number of days in typical temperature range) decreased. This means even more days of extreme temperature with the prospect of days of unprecedented heat.

AndyM wrote:

Sheepy, so considering this thread is about climate change, I take it that because there are inaccuracies in predicting local weather you think it's fair to write of the science for climate change/global warming?

Andy..... What I am saying is that "weather", "climate", or whatever the hell anyone wants to call it, is a carpetbaggers delight.... When we have government officials on the 7th or 8th of october calling emergency media press conferences, standing alongside a state premier, with BOM projections in hand, stating categorically that the state of Victoria will not see any rain "of significance" over the next few weeks, yet then the rain comes, it shows that this "malleable" thing called weather is being used as a political fear weapon...... Now how many farmers and and rural people topped up their water and made "plans" according to these government scare tactics? How many of them spent good money carting water? It's fucking criminal...... And right now we are seeing a major rain event throughout the Victorian/NSW border, stretching all the way to QLD over the next day... And We have an even bigger rain event on the way for next week!!!!!
So, Andy, if a chef can't boil an egg, I doubt that same chef could cook a perfect steak......
It's carpet bag central...... It's all to do with the big end of town.... They really couldn't give a fuck if there IS climate change..... Profits.... Whether it be via a big end of town carbon trading system, or uranium mining...... Meanwhile the things that actually store carbon, which by the way is not a poison, as all life is carbon based, is continually being decimated on a scale never seen before ion the planets history.... Phyoplankton, scooped up for fish pellets, cos now we have to farm fish cos we've fucked the natural supply.....The grand forests of the world - I'm currently hypocritically typing on my IKEA amazon chipped desk..... Where's the urgency from the dollar hungry climate change buffoons????? Pissfarting around trying to bring in taxes and trading "schemes" and promoting nuclear like Tim flannery has..... Meanwhile, in the time I have written this, another 4 football fields worth of o2 producing carbon storing Amazon, and a massive chunk of SE asian rainforest has been bulldozed, by the same share holders that want ME to pay more for electricity....... Millions of wild animals killed....
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Yep....... Cha ching!!!!!!
I'm fuckn done to........ Cheers, Andy......

btw - here's the outlook for november
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/rainfall/median/seasonal/0

Not off to a good start, BOM.... Here's the major storm for next week....
http://www.metvuw.com/forecast/forecast.php?type=rain&region=swp&noofdays=8

[quote=Sheepdog Here's the major storm for next week....
http://www.metvuw.com/forecast/forecast.php?type=rain&region=swp&noofdays=8

Looks like some rain Sheepio;)

You nasty cyberbully! Ha ha ha. I've changed my mind Roy please stay I can see hours of amusement ahead!

nick3 wrote:

.... I know Barley probably doesn't even like me. But he is way ....

WTF ... the left hand is talking about to the right, weird stuff, is it halloween?

Tim, I clicked that link but at 1hr 30m going to have to give it a miss. I do agree with a lower meat diet for both environmental and health reasons and think a lot of environmentally conscious people are already on board with that.

Having a pollution tax included in the price of meats would help address the market failure embedded in the industry.

Barley, I sincerely hope you are correct in your position. Unfortunately I believe the evidence is pointing to the contrary, and I can't in good conscious ignore that. Still, good luck, I really do hope you are right and we are wrong.

.

mk1 wrote:

Tim, I clicked that link but at 1hr 30m going to have to give it a miss. I do agree with a lower meat diet for both environmental and health reasons and think a lot of environmentally conscious people are already on board with that.

Having a pollution tax included in the price of meats would help address the market failure embedded in the industry.

Good points there mk1.

It's a lengthy doco and with a fair bias for sure but definitely some interesting things they bring up, here is a breakdown.....

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

Heavy Tim. Certainly brings it to the front of mind.

The healthiest diet, for longevity, is the Mediterranean diet which only includes a small portion of red meat from time to time and usually goat sheep or something else rather than beef. That's what tipped the scales for me. My partner only eats seafood and so its easy for me to go low meat.

Having cut down, I mainly try to eat weird meats when I do now: Rabbit, kangaroo, sardines (or self caught seafood) in australia, jellyfish, pheasant, chicken "bits", black pudding here in asia.

