About climate change …

Written By: - Date published: 1:11 pm, November 3rd, 2014 - 162 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, greens, john key, national, national/act government - Tags:

IPCCThe IPCC has released further findings on the extent of climate change and has set out clearly what is required to minimise the damage.

From Radio New Zealand:

The world’s top scientists have given their clearest warning yet of the severe and irreversible effects of climate change unless emissions of greenhouse gases are virtually eliminated by the end of the century.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released a major summary of its last three reports.

The IPCC report said emissions of three key greenhouse gases were at their highest in more than 800,000 years – the recent increases being mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels.

It said earth is now on a trajectory for at least 4 degrees Celcius warming by 2100 over pre-industrial times – a recipe for worsening drought, flood, rising seas and species extinctions.

Most of the world’s electricity can, and must, be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050 of the world faces “severe, pervasive and irreversible” damage, it said.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said science had spoken. “There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.”‘

“There is a myth that climate action will cost heavily,” said Mr Ban, “but inaction will cost much more.”

The findings contained in the executive summary for the report are chilling.  It reinforces findings from previous studies.  It is clear that the climate is changing and that this is due to the emission of greenhouse gasses, in particular carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.  The report concludes that the emission of these gasses are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.  This is defined as there being a 95%+ likelihood that the emission of GHGs are the dominant cause of observed warming.

The panel has come up with some clear goals:

  • 80% plus of power generation to come from renewable energy sources by 2050.
  • The phasing out of petroleum burning.
  • The development of carbon capture and storage.
  • The halting of deforestation and the reforestation of previously deforested areas.

Clearly strong political leadership will be required if we are to get even close to addressing the rate of change.  THe current goal is to minimise an increase in global warming to 2%.  If humanity does not achieve this it is in for a very rocky road.  And we are all in this together, every country needs to step up and lead and do their bit.

On Morning Report this morning John Key chose to spend his time talking about ISIS.  On the scale of things Climate Change presents a far greater threat to New Zealand than the threat posed by any terrorist group.

The Government has taken a typical head in the sand approach to the issue.  Tim Groser is reported by Radio New Zealand to have said the following:

“There are certainly some large companies like New Zealand Steel, Tiwai Point, that have real competitiveness issues that if you unleashed Green Party views on them they’d probably go out of business.

“Equally one remembers the massive carbon tax they were going to put on dairy farmers and then we saw a 40 percent fall in the dairy price.”

Mr Groser said New Zealand was taking a balanced approach to climate change – playing its part while avoiding imposing excessive costs on households and businesses.

Get that?  Groser believes that the recent fall in milk prices was due to Green Party policy, not international market forces.  The only word for this statement is delusional.

And the claim that there is this wonderful nirvana of balance between doing something about climate change and wanting to minimise costs of households and businesses is irrational.  As Lord Stern has said repeatedly if we do nothing about climate change then the cost of environmental devastation will dwarf the current costs of actually doing something meaningful.  As stated in the article we know what we need to do. We have known it for years. What is stopping us?

162 comments on “About climate change … ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    3 November 2014 at 1:19 pm

    What is stopping us? Or who?

    • Tracey 1.1
      3 November 2014 at 1:26 pm

      i dont think the polluters and their political allies have worked out how to make billions out of climate change…

      rio tinto had to the bailed out with 30m by taxpayers… nothing to do with the green party. iow, its already failing.

    • weka 1.2
      3 November 2014 at 1:50 pm

      “What is stopping us? Or who?”

      We’re well passed being able to rely on the people in power*. What’s stopping us is that people think this is the govt’s responsibility, as if nature gives a flying fuck about governments. The populace is refusing to wake up and take the actions necessary.

      *IPPC in 1990? People were talking about climate change in the 1970s.

      • boggis the cat 1.2.1
        3 November 2014 at 2:35 pm

        1970s? Try the 1950s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY

        We have known about climate change since the late nineteenth century, and have been fairly certain that our activities must be having an effect since the 1950s when the US Air Force directed a lot of money into atmospheric research. The link above shows a TV programme from 1958 where they warn about catastrophic global warming.

      • Colin 1.2.2
        3 November 2014 at 4:28 pm

        Yeah, except in the 70’s the next ‘ice age’ was the climate change scare of the time after a couple of exceptionally brutal Northern Hemisphere winters. The brutal winters stopped, and gradually the scare changed to warming – 40 years later, wow, EVERY prediction they’ve made about sea level rises, runaway warming, millions of climate refugees and on and freaking on has come to pass, right? The cartoon that accompanies this article is almost right on the money – the reason nothing is being done is ’cause these guys have yet to show they are right. They’ve cried wolf so often for so long that all the panic! alarm! disaster! we must act now! stories have become white noise

        • weka 1.2.2.1
          3 November 2014 at 5:02 pm

          Colin, meet Lynn 🙂

        • adam 1.2.2.2
          3 November 2014 at 5:28 pm

          Colin I’d like so sources for you assertions, just 100 would be good. Then will talk OK. Really, and If my reading of this issue is correct, and I’ve been reading on global warming since the early 90’s – the scientist have got it wrong – they constantly under predict the impact. Please Colin don’t confuse, media sensation with the real science. If you don’t believe me look up ocean acidification, the first 10 pages or so on google are propaganda pieces from the corporations desperate to make this a non-issue. Then around page 11 or 12 you will start to find the science, ask yourself this – what happens when plankton and squid die off?

