Climate Change Protests

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
Well yeah. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. She is a kid who doesnt have the expertise nor the runs on the board to address leaders like that. Thats not how you win friends and influence people.

LOL... who loves Trump? All I see every day is Trump getting slammed on the news, facebook, twitter etc...
47% of people still love the trump, my guess is 90% of them hate climate change movement
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
The questions in my mind are:

- Have humans changed the global climate through emissions? How has this been tested given that it appears the global climate has changed for hundreds of thousands of years.
Climate change is something that has naturally happened ever since the world began. Around 150 years ago a scientists discovered the effects CO2 has on the atmosphere. Since then we've learned to test the effects through experiment in closed greenhouse environments so we can accurately predict the heating effect it has on the atmosphere, but there's some things we can't predict.

All in all we know with 100% certainty that humans have an effect on the climate. What we're unsure about is the amount of effect and long term impact. But we're not far off getting it right.

- If the climate is changing, what will the result be? Many people claimed we would run out of food but actually the opposite has happened (global poverty has never been lower), I also understand there have been fewer hurricanes/major storms in most parts of the world.
There's many effects. They range between minor tiny ones and huge effects. Food running out is a complex issue. We're unlikely to completely run out of food. It's more the effect it has on food. For example, greater droubts and increased storms make it difficult for plants and livestock to survive. A prime example of this was the droughts in Queensland that killed many cattle then the floods straight after that killed many more.

The main effect though is temperature rise. It's only a small rise (About 2 degrees in 100 years from now) but with any rise the summers create an exponential rise. Then there's the complexities which result in massive snow storms during winter (this is why it's no longer called global warming. Causes too much confusion)

On hurricanes and major storms, there haven't been less. There has been an increase but only a slight increase. Read this if you want to know more about the current effects and long term effects

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/


- Why have scientists consistently been wrong when it comes to forecasting temperature changes as a result of global emissions? Also, why does every forecast seemed to be biased towards warming instead of cooling - does this indicate that scientists are biased if they seem to all forecast incorrectly in one direction only?
Pretty much none of that is accurate, but there's a number of points to address.

Climate models are often wrong. But the question is how wrong they are. Most models have been accurate within an acceptable margain of error but it all depends on your margain of error. The main reason people think that the climate models are all wrong is because a group of scientists published research saying that every climate model has been off by almost 2 degrees. And these scientists actually work for the IPCC (as do thousands of other scientists). But there's a few problems with their research:

- 3 groups of scientists were provided with satellite data. From this each had to extrapolite and calculate temperatures using advanced equations. The first group (the one mentioned above) found that predictions were nearly 2 degrees off. The other two groups (using the same data) found that predictions were accurate

- While the above was based on mathematical calculcations from satellite read microwave radiation, all temperatures taken at ground and sea level in 6,400 sites around the world found that the other two groups were accurate and the first group was way off. That didn't stop every climate denier from saying that the first group was the only one with accurate measurements

- The first group has two leaders. One of the leaders is quoted saying, "Climate change can't be real because God wouldn't let it happen". Side note, the other group leader was elected to head of the EPA by Trump

On Bias:

Bias is impossible to avoid. The best scientists do everything they can to avoid bias (which is why we have triple blind studies) but they still end up letting some bias slip in. The only way to counter this is to include as much analysis as possible and as much research as possible. This is why the IPCC formed in the first place. And yes, the IPCC has climate deniers in there too because they need to have critique. They need to remain as unbiased as possible.

But bias goes a long way. We need to be cautious on both sides. A prime example of this is Michael Mann. Famous for the Mann Hockey Stick which showed the temperature spikes. While this hockey stick graph was in line with every other research on temperatures, Mann refused to reveal his data set. If you won't reveal where you got your data then your data is useless. On the other side we have to look at the research by those flagged as "Climate deniers". Every single scientist that doesn't support man influenced climate change is funded at least in part by fossil fuel companies. That's not an exaggeration either. That's also not a smoking gun. Whether their research supports climate denial because they're funded by fossil fuel companies, or whether they're funded because their research supports the interest of fossil fuel companies, it's just important to note the link there.

