Climate change

[stronic]

I certainly hope that people's passiveness or ignorance about climate change on these boards doesn't reflect Adelaide as a whole.

Bill Shorten vows to fight climate change deniers and conspiracy theorist
March 17, 2014
James Massola

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has lashed out at the conspiracy theorists, keyboard warriors and social media trolls who have hijacked the debate about man-made climate change.

There's an important difference between tackling the misinformation peddled by climate change deniers, and stooping to their level. And Mr Shorten has pledged to be a “disciple of science and innovation”, promising the Labor Party will encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurialism and warning “Australia can either get smarter or get poorer – we can choose to compete or give up”.

The Opposition Leader has been under sustained political pressure from the federal government to support the repeal of the carbon tax, but he has promised to vote against repeal if the alternative is the government's Direct Action policy.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z2wZnlpOmu

[Aidan]

I certainly hope that people's passiveness or ignorance about climate change on these boards doesn't reflect Adelaide as a whole.

There doesn't seem to be any sign that the people on these boards are more passive or ignorant about climate change than the general population. But I doubt much could be achieved by discussing it here.

[monotonehell]

The lack of scientific understanding, and outright rejection of knowledge by ignorance of some in the general population and some in politics is tiring. The Internet, even though almost anything is discoverable, is sadly full of people spouting disinformation.

All this is reflected in our current Federal Government who would rather make decisions based on blind, debunked, neo-liberal ideology than evidence based, rational thought.

[pushbutton]

Never one to fear thinking differently than what's popular, I will state my views on climate change here for what they're worth because it's something I find very interesting.

I'll start by openly admitting that I have not done my own empirical research on climate change. I therefore don't know all the facts.

Unfortunately, I suspect MOST people, like me, haven't done their own empirical research on climate change, and therefore also, like me, don't know all the facts.

When you are in the above situation, and if you don't intend to actually do your own empirical research, all you can do really is look at as many different sources of information as you can which, to the best of your knowledge, come from legitimate, unbiased people who have done their own empirical research and do not have a political agenda.

With all of the above in mind, I have read quite a bit of information from various websites I believe should contain accurate information. I have coupled this with viewing numerous documentaries which feature intelligent and well informed people, plus my own basic high school knowledge of science.

I believe this video presents the best (albeit very compressed) summary of the issue I have seen to date. The video is misleadingly titled "Climate change HOAX exposed by geologist straight to UK govt". That's misleading, because this guy certainly isn't saying the climate isn't changing. Anyway, take a look if you're interested in hearing a very well articulated opinion. I also suggest you might like to do as I did and note the main points contained in this video, then check them out from other sources to see if they're supported.

The information contained in it is backed up by numerous other sources I have seen as described above. But don't take my word for it (or anyone elses)!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8

[monotonehell]

...
I believe this video presents the best (albeit very compressed) summary of the issue I have seen to date. The video is misleadingly titled "Climate change HOAX exposed by geologist straight to UK govt". That's misleading, because this guy certainly isn't saying the climate isn't changing. Anyway, take a look if you're interested in hearing a very well articulated opinion. I also suggest you might like to do as I did and note the main points contained in this video, then check them out from other sources to see if they're supported.
...

You've been had mate. Go do some research on who Professor Ian Plimer is, what his interests are and what kind of company he keeps. Everything he's ever stated about climate change has been roundly refuted with evidence.

[Aidan]

Unfortunately Plimer is being very selective in his evidence. For instance it's true that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen faster than at present... but only during mass extinction events. And while plenty of CO2 is emitted from undersea volcanoes, their net contribution to oceanic and atmospheric CO2 is strongly negative as the other substances they emit (Such as iron, magnesium and calcium ions) result in carbonates being precipitated out.

He's also sought to avoid proper scrutiny. Famously a few years ago a debate was arranged between him and George Monbiot, A condition of the debate (from Monbiot) was that Plimer answer ten questions to clarify some of the claims he'd made. Plimer responded by setting ten "questions" for Monbiot - not clarifications of Monbiot's position, but rather a series of tasks resembling a university assignment! That debate never took place. They eventually debated on Lateline, but Plimer never answered those questions.