        • NickS 1.2.2.3
          3 November 2014 at 5:38 pm

          🙄

          Funny, I could have sworn every review of the ice age claims points towards it being a media over reaction to some climate papers rather than a prediction that had support from a majority of climate researchers.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
          http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

          But hey, why use your brain when you can be an ignorant fuckwit and spew pseudohistory instead? Now, how about you piss off completely and go educate yourself? Otherwise I’m going to have so much fun using you as a scratching post.

          • Colin 1.2.2.3.1
            4 November 2014 at 8:34 am

            Lol, you actually referenced the clowns at Skeptical Science? Cook and Nuccitelli are the biggest fraudsters in all of climate science (and that is really saying something)..that you drink their kool-aid tells me all I need to know about you. Impervious to logic and pesky things like facts, will resort to name calling (demonstrated) and straw man arguments, or, like your heros, just flat out make shit up.

            But I’l try anyhow. Simple challenge: Show me 1 square inch of NZ that is being affected by man made C02 emissions – unprecidented, unnatural weather completely out of sync with what would reasonably be expected to occur within the bounds of natural variability. Pretty easy, right,even for an SS trooper?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.2.3.1.1
              4 November 2014 at 10:04 am

              🙄

              You’ve just had your face rubbed in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, which destroyed your lies about what people thought in the 1970s.

              No-one owes you a damn thing after that embarrassing display.

              unprecidented, unnatural weather completely out of sync with what would reasonably be expected to occur within the bounds of natural variability.

              I do love your shiny goalposts, specially designed by you to be slightly smaller than the size of the average soccer ball.

              Not unprecedented retreating glaciers then?

            • NickS 1.2.2.3.1.2
              4 November 2014 at 12:58 pm

              Ahahahahahahahahaha….

              Easy – in the last 23 years (from age 6) I’ve witnessed in Christchurch a drop in total frost days, earlier and earlier spring flowering, winter flowering of plants that should be dormant and emergence of insects like bumble bees far earlier. While the growing zones for various plant cultivares, natives and pest flora have also shifted southward and upward.

              From NIWA: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-set-feel-heat-climate-change-scientists-5592404
              http://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/sites/nzclimatechangecentre.org/files/images/research/Climate%20Change%20Adaptation%20in%20New%20Zealand%20%28NZCCC%29%20high%206.pdf

              Most of these indicators are also noted globally, per the IPCC reports and source literature, this of course assumes you can actually use peer reviewed literature and can grok basic climate science. Which judging by your last two posts I’d say that’s a big fat “no”.

              …just flat out make shit up.

              lolwat? Usually when you say stuff like that you actually need to provide evidence, like say disproving the peer reviewed paper in the 3rd link. Also, sceptical science sources all their articles straight from the literature, so you’d actually need to show how they’re misusing the literature. Like say showing clearly they’re citing a paper, but said paper has completely different contents.

              Mind you, that would involve you actually reading and thinking, a truly troublesome thing for one such as yourself. Especially as you can’t even do ye olde basic cut-n-pasting of links…

              And bonus question – please kindly show how the flaming fuck carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. Should be easy right?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 November 2014 at 1:05 pm

                The Oxygens hold hands, thus maintaining a perfectly neutral charge across the whole molecule.

                Oxygen atoms have hands, right?

              • Colin …
                4 November 2014 at 2:30 pm

                OK, for starters in 2013 Cook & Nuccitelli tried to link climate change deniers with those who beleive the Apollo moon landings were faked (and other conspiracy theories) in a paper where they fudged the statistics and let those who were supposed to be adminstering the survey submit multiple entries themselves, all answered “correctly” of course. Look it up – the Benestad paper, supposedly reinforcing the 97% consensus, but even their ‘pal review’ system buddies wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot bargepole because the flaws in its methods and ethics were so glaringly obvious:

                “The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics

                “Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD. While I think as an ESDD publication at least a discussion was had and the existence of the R routines has been brought to the attention of the various interested communities, the manuscript itself is not a good fit for this journal and would need substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal”

                There’s one example of their ‘making shit up’- and there are PLENTY more

                I never said C02 isn’t a greenhouse gas; but in the last 100 years its proportion in our atmosphere has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% – by a whopping 1/100th of a percent of the total, and the biggest proportion of that increase is from natural sources! In a system as complex and dynamic as Earth’s climate, it is just not plausible that an increase in a gas that makes up a miniscule proportion of the atmosphere is somehow the control knob for the whole system, especially when evidence exists that other factors MUST be in play. The oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and the planet has been significantly warmer in the past ( Medieval Warm Period) with NO man made CO2 emissions, so what, all the natural variations have just stopped in the last few decades and now only CO2 affects what happens? Yeah, right.