There is a lot of money for fossil fuel companies to lose, but there's also a lot of money for renewable companies to gain. So it's important to have complete transparency when it comes to this stuff. And it's important to at least attempt to be as unbiased as possible, even if true unbias is impossible.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Imagine if all the protesters helped clean up the streets and the Brisbane River.

Imagine if they lobbied their local councillor/s for more recycling bins and ashtrays.

Now that would be a real win for the local environment.
They generally do that. People who are willing to glue themselves to the road also happen to recycle everything (Which is kinda pointless but that's a much longer discussion), they participate in clean-up Australia and they hassle the council for every little thing.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
she ended it because I fucked up in the restaurant and ordered a large rump steak, should have ordered a salad ffs
I have to be honest. If it came down to a good steak or a woman, I'll take mine medium-rare.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
I should add a point on the whole bias thing just to display how complex this issue is.

Nuclear Energy.

You hear a lot about the scientific consensus on climate change, but what you don't often hear about is the scientific consensus on Nuclear Energy. And yes, there is a relative consensus. The majority of the scientific community support the use of nuclear energy to combat climate change. Sure there are some downsides, but generally it's the best form of consistent low-carbon energy available. But both sides don't support it. The climate deniers don't support it because it would make fossil fuels redundant in certain areas, and the climate alarmists don't support it because they've been told to fear it (Thanks to over dramatised shows like Chernobyl and other similar entertainment media) and told that renewables are the only solution without understanding the feasibility.

But when it comes to the scientific community. Yep, they generally support nuclear energy as the answer. It can't be used everywhere though, but places it can be used aren't allowed to use it thanks to governments blocking it.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
greater droughts
See this is where I struggle with this whole issue. I've read and listened to multiple sources saying that this it is incorrect to say that there have been more droughts due to climate change. One of the sources was a scientist from the BOM I believe but I need to find where I read / heard it.

**EDIT**

And as an example I read this:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

and it appears that the number of cyclones in Australia (at worst) have remained the same or possibly reduced?
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
See this is where I struggle with this whole issue. I've read and listened to multiple sources saying that this it is incorrect to say that there have been more droughts due to climate change. One of the sources was a scientist from the BOM I believe but I need to find where I read / heard it.

**EDIT**

And as an example I read this:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

and it appears that the number of cyclones in Australia (at worst) have remained the same or possibly reduced?
Yeah, that's nothing to do with climate change but important to note. Well, when I say "Nothing to do with climate change" I mean that it's influenced to a small degree by climate change but the cycles are important to focus on outside climate change.

The El Nino and La Nina cycles are the biggest influence on tropical cyclones, droughts and most weather patterns. Weather patterns including storms increase or decrease based on the cycle it's currently in.

But as the page you linked pointed out:

"There is substantial evidence from theory and model experiments that the large-scale environment in which tropical cyclones form and evolve is changing as a result of global warming. Projected changes in the number and intensity of tropical cyclones are subject to the sources of uncertainty inherent in climate change projections. There remains uncertainty in the future change in tropical cyclone frequency (the number of tropical cyclones in a given period) projected by climate models, with a general tendency for models to project fewer tropical cyclones in the Australia region in the future climate and a greater proportion of the high intensity storms (stronger wind speeds and heavier rainfall)"
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
There is many confusing things about climate change and earth science models but the important thing to focus on is that there are two climate major focus points:

1) Natural climate cycles. These range from small term cycles like El Nino and La Nina, and long term cycles like ice age patterns influenced by solar cycles. This also includes natural CO2 higher and lower levels

2) Climate disruption. This includes anything non-natural that affects patterns. This could be influences outside our planet (like a random solar flare) or more commonly, human influence. Humans disrupting the natural CO2 levels