[pushbutton]

I wasn't aware of that.

I'm still inclined to think that the majority of what he says makes very good sense, and I've seen other sources which have backed it up.

It's also pretty self explanatory that CO2 is a harmless natural gas. Not just harmless but essential for life to exist! I learnt that in primary school science as I'm sure we all did.

Suffice to say that for lots of reasons I'm very sceptical of the message the mainstream media seems to be pushing on climate change. There are several good reasons for my scepticism. Maybe I'll go into them later.

[Will]

I wasn't aware of that.

I'm still inclined to think that the majority of what he says makes very good sense, and I've seen other sources which have backed it up.

It's also pretty self explanatory that CO2 is a harmless natural gas. Not just harmless but essential for life to exist! I learnt that in primary school science as I'm sure we all did.

Suffice to say that for lots of reasons I'm very sceptical of the message the mainstream media seems to be pushing on climate change. There are several good reasons for my scepticism. Maybe I'll go into them later.

The mainstream media is responsible for the significant proportion of the climate change scepticism. If you refrain from using the mainstream media or other questionable internet sources for your information, and instead focus on peer reviewed scientific journals, then I suggest you will reach the same conclusion that the vast majority of reputable scientists have, which is climate change is real, and it is caused by people.

No offence, but in your first post you recognised that you know very little about climate change. As a scientist myself, I am sick of this phenomenon in modern society whereby the work of experts, who have studied for years is questioned by people, who because they have spent 30 minutes on the internet think they are entitled to have an opinion as valid as that of an expert.

P.S. CO2 is a natural gas, but it isn't harmless. If you don't believe me, wrap a plastic bag around your head, or visit Venus!

[pushbutton]

All very interesting (and I mean that sincerely) but there are just a few key points I'd like to make about that.
1. CO2 is still essential for plants to live. That is a fact that I've never heard disputed.
2. Skepticism is a good thing in science. It's the only way we question things, and therefore explore and experiment, and move forward.
3. I'm not convinced that CO2 is the cause of climate change. It still makes much more sense to me that climate change is just a natural phenomenon. That was explained quite well in the video I posted. I've seen it explained much better in various other places over the last decade or so.

Anyway Will it is good to have an actual scientist on board to discuss this with, because I just don't think the general public (me included) has been given the right information to enable us to understand what the problem is, or even if there is one.

So if you wouldn't mind, could you please answer these questions for me. Then I could have a think about them and maybe go and look at each in more depth.
1. What percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans?
2. What proportion of current climate change is caused by CO2?
3. Is it true or false that we are currently in a shorter period of cooling, within a longer period of warming?
4. Over the current long warming cycle (assuming we're in one), how much can we realistically expect average global temperatures to rise in the next 50 years, or 100 years?

I think the answers to those 4 questions would give me a lot more clarity on what's actually going on. At the moment I'm inclined to go with Plimers answers as they're the best I've seen or heard to date. Obviously though, if someone or something gives me good reason to change my opinions on those things I will do so.

Again. None of that is meant disrespectfully. They're just my current understandings.

[Will]

All very interesting (and I mean that sincerely) but there are just a few key points I'd like to make about that.
1. CO2 is still essential for plants to live. That is a fact that I've never heard disputed.
2. Skepticism is a good thing in science. It's the only way we question things, and therefore explore and experiment, and move forward.
3. I'm not convinced that CO2 is the cause of climate change. It still makes much more sense to me that climate change is just a natural phenomenon. That was explained quite well in the video I posted. I've seen it explained much better in various other places over the last decade or so.

Anyway Will it is good to have an actual scientist on board to discuss this with, because I just don't think the general public (me included) has been given the right information to enable us to understand what the problem is, or even if there is one.