                And the IPCC now only want 0.04% of the world’s GDP to ‘control’ climate change – a few hundred billion dollars a year to help bring back a few more frosty mornings to Christchurch would be money well spent. But it’s not about the money for the “good guys” in this debate is it? Their motives are all as pure as the driven snow…..

                • RedLogixFormes …
                  4 November 2014 at 2:38 pm

                  by a whopping 1/100th of a percent of the total

                  Here drink this glass of water. The NaCN content is only a tiny 1/100 of a percent of the total. Must be totally safe.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  4 November 2014 at 2:39 pm

                  It’s sad, isn’t it, to see this queue of table-thumpers all repeating one another’s ignorance to one another.

                  This one even cites the MWP as though it was a global phenomenon, clearly has no understanding of Fourier, let alone Arrhenius, then wants their “I reckon” to be taken seriously.

                  As for the atmospheric carbon isotope ratio, just forget it: I can’t be bothered explaining what a ratio is, let alone an isotope.

                  PS: The oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.

                  Hey Colin, how the fuck would you know what the heat capacity of the oceans is, dimwit: ask NIWA? Cherry picking moran.

                  • lprent …
                    4 November 2014 at 4:09 pm

                    PS: The oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.

                    Ah no. Water is about 5-10x for the same volume depending on its temperature and density. However it is also heavily differentiated based on temperature. It looks like we are barely managing to seriously heat the upper portions of the oceans before it gets released back into the atmosphere through the decade level turnovers.

                    Surprisingly for the scientifically ignorant like you, warm water is less dense than cold water and tends to stick to the upper part of part of any water surface unless thoroughly mixed. So the actual volume that heat can penerate into is quite limited. Heat stored there will tend to release in decades.

                    However CO2 is getting stored in cold water currents esp at the poles. It will keep pulsing into the atmosphere for centuries as those currents move water to the tropics and release the CO2 there. Talk about crapping on descendants.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2014 at 4:23 pm

                      It stands to reason that the people who measure ocean heat content are in on the conspiracy.

                    • Colin …
                      5 November 2014 at 6:24 am

                      How would you know anything? You don’t even spell moron correctly, moron!

                    • Colin …
                      5 November 2014 at 6:30 am

                      Uh, really? “5-10X for the same volume”? So the volume of the atmosphere and the hydrosphere are exactly the same? Sigh. And you call me scientifically illiterate.

                      From wiki: mass of atmosphere 5×10 (18) kg
                      mass of hydrosphere 1.4 x 10(21)kg

                      Pretty close, right?

                      Ultimately you’re not gonna change my views, I’m not gonna change yours, no matter what. That’s what’s happened to the debate on climate science; its all politics now, science and facts don’t matter a damn.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2014 at 6:31 am

                      😆

                      Get a brain.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2014 at 6:33 am

                      “My views”.

                      They aren’t yours – like tongue sandwiches, they’ve been in someone else’s mouth.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 November 2014 at 6:45 am

                      I note Wiki’s figure for the mass of the atmosphere comes from the American National Center for Atmospheric Research. They have some…interesting… other things to say about the atmosphere.

                      Like I said, cherry picker.

                    • RedLogixFormes …
                      5 November 2014 at 8:44 am

                      Ultimately you’re not gonna change my views, I’m not gonna change yours, no matter what.

                      And there is your problem right there. This is not about ‘views’ or ‘opinions’. This is about science, and the scientific method – which is the complete opposite of an opinion.

                      All that matters here is – do you understand the science.

                      From wiki: mass of atmosphere 5×10 (18) kg
                      mass of hydrosphere 1.4 x 10(21)kg

                      Pretty close, right?

                      Not even faintly. And you haven’t even accounted for the difference in specific heat capacity which for air is 1005J/kg/degK and seawater which is 3993J/kg/degK.

                      Calculate it correctly and the total static thermal capacity of the ocean is about 1200 times that of the atmosphere. But the oceans are not a great big static bathtub of water that is evenly heated from the top down. It’s a hugely dynamic system with many interacting parts. What really matters is how it behaves dynamically.

                      This picture is dominated by the Great Ocean Conveyor belts – but while part of them do travel at great depths – remarkably they do no mix much with the relatively static waters about them. Actually measured this for myself – know what I’m talking about. These things move massive amounts of energy and dissolved CO2 around on a decadal time scale.

                      In addition there is another quite complex story around the skin layers of the ocean and how they interact with the terrestrial back radiation from the atmosphere. And that’s only touching parts of the story.

                      But ultimately it’s only the top 10-30m or so of ocean that interact with the atmosphere and influence what we call weather on a daily basis. What we do know is that the instrument records of surface temperatures have shown a relentless rise since the 1950’s.

                      Yes the oceans complicate the climate story a great deal – but that only makes the uncertainties greater not less. No-one can rationally claim that this makes the extra warming due to CO2 go away.

                  • RedLogixFormes …
                    4 November 2014 at 4:37 pm

                    I spent some three months in the Southern Ocean back in the late 70’s working for a team who were the first to map and understand that part of the Great Ocean Conveyor Current. Indeed I think it was some later before all the pieces of the puzzle were tracked and put together.

                    I very clearly recall how precisely we could measure and map the thing. And how cold the Southern Ocean is when a big solid blue wave rides over you for the third time that shift.