It's important to note that humans are a minor influence and also a major influence. It's a little confusing but think of it like a dam. A dam has high and low levels. The dam is designed to handle natural cycles. At its low level it's not a problem. At its high level some water drips over the side but it's still not an issue. The levels range in the thousands of litres. At low it's 1,000,000 litres. At high it's 150,000,000 litres. The dam is designed to hold this 15,000 litres so it's not a problem. But humans come along and add 100,000 litres. It's only a small amount but when the damn is at its lowest it's now 1,100,000 litres. At its highest it's now 1,600,000. But the dam is only designed to take 1,500,000 litres so that extra 100,000 litres is going to overflow when the peak hits. That overflow is going to cause problems for the town below.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
To understand this further you need to understand how the climate and atmosphere works. If we just look at CO2, take away all CO2 and we would not survive. Plants need CO2 but more than that, it's one of the most important greenhouse gases. It absorbs IR radiation from the earth and emits it back down to the earth. Without CO2 the planet would quite literally freeze. We would all freeze to death. And that nearly happened around 2 million years ago. You often hear climate deniers say "it's only 400 parts per million, that's not much". Think of the opposite. Around 2 million years ago it dropped to around 180 parts per million. This was our pinacle ice age. If humans existed at that time we would be extinct now. Around half of the CO2 we have today and the earth was cold enough to kill almost every living creature on the planet. If it dropped any lower than that then life would not exist on Earth and humans never would have evolved.

Switch to Venus. This planet has the highest concentration of CO2. It's the 2nd planet from the sun and has an average temperature of 462 degrees celsius. Mercury is much closer to the sun but has an average temperature of 427 degrees celsius. Much lower than Venus. Fortunately we don't have to worry about that for 3 reasons:

1) Venus has no water. We could never get to that level without water

2) Venus is closer to the sun. We could never get that warm

3) CO2 concentrations on Venus are unrealistic on earth. In an utter worst case scenario we may reach similar levels (probably only around 400 degrees C) in about 10,000 years. It's more likely that we'll get to around 60 degrees C average in about 1,000 years and if we haven't adapted by then, then we'll all be dead. But it's likely that we will have adapted by then
 

Memberberries

Desball 4 life
Gilded
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
22,345
Reaction score
2,675
The Aral sea receeded purely due to human meddling.

They used two of the major rivers that flowed into the sea for irrigation.

That had nothing to with climate change but I'm sure with what was once the worlds 4th largest inland sea to the 168th largest, has to have some sort of impact on the climate?
 

086

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
332
See this is where I struggle with this whole issue. I've read and listened to multiple sources saying that this it is incorrect to say that there have been more droughts due to climate change. One of the sources was a scientist from the BOM I believe but I need to find where I read / heard it.

**EDIT**

And as an example I read this:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

and it appears that the number of cyclones in Australia (at worst) have remained the same or possibly reduced?
Kind of unrelated, yet lets not forget that BOM provides statistics off models and projections between stations, rather than actual measured facts like they used to!
Wonder why that is?
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,733
My 2 cents

Dawgfather as usual is full of shit and hypocritical. Lol it's a religion is it, it's not based on evidence huh? Fucking numpty

Hacky is right, while we emit only 1.4%, our exports contribute to 30% of the world's emissions

India is blamed as a big polluter but they've already set targets at minimizing coal use and going with renewables (so either way our exports to India are fucked)

China is also starting to install renewables

Renewables are already reaching cheaper operational costs than coal scales

I still haven't got my $500 back that tony Abbott promised when scrubbing the "carbon tax"

Our power companies are refusing to build new coal stations as they see it as a dud investment. Even with extra government subsidies the power companies don't want a bar of it

No Australian bank will loan adani any money because they see it as a shit investment and are afraid of public backlash


Privatisation of many states power has led to an increase in prices and the same idiots who complain about higher power prices are the same idiots who vote for the party whose ideology is to sell off every public asset

And lastly I trust all those who hate protesters went to work on Monday (Labour day). A day that represents our unions PROTESTING and winning worker rights.
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,077
If these pests create any disruptions on the train network today (like they said they would) I'm going to go full-retard on the first one of these Karmichaels that I see!
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,077
And lastly I trust all those who hate protesters went to work on Monday (Labour day). A day that represents our unions PROTESTING and winning worker rights.
Well I couldn't go to work. It was a mandatory day off (which meant the building was closed and locked down with no way in). Ironically, the protests that were happening were right down stairs in front of my building here in the CBD.
 
Top