Hi again everyone (and thanks to those of you who wrote nice comments about my posts, appreciate it), I just couldn't stay away from another misread of the data from sheepdog ;-)

Sorry if you think I'm having a go at you sheepdog, but I think you're misreading the comparison between the BOM outlook for October and how October turned out (at least up until 9am this morning). Ignoring what a politician said, and just looking at the outlook map that you provided and in particular for Eastern Vic (as that seems to be the area you were most concerned about), from what I can tell the BOM got it pretty well bang on. I came to that conclusion by looking at the raw data that feed the summary maps, which I provide below.

The outlook map you showed in your post of Thursday, 29 Oct 2015 at 2:14pm, accompanied by your comment:

"here was BOMs outlook for Vic..... Note eastern half;",

showed in the eastern half of the state that there was a 35-40% chance of above median rainfall for October. That's what the map was about, the probability of getting above median rainfall. So to compare the accuracy of that forecast with the observed outcome we need to know what the median rainfall is for the month and compare that to what happened.

So I went and compared the observed rainfall for October with the long term median rainfall for the month at eight BOM stations in the region. I just clicked on as many stations as I could bother but that covered a fair bit of eastern Vic. It's hard to format the results so I'll include them line by line below but overall, only two of the eight stations exceeded the median for October, all others were below the median for October. This of course suggests that the forecast of 35-40% chance of getting above median rainfall for the month was actually not too bad at all. Check for the data below, including the location of the observed data for each station. The October total is at the bottom of the table on each page provided and a link to the long term stats for the station is below the table. The first two are above median and the last 6 are below median.

COMBIENBAR AWS:
Median: 79.8
Total: 114
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201410/html/IDCJDW3017.201410.shtml

Bairnsdale
Median: 51.8
Total: 54.2
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW3004.latest.shtml

Orbost
Median: 53.1
Total: 41.8
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW3062.latest.shtml

Gelantipy
Median: 72.8
Total: 37.6
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW3031.latest.shtml

Point Hicks
Median: 69.8
Total: 59
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW3065.latest.shtml

Mount Nowa Nowa
Median: 76.2
Total: 67.6
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW3058.latest.shtml

Mallacoota
Median: 67.6
Total: 6.4
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW3046.latest.shtml

Omeo (median for Omeo came from "Omeo comparison" as stats don't appear available for that station)
Median: 68.3
Total: 57.2
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW3061.latest.shtml

In all, from those stations that's not a bad effort. They're mainly way east so maybe closer towards Melbourne might be different (though out of curiosity I just took a look at one station nearer to Melbourne, Mt Baw Baw, and it's also below median), but in all I think that suggests the outlook of a low chance of above median rainfall for that region was not too shabby at all.

As for the noaa map, I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't debating you about the veracity of their land and sea map. I was pointing out that you were comparing it to the wrong local data from BOM. I ignored any sea data you provided because I have no interest in doing the work for you by figuring out how NOAA integrate the land and sea data, you can do that for yourself if you're so concerned.

hey benski, I'd be interested in what happened in western vicco; a friend's grandparents have a farm west of the grampians and october was always the month they got their spring rain.

Rain is coming;)

This year it's drought , next year it'll be floods .... Welcome to Australia .
I've only been here 200 years this year , so maybe we should follow those that have for 2000-20'000 yrs before that . Rainbow Serpent anyone , strange how standing on high ground watching a rainbow from a passing/clearing rain as the swollen river below meanders , engulfs and swallows up all in its path ... We need to spend more time picking apart the obs rather than playing science experiment - mathematical model jockeys !?

So you never bother with the swell predictions then southey. They are mathematical models and while they get it wrong from time to time, taken with a bit of local knowledge, they are by far the best available guide. Feed in data from palaeo climates into existing models and they reproduce the known climate changes over the period. So if they say 5m of locked in sea level rise with a serious risk of 20m without immediate drastic reductions in emissions, yeh, I'll take that seriously.

"The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html

The ipcc still makes errors in observable data, the modelling must be a little questionable at least.