                    • Colin …
                      5 November 2014 at 10:32 am

                      “But the oceans are not a great big static bathtub of water that is evenly heated from the top down. It’s a hugely dynamic system with many interacting parts. What really matters is how it behaves dynamically” And the atmosphere is just a big static container of air, evenly heated from the bottom up, no dynamics there at all?

                      “But ultimately it’s only the top 10-30m or so of ocean that interact with the atmosphere and influence what we call weather” Fascinating, so El Nino/La Nina events only involve the top 30m of the ocean, nothing whatsover to do with deeper currents and ocean circulation? Better let the researchers know they’ve been completely on the wrong track for decades now huh?

                      “What we do know is that the instrument records of surface temperatures have shown a relentless rise since the 1950’s” Really? Which one(s) exactly? The RSS satellite data set,has had a trend of ZERO for the best part of 20 years: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
                      Others, like GISS,NCDC,HadCRUT show warming rates of +/- 1C per century; how exactly do you pick the ‘signal’ of AGW out of that when that level of temperature increase over century timescales could be expected to occur naturally?

                      Models, on the other hand show, as they always have and always will, absolutely catastrophic warming rates of between 2-4C that have never happened and never will.

                      But hey, we can all find data and papers and websites that provide “evidence’ to back up our opinions, right? I can go to WUWT or Jo Nova, and you’ll pour scorn, and you’ll go to SS, or RealClimate and I’ll do the same – and point out the Alexa web traffic ratings for those sites while I’m at it 😉

                      Fact is now, if you’re on the left of the political spectrum there is a very high correlation with you believing in AGW; if you are on the right there’s a very high correlation with not believing. Some folks want to/need to believe that our CO2 emissions are catastrophic, some folks want to/need to believe they make next to no difference. Very few people are going to change their views on the science regardless of the evidence presented to them because their views on AGW are now tangled up in their political/worldviews – evil corporations and governments polluting the world, exploiting Earth’s finite resources and destroying our children’s futures vs eco-fascists/anti-capitilist socialists determined to tax and regulate businesses to death and set up the UN/IPCC as a supra-global government using AGW as the pretense.

                      I genuinely do not believe our CO2 emissions are causing anything but the barest fraction of global warming/climate change/climate disruption that occurs naturally, and I’m sure you all genuinely believe they are a major contributor to it. We can name call and play you’re wrong I’m right all day, but we’ll get nowhere, right? I’d have a better chance of getting you to pay funds to support Cam Slater, and you’d have a better chance of getting me to support Nicky Hagar – there’s that left/right thing again….

                    • RedLogixFormes …
                      5 November 2014 at 12:11 pm

                      Fascinating, so El Nino/La Nina events only involve the top 30m of the ocean, nothing whatsover to do with deeper currents and ocean circulation?

                      An intentionally dishonest and selective quote. I was was very careful to include the time scale I had in mind – “on a daily basis” – but you deliberately left that off in order to construct a stupid, wrong and idiotic strawman.

                      Your own comment demonstrates you as a lying shit bag not worth wasting my spit on and that nothing you say or link to can have any credibility whatsoever. I’m not going to waste effort responding to the rest of your batshit delusions.

                      Fuck off Colin. Do not reply to any comment I make here or anywhere else.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  4 November 2014 at 3:07 pm

                  When you quote something, link to the source. Considering your denial of reality we can only assume that your source is a denialist website that caters to people who are as stupid as you are.

                • NickS …
                  4 November 2014 at 3:38 pm

                  Cut n Pasting links, hard it is not T_T But too hard for you it seems, seriously, ffs, learn2google, even in sleep deprived, depression fugged state I can do it with ease. So why the fuck can’t you?

                  Anyhow, 20K bike ride tiem, as nothing you’ve said is either new or difficult to refute, as it’s PRATT’s all the fucking way down. And without a single simple html link, leading unto fun tracking and nailing every brainless, counterfactual down.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  4 November 2014 at 4:13 pm

                  I never said C02 isn’t a greenhouse gas; but in the last 100 years its proportion in our atmosphere has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% – by a whopping 1/100th of a percent of the total,

                  .03 to 0.04 is a 1/3 increase. It’s the difference between putting 30 PSI in your car tyre and 40 PSI. More than enough to make a big difference.

                • lprent …
                  4 November 2014 at 4:17 pm

                  … the biggest proportion of that increase is from natural sources!

                  I’d point to the C14/C13/C12 isotope ratios and call you a scientific idiot. But then I’d have to spend too much time typing to explain basic geochemistry and simple maths. I don’t think that you are capable of doing more than pasting stuff off the net. So far you haven’t shown any ability to use your brain.

                  You certainly lack the basics of a science that even high school kids have these days.

        • Manfred 1.2.2.4
          4 November 2014 at 10:27 am

          ‘Fear opens wallets and closes minds’

          The global warming cult is not interested in saving the Earth, and shamelessly exploits the public’s desire to save the Earth to enrich and empower themselves, living like royalty as they tell the rest of the people they must live more poorly.

          “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.2.4.1
            4 November 2014 at 12:07 pm

            Is that what you believe? Fascinating.