So if you wouldn't mind, could you please answer these questions for me. Then I could have a think about them and maybe go and look at each in more depth.
1. What percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans?
2. What proportion of current climate change is caused by CO2?
3. Is it true or false that we are currently in a shorter period of cooling, within a longer period of warming?
4. Over the current long warming cycle (assuming we're in one), how much can we realistically expect average global temperatures to rise in the next 50 years, or 100 years?

I think the answers to those 4 questions would give me a lot more clarity on what's actually going on. At the moment I'm inclined to go with Plimers answers as they're the best I've seen or heard to date. Obviously though, if someone or something gives me good reason to change my opinions on those things I will do so.

Again. None of that is meant disrespectfully. They're just my current understandings.

A website that I strongly recommend to people who challenge the accepted science is:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The internet is a dangerous place for people lacking a scientific education, as it can be very difficult determining what is a reputable website and what isn't. This website is recommended by many of my colleagues as it is based on the concept of forming its opinions based on peer-reviewed articles. It includes the most common objections that people raise about climate change. It should answer your questions.

[Aidan]

All very interesting (and I mean that sincerely) but there are just a few key points I'd like to make about that.
1. CO2 is still essential for plants to live. That is a fact that I've never heard disputed.

Who do you expect to dispute a fact that obvious?

However the related claim (from Plimer and others) that it therefore isn't a pollutant is a lie. Any substance, no matter how essential, is a pollutant when released in high enough concentrations to result in adverse environmental consequences.

2. Skepticism is a good thing in science. It's the only way we question things, and therefore explore and experiment, and move forward.

That depends what you mean by skepticism. A willingness to question things is essential in science, but questions result in answers. Most of the genuine climate skeptics are no longer regarded as such because the answers they came up with concurred with the mainstream scientific view. Those who are now regarded as climate skeptics tend to be evidence deniers.

3. I'm not convinced that CO2 is the cause of climate change. It still makes much more sense to me that climate change is just a natural phenomenon. That was explained quite well in the video I posted. I've seen it explained much better in various other places over the last decade or so.

Then I suggest you have a look at why those claims are rejected by nearly all climate scientists. Start with New Scientist's climate myths FAQ.

[pushbutton]

Thanks guys. Right now I'm very busy preparing for a holiday. But when I get back I will take a good look at those 2 sites to see what information they contain.

One thing I'm definitely not is an evidence denier. That would be just plain dumb! It would be like those people who claim there's no such thing as evolution, even though the evidence for that is very obvious for anyone to see!

Anyway, I'll be interested to take a look when I get back and see if it changes my mind about climate change.

[StephenJones]

I guess climate change is inevitable, we should be expecting stronger wrath from nature. If everyone should do their part to preserve the environment then the damages can be lessen.

[Vee]

Interesting read on rationale and initiatives to 'green up' the city of Madrid.
Given understanding about urban heat islands, climate change and increasing extremes eg temperature, heatwaves, drought, flood, pollution - Madrid's plan is sure to attract interest.

Elements of this plan, progress/evaluation could be of interest to local and state government planners and environment groups, given the relevance to Adelaide's climate, park lands belt and various local initiatives to go green.

In Madrid, pretty much unused space will soon be covered in plants.

The city is spending millions to expand existing parks, and as many roofs and walls will be covered with greenery as possible. Twenty-two vacant lots will be turned into urban gardens. Paved squares will become parks that can suck up rainfall.

As the city starts to ban cars from central streets, the Department of the Environment is considering turning some of those streets into linear, tree-filled parks, too.

Infiltration/runoff. Water capture, storage, use.

Though drought will be more common, the city can handle more plants. By redesigning paved areas to capture and store water instead of letting rain run off, the city can supply all of the gardens with as much water as they need.

Co-benefits:

Current research is showing that nature-based solutions like these proposed can result in multiple co-benefits for health, the economy, society and the environment...

Read more: Fast Co.exist
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3056166/madr ... eratures/1

[rev]

I guess climate change is inevitable, we should be expecting stronger wrath from nature. If everyone should do their part to preserve the environment then the damages can be lessen.

Are you going to ask Mother Nature to do her part in preserving the environment?