You can hardly blame the IPCC for not considering data unavailable at the time of the publication of their last report. If this turns out to be accurate it is good news but probably doesn't change the prediction of 5m locked in sea level rise since the bulk of it comes from the melting of glaciers in West Anarctica with some from mountain glaciers and more from the thermal expansion of water. I would be very surprised if any of those predictions were revised.

No I guess you can't blame the ipcc for using inaccurate data, everyone makes mistakes. The article acknowledges that it is neither good news or bad news but, "if the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for".

Gents, if the IPCC has made any sort of error, and that is ANY sort of error, then the climate change debate becomes seriously compromised.

Tim as far as ice and snow thicknesses in Antarctica everyone is using dubious data. There is no land based data and satellite altimetry is unreliable as the depth of snow absorbs radar. No doubt the IPCC are working on their time machine right now so they can get the data before it has been collected. The reality is that this latest study is just that, one study, whose findings may or not be supported by future work.
The real problem in Antarctica is not the amount of ice stored it is the melting of the floating ice sheets protecting the vast areas of ice resting below sea level. Once the ice sheet is gone it is hard to imagine how the basins containing that ice can be prevented from melting. The ice sheets in West Antarctica are gone that is why it is considered inevitable that the basin will melt. In East Antarctica the Wilkes Basin has only a small plug preventing it melting.....that would be an extra 3.5m of sea level there. The Aurora Basin which would contribute another 5.1m is also at great risk.

Ha ha ha that is hilarious tony. You should, perhaps just now and then, try actually thinking before you type.

I have a model that can accurately predict sea level rises into the future, I don't understand the drivers behind sea level rises...yeah sounds legit.

......as opposed to your position that small errors in the rate of accumulation of ice in Antarctica invalidate the huge amount of direct observational data showing the melting of the ice sheets and the penetration of sea water into the basins holding vast amounts of ice below sea water. That isn't a model mate. That is direct observation, but hey maybe all those scientists were hallucinating and all the satellite photos are forged maybe Larsen B is still friggin there but I don't think so. Go read something sometime, it is the best treatment for pure ignorance yet discovered.

Ummm yeah, where was it that I said all that? Go read some of my post bb apparently it's the best treatment for pure ignorance yet discovered.

Well, it seems that scientists are infallible - 'you can't blame the ipcc for using inaccurate data, everyone makes mistakes'. Back to the Future.

tim that was in response to Tony, but the main point is relevant to your position. The data about ice sheets is not a model or a mistake. It is direct observation. The floating ice sheets are gone in critical areas of West Antarctica it is undeniable. So unless we can work out to reverse the first law of thermodynamics those basins will melt. The only place the models come in is in trying to estimate how long that will take which is difficult as it is contingent on future emissions.

@bb Oh my apologies, fair point. Yep I agree with what your saying and I would make no assertions that the measurable data shows anything but sea level rising, ice melting and temperatures rising, the only reason I posted the article is to point out the difficulty in modelling such a system (something any scientist or systems analyst would agree with) as I've tried to argue before. People tend not to understand that these forecasts are not "locked in" so to speak, they represent the best attempts at predicting the outcomes based on current information and modelling techniques rather than the impression that the predictions are 100% statistically accurate.

Thanks Timf, appreciate your response and in fact agree with you. Not like some others in this vitriolic chat.

tony you are guilty of wilful ignorance on the basis of previous posts. Don't expect a polite response to it.

tonybarber wrote:

Well, it seems that scientists are infallible - 'you can't blame the ipcc for using inaccurate data, everyone makes mistakes'. Back to the Future.

While you are attacking scientists Tony, care to explain your position or faith on nuclear science/scientists?

I read a lot of the comments here. There's a lot of good points made both for and against.

Everyone needs to get over debating the science. It's not the way to look at this. Numpties debating scientific theory doesn't amount to hill of beans.

It's a risk management issue. The science says that it is possible, nay even probable, that we're in for a shiteload of trouble come future years, based on rather simple physically confirmed facts, more carbon in an atmosphere will lead to increased temperatures in a closed, non-complex system.

Our environment isn't a closed system, and is hugely complex.

The question is, do we risk it and leave our children with possibly unimaginable consequences, or do we pay a small price now to try to alleviate the likely damage?

