Climate change wankers

Gday Benski.....
Firstly, of course I don't believe it took till cop21 for the IPCC to "discover" sinks.... What I am saying, and I'm sure you and mk1 actually know, is that sinks have not been a top agenda issue... Emissions Emissions Emissions....

Now, re' COP21... Yes, a U.N meeting, but IPCC fully involved....
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop21/151126_Hoesung_SBSTA43.pdf

Re' carbon tax being more front and square with IPCC..... New Chair Hoesung Lee interview;

"On a carbon tax: “If you ask me to choose the most important work in climate change issues, then I’ll choose carbon price. That’s because it is the driver to put us into the right track.”

"Carbon Tax Convergence, as IMF and IPCC Chiefs Speak Out"

"Lagarde’s remarks came one day after another carbon tax proponent assumed the reins of the world’s most important climate body. Dr. Hoesung Lee, the new chair of the UN Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has stressed the the need to price the “externalities” of carbon pollution. In an interview last month (published yesterday), Lee explained:

[When] my action affects other persons’ welfare, but I do not pay for these disadvantages… those are externalities. Climate change is a typical example … [T]he way to correct the externality problem is to have a price on certain activities that cause those externalities … a carbon tax."
Lee ranks a carbon tax as his ― and now, perhaps, the IPCC’s ― highest priority:
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2015/10/08/carbon-tax-convergence-...

BTW, quite interesting stuff re' your last paragraph (algal blooms etc).....

SD, yes, but a carbon tax is also a key way to support carbon sequestration in forests And a mechanism for valuing forests/carbon capture. A carbon tax is a balancing mechanism between emissions and sequestration.

Sheepdog,
Those sound like comments from the ipcc scientist (ie a scientist expressing a personal opinion) not the position of the ipcc itself. An important distinction that I'm trying to make.

Interesting nonetheless although they aren't advocating a scheme of any kind, just a tax, to discourage emissions. And since the problem is the emission of CO2 from all sources, that would make sense. It would increase the cost of all emissions, including those that come from logging (which can be substantial from what I understand).

You know, I don't really know the mechanics of the carbon cycle but it would seem to me that if you wanted to use forests for sequestration of atmospheric CO2, the most effective way would be to use them to take the CO2 out of the cycle. Basically log a forest (once it's mature it's not sequestering any new carbon), then treat the logs chemically so they don't rot, and store them in a warehouse thereby removing that carbon from the carbon cycle and the atmosphere for ever. Replant that forest to begin sequestering new carbon and once it's grown, log and treat to store for ever. Basically just removing that carbon from the carbon cycle for good! That's the highest potential for using forests as a solution to climate change as far as I can tell. now that's a scheme!! Be careful what you wish for sheepdog, there's a buck to be made in the end point of what your arguing!! ;-)

mk1.. The major reason for deforestation is clearing for small holder agriculture/livestock, at 65%... A carbon tax would not address this.... People have to eat.... What is the worlds population now? China has just lifted it's one child policy right?

benski wrote:

Sheepdog,
Those sound like comments from the ipcc scientist (ie a scientist expressing a personal opinion) not the position of the ipcc itself. An important distinction that I'm trying to make.

Interesting nonetheless although they aren't advocating a scheme of any kind, just a tax, to discourage emissions. And since the problem is the emission of CO2 from all sources, that would make sense. It would increase the cost of all emissions, including those that come from logging (which can be substantial from what I understand).

You know, I don't really know the mechanics of the carbon cycle but it would seem to me that if you wanted to use forests for sequestration of atmospheric CO2, the most effective way would be to use them to take the CO2 out of the cycle. Basically log a forest (once it's mature it's not sequestering any new carbon), then treat the logs chemically so they don't rot, and store them in a warehouse thereby removing that carbon from the carbon cycle and the atmosphere for ever. Replant that forest to begin sequestering new carbon and once it's grown, log and treat to store for ever. Basically just removing that carbon from the carbon cycle for good! That's the highest potential for using forests as a solution to climate change as far as I can tell. now that's a scheme!! Be careful what you wish for sheepdog, there's a buck to be made in the end point of what your arguing!! ;-)

Well we're talking O2 production too mate...... Do you have any figures on the amount of O2 in the atmosphere now compared to say 100 years ago?