          • weka 1.2.2.4.2
            4 November 2014 at 12:20 pm

            That Wirth quote is apparently from 1993.

            Nevertheless it is true. The actions we need to take for CC mitigation are the same ones we need to take in terms of other environmental and social justice issues (and economic sustainability). There’s something to be learned from that.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.2.4.3
            4 November 2014 at 12:42 pm

            It’s a moot point anyway. There isn’t a “theory of global warming” there’s Physics.

            • weka 1.2.2.4.3.1
              4 November 2014 at 12:46 pm

              I don’t think those kinds of semantics are helpful to be honest.

              • adam …
                4 November 2014 at 12:55 pm

                Yes but the others are lying. How are you supposed to respond Weka – because when you give the rwnj’s an inch, they take a mile?

                Better to treat them like the sock puppets they are – like colin – look up sea worn colin – the NZ ones. Ozone hole, Tornado damage, Higher UV levels and a rise in skin cancers, oh just one of a few things effecting little old NZ. But go back to your bubble you lying prat – and again you site nothing, just some two bit propaganda and spin.

                • NickS …
                  4 November 2014 at 1:03 pm

                  You take out the cluebat, wrap it tightly in the literature on and linked to climate change and proceed to hit the blighters for six with said instrument until they either get some brains or run away.

                • Poission …
                  4 November 2014 at 2:11 pm

                  Ozone hole, , Higher UV levels

                  Different beast ,and not under the auspices of the IPCC.Not a good example as the success of the Montreal protocol and the stratospheric recovery work against the increases in ghg ie they dampen the responses of the circulation changes from GHG in the SH.

                  http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/atmosphere/levels-stratospheric-ozone-indicator/report-card-2012.html

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 November 2014 at 2:20 pm

                    The recovery of ozone is a neat example of how a global response to an environmental threat is not only achievable: it has every chance of success.

                    • adam …
                      4 November 2014 at 3:23 pm

                      Thanks for that OAB, that is indeed the point is it not – fixing things, before a real shit storm hits humanity and those other living things we share the planet with.

                    • Poission …
                      5 November 2014 at 12:23 pm

                      The recovery of ozone is a neat example of how a global response to an environmental threat is not only achievable: it has every chance of success.

                      it is a good example as it had ubiquitous constraints entrenched in its structure ie you could not export the problem to a developing country (off shoring) as is the case in the KP.

                      As the ODS are also greenhouse gases,with a significant Global warming potential (GWP) the MP has had a significant impact on the avoidance of climate impacts eg SAP 2014.

                      The Montreal Protocol and its Amendments and adjustments have made large contributions toward reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. In 2010, the decrease of annual ODS emissions under the Montreal Protocol is estimated to be about 10 gigatonnes of avoided CO2-equivalent emissions per year,which is about five times larger than the annual emissions reduction target for the first commitment period (2008–2012) of the Kyoto Protocol (from the Executive Summary of the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010).

                      The emergent constraints ( limitations in the MP) are the increase in replacements of ODS with non ODS with high GWP such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) eg SAP 2014.

                      The sum of the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) currently used as ODS replacements makes a small contribution of about 0.5 gigatonnes CO2-equivalent emissions per year. These emissions are currently growing at a rate of about 7% per year and are projected to continue to grow.

                      If the current mix of these substances is unchanged, increasing demand could result in HFC emissions of up to 8.8 gigatonnes CO2-equivalent per year by 2050, nearly as high as the peak emission of CFCs of about 9.5 gigatonnes CO2-equivalent per year in the late 1980s

                      The two industries most insensitive in HFC are photovoltaic and computer servers,sell that one for promoters of high tech economies.

                • weka …
                  4 November 2014 at 3:17 pm

                  “Yes but the others are lying. How are you supposed to respond Weka – because when you give the rwnj’s an inch, they take a mile?”

                  Adam, I’m mindful of how many people read here that don’t comment. There will be people who are still getting their heads around CC and wondering what Manfred is on about. Smart arse comments about it’s not theory it’s really physics (when most lay people will actually use the term theory) just confuses things. There’s nothing wrong with calling it theory (cf the theory of evolution). Just be clear that it’s a theory that’s supported by the evidence (overwhelmingly so). See, educating people, not just denier bashing.

                  I’m saying this in part because I know that OAB read the jargon article at ontheleft 😉

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 November 2014 at 3:37 pm

                    Exactly: to my simple reductionist mind, the behaviour of dipolar gaseous molecules and consequent changes in atmospheric physics, are easiest to explain in plain language if we consider them as Physical processes.

                    They aren’t so very hard to understand then, because there are everyday analogies for them.

                    • weka …
                      6 November 2014 at 7:37 pm

                      lol at ‘dipolar gaseous molecules’ and ‘plain language’ in the same sentence.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 November 2014 at 3:05 pm

                      Yes, I wondered if someone would pick me up on that: plain speaking avoids jargon, not vocabulary.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 November 2014 at 1:02 pm

                Depends on your perspective I guess: the Greenhouse Effect is a consequence of some fairly simple Physics. I find it’s far easier to explain it in these terms than bandy words with a sophist – Manfred in this case.