It's not that farking hard. Stop whinging about your bills and how much extra the carbon tax cost you (abolition of the carbon tax has saved me about $50 so far, maybe).

Deal with it, take a little pain, and maybe leave the planet with sustainable energy sources for the rest of time.

Jaysus, try to think past next week.

Blindboy, your reliance on modelling is a little annoying, and undermines your point of view. Sea level rises is probably the best example of the greatest variance and range and doubt in the scientific community.

Stop arguing the science, it's a game of probabilities, not facts. Work out what you are willing to risk, and if you are willing to risk your children's, every child's, future, for the price of a couple of cups of coffee a week, then just come out and say that.

Did you bother to read the last few posts I made Batfink....you know the ones in which I pointed out that the 5m predicted sea level rise is based on observations not modelling, but you know we wouldn't want the science getting in the way of an ill informed opinion now would we?

Benksi, Thanks for putting that together....
I'll join this swinging soiree one more time...
Firstly, my main point was what was said, LIVE on National TV, to millions of people, by the Government, during a bushfire, lit by the governemnt;
" Emergency Management Commissioner Craig Lapsley ;
"The bureau's very clear in its forecast that October will remain dry. There is no rain today, tomorrow or over the NEXT FEW WEEKS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE"......

Your own selective stats show there WAS rain of SIGNIFICANCE.... 114mm, 67.6, 59 etc etc etc.... That would be considered "significant rain" in my eyes....
Now we could ad Dartmouth, which for October has median - 89.1mm, but got 132.3mm...... Hunters Hill - median 71.4mm, but got 144.8mm...... Corryong - median 76.4mm, but got 152.4mm..... MOUNT MOORNAPA - median 77.2mm, got 88.2mm.......Lakes Entrance median 53.2mm, got 80.2mm....... EDI UPPER median 63.6mm, got 149.4mm.....
All above median, with 2 sites over double!! I'd call that "significant"..... I call bullshit on Emergency Management Commissioner Craig Lapsley..... I believe BOM to be way off the mark for October, however they did not make the outrageous statement, Lapsly did.... And the rain event approaching for mid week will throw all of these crystal ball predictions re' November into complete chaos...... anyone with 1/2 a peanut could see that tropical/sub tropical stuff feeding in from the pacific, AND the rather intense semi permanent land low (heat low) doing its thing over in W.A......
El Nino is real.... La Nina is real...... El Nino generally means drier weather.... It generally means less coral Sea cyclones..... But it's not a "given"..... Many a gulf cyclone has formed during el nino years.... The gulf is always pretty warm, and 26' is an easy ask up there in summer..... And of course people have to take into account the Indian Ocean, which btw has played a major role in these current and soon to arrive SIGNIFICANT rains over the S.E corner...... But everyone can figure that out themselves......
Cheers,Benski.....

And well goodness ferkn gracious me..... Look at this wed' through to early friday, from Adelaide to Wilsons prom.... From Birdsville through to Sydney.......
http://www.metvuw.com/forecast/forecast.php?type=rain&region=swp&noofdays=8

This is why good swell forecasters like Ben and Craig, and hacks like me disregard any chart beyond 10 or so days, unless it's slapping me in the face like Ron Jeremy........
Anything beyond that is "off with the pixies".....

Anyone think that geo engineering is a good idea? Dumping aerosols in the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation?

Hey sheepdog, nice work. But I have to say I'm not interested in what a politician says about anything in these parts. Surely you'd do yourself a favour and ignore them.

I don't know where those sites you mentioned are (as I said I plucked stations from the most far eastern corner of the state) but for sure it looks like they got above median. But that's not unexpected because as you know the forecast was for a certain chance of above median rain. And it wasn't far west where that chance went up to 50%. That's an each way bet from the bureau so hard to say they got it wrong.

In any case, as you said the enso cycle causes generally drier/wetter conditions depending on when and where. That's what the bureau's forecast reflected, because they know that too and would be the basis for the forecast, and it was pretty reasonable. A bunch of stations came in under, some well under, and a bunch over, some well over.

Some politician putting their spin it is irrelevant and best ignored. And certainly doesn't diminish the work of the scientists.