No idea mate but I was being facetious. Having said that though, so long as plants are photosynthesising, respiring and transpiring I'd say they'd be producing oxygen.

Oh and by the way, I think I'm too much of a literal thinker for your posts because I did genuinely think you believed the IPCC only just worked out the importance of carbon sinks (because you said it took them 27 years to discover it). Sometimes on swellnet a banter filled conversation will go on about something and I have no idea what's going on, absolutely no idea. Then others will pipe up with, "funny shit fellas" or something. I'm sitting there clueless about what was said. So yeah, if you write something apparently I'm too much of a monotonic scientist to get a joke unless it's really obvious!

Agriculture is inefficient because of the lack of a cost mechanism on the externalities. Also, a carbon tax creates the mechanism to fund the saving of forests by giving forests an alternative value to "future grazing land"

Benski - As I understand it an existing forest is a strong net carbon sink through the myriad of plants constantly striving and growing, not just the big trees being established. Hence why existing forests have a value in in a carbon priced world.

any reason we can't use those logs rather than warehouse them benski?

"On a carbon tax: “If you ask me to choose the most important work in climate change issues, then I’ll choose carbon price. That’s because it is the driver to put us into the right track.”

I actually agree with what your saying sheepdog re. hypocritical to impose taxes while cutting down brazilian bush etc. (sorry ccouldn't help myself), but I think in the quote above he's saying the most important DRIVER to put us on the RIGHT TRACK. he's not saying that's the be all and end all, just the best tool to change behaviour as it has wide ranging implications as MK 1 suggests. like I posted in that 'other' climate change thread, some wealthy Scandinavian countries are already sponsoring Brazilian forests, with a price incentive it would only increase.

but most importantly businesses are slow to change if we focussed on sinks, businesses and governments would do little. it's an overarching mechanism that encourages change everywhere needed

btw loved that reno rescue line

Sypo, In the old BB thread, I suggested countries, smaller less developed countries in particular, be paid via the world bank to stop ripping down forests.... Take "climate change" out of the equation, I'd still back this proposal (biodiversity /extinction rates etc)... A lot of us who tied ourselves to the daintree and go arrested by Sir Joh's goon squad were screaming that back then.... had nothing to do with climate change.. Everything to do with basic trashing of the planet...

Benski, If i wrote "discovered", then I'm wrong.. Just had a quick browse... Where did I write it? Yeah OK, Paris 2015 wasn't the IPCC, I get that... But they did chair it, right? They were involved? I simply pasted a quote from Paris 2015, where they "recognize and acknowledge the key role that resilient forests and landscapes play for both climate change"...... 2015...... should've been officially "recognized and acknowledged" a lot earlier than that, yeah?

BTW, o2 levels have been lowering for some time.....

Oh yeah, you write "Another example of science being "proven wrong" (i.e. refined) by more science. You can bet these results will be summarised and included in the next ipcc global assessment though"

But I thought the science was settled...... ;)

Sheepdog wrote:

Sypo, In the old BB thread, I suggested countries, smaller less developed countries in particular, be paid via the world bank to stop ripping down forests....

That's exactly the outcome a carbon tax is designed to achieve - you don't pay it if you don't pollute, but if you do pollute then the tax goes to acquire offsets (or you get your offsets directly from forestry, plantations, etc and avoid the taxation process). Putting a price on carbon also means paying those who store/sequester it.

.

"should've been officially "recognized and acknowledged" a lot earlier than that, yeah? "

Absolutely it should have. And it was recognised by the IPCC, starting all the way back in 1990, because scientists have been saying the same thing for years. It's the governments that represent us that have dragged the chain on forests as carbon sinks, despite what the IPCC has been telling them about how important they are. If the governments had listened to the IPCC from the start, they would indeed have been recognised and acknowledged a lot earlier.