            • Manfred 1.2.2.4.3.2
              4 November 2014 at 2:19 pm

              The UN IPCC took the last three of their reports (all of which were shredded by scientists) and simply glued them together for this latest report, issued even as the US clearly headed into another record-setting winter.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 November 2014 at 2:21 pm

                “Record setting”

                The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

                • Manfred …
                  4 November 2014 at 4:57 pm

                  Mike Sanicola explains:
                  I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

                  Now argue that, it’s all about physics….

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 November 2014 at 5:09 pm

                    Is that a fair summation of what Climatology says about water vapour Manfred?

                    Nope. It’s characterised as a positive feedback.

                    Sorry to burst your bubble? I confess I’m not.

                  • RedLogixFormes …
                    4 November 2014 at 5:34 pm

                    The topic is a great deal more subtle than most people imagine. After all its why it was not until the US Air Force was studying IR signatures and behaviour concerning missiles in the upper atmosphere in the 1950’s did all the pieces fall into place.

                    However one of the most accessible explanations is here:

                    http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

                    Then there is this:

                    http://boards.fool.com/im-a-professional-infrared-astronomer-who-spent-31086695.aspx?sort=postdate

                  • Science of Doom …
                    4 November 2014 at 7:15 pm

                    Manfred, the person you quote from has no idea about radiation basics, known for well over 100 years.

                    “Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole.”

                    If you plot radiation emitted by a body at 288K (15’C) the peak radiation is at 10um.

                    19% of all of the energy emitted by a body at 288K is between 13 – 17 um – the key absorption wavelengths of CO2. If you take a body at 303K (30’C) the fraction emitted between 13-17um hardly changes, it is 18%. (And at 243K or -30’C it is about 20%).

                    You can see the example of some radiation curves in The Sun and Max Planck Agree – Part Two.

                    You can see a typical top of atmosphere terrestrial radiation curve with the big CO2 absorption “dip” in Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Ten.

                    This is basic physics. It’s called Planck’s law, named after Nobel prize winner Max Planck. He produced the equation that shows how spectral intensity changes with wavelength for different temperature bodies. He came up with it in about 1900.

                    Anyone can check it out (e.g. on Wikipedia or in a physics textbook) and do the calculation themselves. Or look at the spectrum of radiation from the earth at the top of atmosphere.

                    • RedLogixFormes …
                      4 November 2014 at 9:58 pm

                      Much appreciate your contribution.

                      I’ve spent the last several hours reading more of your amazing site. I’ve been actively following the science for years. Tamino’s Open Mind was always the best educational resource for learning how to analyse data correctly.

                      But Science of Doom (hey I can get past the slightly cheesy name) is a fantastically accessible learning resource around the fundamentals of the science. The best yet!

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    4 November 2014 at 9:31 pm

                    Last time I looked an astronomer isn’t a climatologist. There may be some overlap but not enough to make it worthwhile listening to him on climate change.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 November 2014 at 2:31 pm

                Quick, someone had better tell the National Academy of Sciences.

                Who to believe, Manfred, or the National Academy of Sciences. That’s a toughie.

                Dupe, or duplicitous: is Manfred gullible or malicious, and does anyone care?

              • lprent …
                4 November 2014 at 4:33 pm

                You ever hear about jetstreams? Probably not. But when a southern hemisphere jetstream bottles up cold air over a landmass, you are just getting a taste of what climate change means. The extra energy provided by more heating makes wind systems more energetic and they can push around and hold cold, warm and wet air systems for longer.

                The US is getting colder winders at present as a consequence. The UK (having had a set of very cold winters) is now experiencing massive storms and flooding of highly energetic wet weather systems. The Russians are getting baking summers.

                The relatively stable weather systems that we have relied upon for almost 10,000 years are changing very very fast.

                But your mindless state just grabs on to “Global warming” and fails to understand that it causes climate change rather than gently cooking everywhere at the same gentle increase in temperature.

                Face it, you are just an mindless fool distinguished only by your stupidity.

                • Manfred …
                  4 November 2014 at 6:53 pm

                  If the facts are against you, argue the logic.
                  If the logic is against you, argue the facts.
                  If both the facts and logic are against you, call the other guy names.
                  I rest my case

                  • ropata:rorschach …
                    4 November 2014 at 7:22 pm

                    Nice recipe for thick-headedness. I guess that must be your motto.

                    Did you read the comment by RedLogixformes above? Care to point out why 99.9% of scientists are wrong and you are right?

                    I wonder how you manage to tie your shoelaces let alone operate a computer and make comments here.

                    • Manfred …
                      4 November 2014 at 7:43 pm

                      There is a history of ‘climate science’….
                      Global Warming in 1922 until 1958, Global Warming was the fashion!
                      the Washington Post, November 2, 1922
                      the West Australian 31 May 1947

                      Then, in the 1970s, having exhausted the funding to study how global warming was going to destroy the Earth, climatologists did an about-face and started warning of a new coming ice age, requiring new funding to study and of course, more attention from a media totally bored with global warming!
                      In the 1970s, NEWSWEEK reported that climatologists were warning that Earth was headed into a new Ice age.
                      In 1977 TIME also reported that climatologists were warning that Earth was headed into a new Ice age.

