Worrying Aspects of Climate Change
By Keith Antonysen
There is one thing that those sceptical of human caused climate change get right, they say the climate has always changed. Except, that is not the end of the matter; the irony being for sceptics that greenhouse gases have been the reason for climate changing in the past. Please view the hyperlinks.
Climate Scientist Scott Denning provides some very worrying comments about the wild fires in Colorado. In relation to the last Ice Age he wrote: “… 18,000 years ago, the world warmed about 5 degrees Celsius (10 F) over 10,000 years. That’s a rate of 0.1 degree per century.”
An increase in temperature to 1.5C above the pre-Industrial period may occur by 2030. Scientists from Exxon postulated from the data they had nearly four decades ago that global warming could increase by 1.5C. As displayed by the Complaint, the amount of CO2 and temperature increase were quite accurately posited by the Exxon scientists as displayed by the Figure 3 graph.
Apart from setting temperature records in September 2020, other very profound costs have been incurred for the month and also the year. Some extreme events have cost billions of dollars’ worth of damage each, destroyed homes and businesses, infra-structure destroyed, bio-diversity destroyed and human lives lost.
Yet, our Australian politicians in the main take no notice and prescribe more policies which amplify climate change.
Keith Antonysen has been researching climate change for decades. Apart from reading about climate science, Keith also views pseudo-science presented by contrarians. It seems that the material referenced by contrarians is continually recycled.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
6 comments
Login here Register here-
John Boyd
-
guest
-
Joseph Carli
-
Keith
-
Andrew Smith
-
wam
Return to home pageThis situation has been building up for a long time. Not only did Exxon hide the information, they lobbied the US government to downplay the danger, in particular through theirs and others efforts to persuade the first Bush administration to stop referring to ‘global warming’ but instead talk only of ‘climate change’ because it would be much easier to confuse people about its significance. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange .
Another problem is that the IPCC is basically very conservative in its reports, largely because it has to achieve effective ‘sign off’ from the thousands of scientists around the world who contribute to the report, as well as the 40 plus governments who support its work.
there have always been views from individual scientists and organisations suggesting that the situation might deteriorate faster than the IPCC report suggests, and basically each report has moved in that direction.
So, we have moved from a target of limiting global warming to 1.5 C degrees this century, to expecting to reach 1.5 C degrees this decade.
In this case, the widely accepted target of zero net CO2 emissions by 2050 just will not be enough to avoid a global catastrophe.
The writing from Exxon scientists forty years ago is most revealing. What happened? Denial. Fudge and muddle.
Find a sceptic/denier and follow the money as suggested in the AIMN post about the faces of shock jocks back in 2015. Big money will pay anything to protect vested interests.
Lists of climate myths are widely available.
The Murdoch media peddles sceptic/denier propaganda all the time, even if it has been debunked numerous times. Recent examples include the claim Flannery said it would never rain again in Perth, which he did not say; the Climategate emails which were not about deliberately falsifying science but were discussing something not yet clarified; the correcting of unlikely temperatures from the past, the correcting of which has not changed the reality of climate change.
Then there is the lack of a coherent sceptic/denier science of climate change. The IPA, for example, has published, for example, “Climate Change:The Facts 2017” edited by Jennifer Marohasy, who says in an introduction that the collection of 20 essays has many contradictions, but she hopes that one day these contradictions will be reconciled.
How having Ian Plimer saying carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate can be “reconciled with Bob Carter’s statement that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas, is not imaginable.
And the Coalition claim about the usefulness of natural gas (methane) for energy production is the way to go, when the extraction, production, transport and burning of methane induces climate change, has limited usefulness.
The burning of methane in itself produces carbon dioxide!
How long do they think they can cook with gas without cooking the planet?
Going by historical example, when a mega empire starts to unravel with greed and corruption driving the “business model”, it becomes a juggernaut too cumbersome to turn around, so on that basis, we have to concede that Trump is most likely to get up in the USA elections…it seems to be the way things go when decline is happening that because along with the elected leader, the citizen body that elected them is also corrupt and greedy so that in effect the voters elect those who most benefit themselves in a financial manner…
“. . . The Julian House (of Rome) soon taught men in a terrible form how far it was possible to hold fire and water in the same vessel.” Mommsen ; History of Rome.
The only way that things may change is that humanity suffers a climate change disaster so terrible, so unmistakeable, that panic brings a sense of reason to the fore and desperate action is taken all over the world…but considering these catastrophic fires, drought, and a pandemic virus on top of all that…one has to start to wonder if there is any hope at all.
Professor Michael Mann has stated that the election of Trump could mean it is ” game over” for climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/17/for-australias-sake-i-hope-trumps-climate-science-denialism-loses
What is happening in the East Siberian Sea through huge amounts of methane being voided provides more concern.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/09/truly-terrifying-scientists-studying-underwater-permafrost-thaw-find-area-arctic?fbclid=IwAR3_ksmgne2_Tu37gGarjtNdttuFNDnE_r2Eo9rptduX68SwyLklni8XWcA
Joseph, should events become so catastrophic that even the sceptics notice climate change, it will have reached a stage where it has become irreversible.
Nearly every week there are examples of what is going wrong through climate change, policy makers doing nothing are involved in perpetrating crimes against humanity.
No coincidence that the majority share holding family in Exxon Mobil, supported ZPG Zero Population Growth via Rockefeller Bros. in early ’70s, plus Ford and Carnegie Foundations, to blame ‘immigrants’ and ‘population growth’ for environmental degradation; deflecting and precluding any policy, legislation and regulators to decrease fossil fuel use (still the case in Australia used by MPs and citizens to avoid any constraints on their own activity and of fossil fuel sector).
Apparently Exxon Mobil are planning an increase in production of plastics to offset decline in fossil fuels for energy, transport etc., due to fossil fuels being replaced by renewable energy sources.
well I never thought I would read that a fact that depends on the average of event changes at each event. How about kay??
My other premise was if it took billions of years to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and man returns it to the atmosphere some 10 million times faster the balance would inevitably be destroyed.
The words ‘climate change’ may be effective in time.
However greenhouse gasses have the greenhouse effect and that is easier to comprehend.
Thanks, keith