No scientist ever said the science is settled (think it was a politician who said that wasn't it? Gore or someone?). Scientists might have said we know enough about some things to start acting in policy (like reducing emissions, planting trees etc), but that's about it.

You gotta separate these two groups mate! Scientists vs politicians, IPCC vs governments. They're not the same thing. One group does the work to tell everyone our best understanding of how the world works and the other group ignores them.

what mk1 said.

"I suggested countries, smaller less developed countries in particular, be paid via the world bank to stop ripping down forests...." That is exactly what a carbon trading scheme is, you old Wall-Street-backed global trader.

Sypkan, Maybe we could build the warehouses out of the wood? Or the buildings to house the loggers? Just need plenty of chemicals to stop the timber breaking down.

Climate change fixed.

Double post

Whew... What a relief.... I feel sooo much better about nuclear saving us from our impending doom now.............. Bahahahahahaha.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-08/clean-nuclear-energy-are-we-there-...

Doggo want a cracker?

Whoahh Turkey breath!!! What happened to your "immature memes" opinion? You're not one of these "one rule for turk and another for everyone else" type hypocrites are you?

Far be it from me to be pedantic, but I think you'll find that "daggy dad" was my preferred description of your meme-picture work, Doggo. And nicely illustrated by your latest effort above.

Also, I don't think mine's a meme-picture as such, mainly 'cos it's just a photo of Dog the Bounty Hunter and a bird. If I added the caption in the photo body, well? But I couldn't be arsed. Lazy? Yes! Hypocritical? Yeah, nah.

All of our comments are memes of a sort. Well, the ones that stick.

Anyway, I've got a feeling in my waters that you actually look like our ol' bounty hunter buddy here. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the memeries, Doggo.

Dog looks like Eddie Rothmans disco bound sibling.

He's even throwing the shaka, brah.

Has anyone ever seen Dog and Eddie in the same room ..... . .?

Fuck..... I wish I could grow that much hair!!! I honestly thought turk knows wellymon..... Put a tow in man cape on..... It's welly!!!!

BTW... I own a lorikeet..... :p

Greens MP accuses CSIRO Scientists of lying/cover up/excuses....... Don't worry, it's not about climate change..... So that's acceptable.....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/24/river-on-fire-in-gree...

Says to me that the CSIRO (or what's left of it) like to get some pretty good evidence before they stick their necks out. They're not all on Tim Flannery's payroll!

That's definitely the way forward though, to vote for the Coalition so that the CSIRO can be sponsored by mining companies and the like. Who do those commie CSIRO bastards think they are anyway?

Well , what ever way you want to look at it........ If the greens mp is right, then "scientists" can't be trusted..... If the CSIRO scientist is right, then here's a greens mp not accepting the science, accusing the CSIRO of a cover up....

How do you figure that scientists can't be trusted in this case? I think that guy Barrett from the CSIRO was pretty clear in what he was saying. You're right, if the facts are overwhelming the greens guy should pull his head in and stop grandstanding. Otherwise, how can you fault the guy for bringing attention to an issue?

The Coalition and others have "brought attention" to the possibility of AGW being a beat up and it's been shown that they have no case, no facts, nothing to show except vested interests and ideology.

Bottom ine is, the jury's back in regarding AGW, while no one's even been called for duty regarding the incident above.

Regardless if CSIRO is right or wrong . Drilling /fracking / mining should be stopped in the region until there is conclusive evidence , either way .
One thing acedemics are good at , is defending their nest .

True, you think that the precautionary principle would be used.

If you read the Guardian piece carefully the CSIRO spokesman does not deny the possibility that fracking has increased the gas flow but, given the long standing nature of the emissions and the local geology, he thinks it is unlikely.

Yeah, academics are keen to defend their nest. Likewise Greens are known to stretch credibility.
Given whats at stake, I would tend trust the CSIRO. I know that the NSW Chief Scientist is ok with CSG, providing it keeps within guidelines - http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/reports

"Greens are known to stretch credibility".

Those damn Greens, bringing the good name of politicians into disrepute!