                      That prophecy didn’t work out either.

                      Now back to Global Warming again, and then to Climate Change…
                      By the way we have Climate Change since the beginning of time.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2014 at 7:54 pm

                      Is any of that comment true? Nope.

                      Therefore Manfred is either

                      a: lying deliberately or

                      b: the witless victim of blatant lies.

                      The sort of asshole who leads troops into an ambush in the face of withering and substantive prior warnings.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 November 2014 at 7:44 pm

                    The facts are against you, Manfred.

                    Carbon Dioxide, like Dihydrogen Oxide, is a dipolar molecule whether it suits your politics or not.

                    • Manfred …
                      4 November 2014 at 8:07 pm

                      >Is any of that comment true? Nope.<
                      Could you check out these facts in 10 min?? NO!!
                      But you are accusing me of lying deliberately.

                      I rest my case

                    • Manfred …
                      4 November 2014 at 8:15 pm

                      If the facts are against you, argue the logic.
                      If the logic is against you, argue the facts.
                      If both the facts and logic are against you, call the other guy asshole.

                    • RedLogixFormes …
                      4 November 2014 at 8:21 pm

                      Manfred,

                      The line ” climatologists did an about-face and started warning of a new coming ice age, requiring new funding to study and of course, more attention from a media totally bored with global warming” is a PRATT. Do your own homework and find out why.

                      You need to understand that quoting a few paragraphs of non-peer reviewed material from a pseudonymous author does NOT trump several decades worth of research and literature.

                      Stop lifting unattributed material from Steve Goddard’s site and start educating yourself on the topic from a range of respected sources. Do some basic science, start saying things that actually make sense and earn some respect. Learn some actual statistics so as you less likely to be conned by people misrepresenting data.

                      Then people will stop laughing at you and stop calling you out.

                    • ropata:rorschach …
                      4 November 2014 at 8:55 pm

                      Yes Manfred, some people *are* able to verify falsify your outlandish claims in 10 minutes. Many of the commenters in this thread have a science/technical background, understand the basics, and are able to discern a reputable source (and link to it) in order to correct your mistake.

                      If you had Ebola symptoms, what would you do?
                      a) See a reputable doctor
                      b) Deny the problem and read quacks on the internet

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 November 2014 at 8:56 pm

                      I couldn’t check them in that time (actually I bet I could, but I didn’t, this time), and I can still consult my memory of what happened when somebody advanced those exact same arguments, and how they were humiliated and I laughed at them very much.

                      So, you’re a dupe then. Don’t feel ashamed, clever people get fooled all the time: that’s why we have peer review.

          • Tanz 1.2.2.4.4
            4 November 2014 at 2:50 pm

            Yep, it’s untrue and dishonest. It’s about lies and exploitation. Costing the world zillions and it’s made up. What a joke. One World Govt next.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.2.4.4.1
              4 November 2014 at 2:54 pm

              Costing the world zillions.

              You got that part right.

              Of course if you think Munich Re are wrong there’s a gap in the market for a plucky entrepreneur such as yourself to calculate your own risks and enter the insurance market!

              Off you go.

          • Tracey 1.2.2.4.5
            4 November 2014 at 5:03 pm

            Fear opens wallets and closes minds

            thanks for the underlying strategy employed by national.

  2. Barfly 2
    3 November 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Look! …….There’s a squirrel!

  3. minarch 3
    3 November 2014 at 2:10 pm

    once the monied classes coastal bachs start falling into the sea we MAY get some action in this country

    • weka 3.1
      3 November 2014 at 2:15 pm

      I’m not seeing much difference along class lines in terms of CC denial.

      • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1
        3 November 2014 at 9:16 pm

        CC denial is being driven (orchestrated) by the billionaire class.

        • weka 3.1.1.1
          3 November 2014 at 9:58 pm

          true, but I think that lot won’t have baches on the seaside. They’ve all got bolt holes in much safer places.

          I was thinking more about the general NZ population and how denial seems fairly evenly spread across class.

          • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1.1.1
            3 November 2014 at 10:47 pm

            People who have the brains, money and spare time to keep themselves “informed” via the MSM are particularly susceptible. Because they consume the corporate lies and think themselves too smart to be fooled by the propaganda.

            On the other hand, I don’t think the precariat and the underclass think about climate change very much.

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1
              3 November 2014 at 10:57 pm

              Yes, but I think those are just various manifestations of denial. Some of the privileged are in denial that CC exists. I wasn’t really meaning them though. The middle classes can afford to think about CC and put out the recycling and some of them get to buy a prius. They’ll sign online petitions and maybe even go on marches, but they’re not going to do what is actually needed until they are forced to. The precariat and the underclasses have other things on their mind and likewise are not going to do what is needed until forced to. Ditto everyone in between.

              Gross generalisations though.

              I’m less worried about the people who think CC is a crock of shit, than those who know it is real but are buffering themselves via lifestyle or cognitive dissonance. The tide has turned and the outright denialists have lost the ‘is it true?’ battle. But the people who should be stepping up and forcing change are still milling around not quite sure what to do yet, not yet willing to believe that it’s all going to change.