Lucky Labor and the Libs are there to bring moderation to discussions.

tonybarber wrote:

Yeah, academics are keen to defend their nest. Likewise Greens are known to stretch credibility.
Given whats at stake, I would tend trust the CSIRO. I know that the NSW Chief Scientist is ok with CSG, providing it keeps within guidelines - http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/reports

Spoken by T Barber for The Minerals Council Australia, Canberra

Are you deliberately missing the point, Andy?

"Jeremy Buckingham says scientists ‘making excuses’ for CSG industry"............... Yes, Andy..... Insinuating the CSIRO are lying...... Ok for a green......

Blind boy...... What exactly are YOU saying? If you read the article carefully, you'll also notice :

"insisted it was “unlikely” that the gas seep was linked to fracking in the region",

"The presence of the industry there has not caused that crack to occur or that fault to occur, it’s been there for aeons,” Barrett told Guardian Australia. “The gas has probably been coming to the surface there for as long as people have been there."

"Barrett said evidence from the CSIRO’s study suggested it was “unlikely” the increased gas seepage was caused by the coal seam gas industry."

"“It’s not to rule it out completely, but we don’t see a direct connection, a direct relationship, between what’s happening on the gas fields up to this point in time and what’s happening in the river".

So... What's your point? Do you back the green attack on this scientist?

And ps - I hate CSG.

Sheepdog wrote:

And ps - I hate CSG.

The moratorium on any CSG continues in Vicco - apparently it has potential to harm good agricultural land and there seems to be bipartisan support to delay in CSG until the science is in.

Its good to know that at least in Vicco everything isn't up for sale to the highest bidder although we do have some rather poorly performing heavily polluting coal fired power plants that should be retired sooner than later.

I think you're trying really hard to make a big drama here Dog. If there's a cover up as you seem keen to find, well, shine some light there and let's see.
I expect you'd love to see the reputation of the CSIRO thrown into doubt to support your own beliefs on AGW.
What's your issue with a Green casting doubt on the CSIRO?
Because the anti-AGW mob tried it and failed? It was fine for them to try but the effort was totally transparent.
I would say that it's pretty reasonable for Buckingham to use some theatrics to draw attention to this, for better or for worse that's how the media works.
If he's wrong, let him eat humble pie, otherwise I see him as trying to do the right thing - don't you?

floyd wrote:

Sheepdog wrote:

And ps - I hate CSG.

The moratorium on any CSG continues in Vicco - apparently it has potential to harm good agricultural land and there seems to be bipartisan support to delay in CSG until the science is in.

Its good to know that at least in Vicco everything isn't up for sale to the highest bidder although we do have some rather poorly performing heavily polluting coal fired power plants that should be retired sooner than later.

But it's open slather offshore !
Out of sight out of mind .
The most contentious thing / word in that article SD , the scientists' use of the word " could " ... It's used twice there , to provide possible reasons why it isn't the CSG's fault .
The first instance with that other very scientific word , " probably " ..... I expect a lot more out of my tax dollars .
Hasn't that word been given some positions of strength in the scientific community of late . Strangely in this case it's been used in the " denialist " camp....... Move along nothing to see ......

Spider - from the other thread - records of coral bleaching in the late 1800s -

https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/southflorida/habitats/corals/diseases/

AndyM wrote:

I think you're trying really hard to make a big drama here Dog. If there's a cover up as you seem keen to find, well, shine some light there and let's see.
I expect you'd love to see the reputation of the CSIRO thrown into doubt to support your own beliefs on AGW.
What's your issue with a Green casting doubt on the CSIRO?
Because the anti-AGW mob tried it and failed? It was fine for them to try but the effort was totally transparent.
I would say that it's pretty reasonable for Buckingham to use some theatrics to draw attention to this, for better or for worse that's how the media works.
If he's wrong, let him eat humble pie, otherwise I see him as trying to do the right thing - don't you?

No, Andy....... A politician has accused a government scientific body of cover up.....

This same politician says "the science is settled", and on his media FB page attacks people for not believing science.... An absolute double standard..... The CSIRO have been running tests on this river for 4 years...... This green politician either accepts the CSIRO's independence on all things, or he doesn't on all things..... He can't have it both ways.... He can't say I trust the CSIRO on "this", but on "that they are lying, in bed with the miners"....... I for one do not accept the independence of the CSIRO across the board....

Sheepdog wrote:

AndyM wrote:

I think you're trying really hard to make a big drama here Dog. If there's a cover up as you seem keen to find, well, shine some light there and let's see.
I expect you'd love to see the reputation of the CSIRO thrown into doubt to support your own beliefs on AGW.
What's your issue with a Green casting doubt on the CSIRO?
Because the anti-AGW mob tried it and failed? It was fine for them to try but the effort was totally transparent.
I would say that it's pretty reasonable for Buckingham to use some theatrics to draw attention to this, for better or for worse that's how the media works.
If he's wrong, let him eat humble pie, otherwise I see him as trying to do the right thing - don't you?

No, Andy....... A politician has accused a government scientific body of cover up.....

This same politician says "the science is settled", and on his media FB page attacks people for not believing science.... An absolute double standard..... The CSIRO have been running tests on this river for 4 years...... This green politician either accepts the CSIRO's independence on all things, or he doesn't on all things..... He can't have it both ways.... He can't say I trust the CSIRO on "this", but on "that they are lying, in bed with the miners"....... I for one do not accept the independence of the CSIRO across the board....

sure he can have it both ways. politicians do it everyday. your smarter than to write that SD.

So Buckingham says that the global science is settled regarding AGW but he disputes CSIRO's local science regarding CSG and you see it as the ultimate in hypocrisy?

Dog, please...

Climate change wankers ?.....LOL.......sounds like Nick (who employs 15 people) may be a little bit biased.....Actualy climate change has nothing to do with masturbation....its all because humans like to fuck...and when they do this they have kids and then their kids have kids...this puts a huge strain on natural environments.....less trees = higher temperatures.....

How much of this weather manipulation occurs without Joe cornflake muncher even knowing? Is this manipulation taken into account re' BOM stats? How many extra MM fell around the catchments before the storm hit?...... People died....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-10/cloud-seeding-carried-out-over-tas...

Jeez, that's not good!

craig.... Cloud seeding on the sunday at great lakes tasmania - 30mm manipulated rainfall. Following day the storm hit with a further 100mm downpour;

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW7027.latest.shtml

I think the whole practice of cloud seeding needs more looking into....

Side note - those further east of the cloud seeding have been robbed the chance of potential "natural rain"..... If you ring dry the clouds over one area, there's nothing left down wind.... Now, let's say we privatise all dams.... They could make sure the rain falls into THEIR catchment, and farmers etc to the east miss out on having their personal dams and water tanks filled.... I suppose they could always purchase water from the private company....... Chaaaaaa chiiiiing.......

Try this one sheepish you may never fly again http://artificialclouds.com/

Try this one sheepish you may never fly again http://artificialclouds.com/

Dam in Sydney may need to be reinforced ( haha - maybe ) .

But where is Tim Flannery right now ?

He's watching the Barrier reef die !!!

Don't worry kids, the death of the reef may be greatly exaggerated .

I had SO MUCH respect for Tim Flannery.

Till about 1999.

PS . Before anyone starts replying about climate change means more weather events etc dribble etc dribble.

Note that Mr Flannery went well out of his way to tell the frightened public that -

"You don't know the half of it people !! Humans can only survive three days without water !!

And that's us .

Fucked.

As of maybe tomorrow ."

Dogshit.

Haha that's funny shit. Is it possible to make a call like that based on a 7 year trend? The Nepean below warragamba has flooded every year for the past last few years, this year was the biggest recently, washed out a bunch of AGL's csg wells.

Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2005:
“But since 1998 particularly, we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment – if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since ‘98, the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left, but something will need to change in order to see the catchment start accumulating water again…. So when the models start confirming what you’re observing on the ground, then there’s some fairly strong basis for believing that we’re understanding what’s causing these weather shifts and these rainfall declines, and they do seem to be of a permanent nature…”