              • b waghorn …
                5 November 2014 at 7:00 am

                It has to come from the top we need a government that will do something real about it not just trade a few dodgy credits.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2
          4 November 2014 at 12:09 pm

          They’re the only ones who can afford the massive amount of propaganda involved.

  4. JanMeyer 4
    3 November 2014 at 3:09 pm

    At the risk of being accused of channeling Hooten, why then if the consensus is that climate change is the biggest issue facing humanity does the party with the word “Green” in their name persist on being permanently in opposition and therefore unable to effect any meaningful change whatsover in this area? Are their “left wing principles” more important to them than leveraging what is a genuine constituency among a small but significant pool of left and right of centre voters?

    • mickysavage 4.1
      3 November 2014 at 3:15 pm

      I do not see the Greens as wanting to be in opposition, anything but. If you are referring to their refusing to support National my understanding of the rationale is that they do not consider that National will do anything meaningful about climate change. If you look for instance at Groser’s comments this is a fair assumption.

      • Poission 4.1.1
        3 November 2014 at 3:23 pm

        NZ is around 75% renewable for electricity generation,not a great reach by 2050 albeit more difficult after the selloff.

        Question; Would NZ or the planet be better off if say we committed to a treaty where commitments exceed the Kyoto protocol by a factor of 5?

        • mickysavage 4.1.1.1
          3 November 2014 at 8:42 pm

          But this is the figure for the world. First world countries with plenty of sunshine and wind and abundant hydro and geothermal should aim for 100%.

      • JanMeyer 4.1.2
        3 November 2014 at 4:07 pm

        The National Party above all is driven by a desire to be in power. If cutting a policy deal with the Greens on climate change is what it takes to gain or retain power I’m not sure I agree with you. But the point is we will never know

        • weka 4.1.2.1
          3 November 2014 at 5:07 pm

          “The National Party above all is driven by a desire to be in power. If cutting a policy deal with the Greens on climate change is what it takes to gain or retain power I’m not sure I agree with you. But the point is we will never know”

          Actually we do know. The GP will work with any party on shared policy.

          Please link to which GP policy you think National would meaningfully support. Bear in mind that CC policy isn’t an add on, or a core stand alone policy. It’s integrated across many interdependent policy areas.

          • JanMeyer 4.1.2.1.1
            4 November 2014 at 11:20 am

            “Please link to which GP policy you think National would meaningfully support”

            With respect that’s not the issue. This can only be answered in the context of an arm wrestle post election with the Greens “in play”. I agree that on curremt policy settings it doesn’t stack up but the Greens need to get far more strategic if they really believe in advancing green issues and not just continuing to drink cups of tea in the University common room.

            • weka 4.1.2.1.1.1
              4 November 2014 at 11:33 am

              If you can’t think of GP policy that National might support/allow in the scenario you propose, isn’t it meaningless?

              It’s likely that Norman’s bungling of the will the Greens work with National issue before the election cost them votes. There were definitely people here who decided to shift their vote from the GP, and I’ve talked to people since the election who voted Labour because they feared the GP going with National.

              I can see previous National govts doing a deal with the GP, but not the current one. Key’s govt is primarily concerned with strip mining NZ and doing deals for their mates in the process. At best the GP might get a few concessions on oil drilling or a coal mine, but they would pay a huge price (a huge chunk of the membership would revolt or leave). Getting a few concessions like that is going to do sweet fuck all for CC. National are never going to do anything substantial on the matter.

      • Molly 4.1.3
        3 November 2014 at 7:06 pm

        Greenpeace have a Youtube link of a couple of their supporters asking National Party MP’s if climate change was on the agenda for last year’s National Party Conference.

        Will give you a realistic idea of what National intend to do, if you are still in doubt…

    • b waghorn 4.2
      3 November 2014 at 3:34 pm

      The obvious answer is only 10% of human s have it as a priority

  5. Bill 5
    3 November 2014 at 3:37 pm

    From page 8 of that executive summary (as recognised by adobe reader), it’s clear that what they are actually talking about is a probability of around 66% that 2 degrees C might be avoided under the scenarios they propose. That’s a long way from saying that ‘a’ ‘b’ or ‘c’ will allow us to stay below 2 degrees of warming.

    (The New Climate Economy report mentioned in the Stern link, as well as many others, play the same identifiable game)

    So, for merely a punt at avoiding more than 2 degrees C warming, the IPCC has those four clear goals…that are incredibly problematic given the time scale to hand, and that also include (yet again) a negative carbon scenario that just isn’t based on currently available technology, and that doesn’t address the huge logistical problems associated with that technology even if it was developed and rolled out on a large enough scale quickly enough.

    I’m also picking that the 4 degrees by 2100 is based on fairly optimistic modelling parameters. I’m not saying that’s illegitimate, just that it paints a rosier picture than may be warranted. Other, well regarded and independent reports, are typically putting that 4 degrees C of warming at around 2050 and suggesting 6 degrees C by 2100 based on current trends. Now see, that requires a radical step change as of right now…a fact best buried by overtly and covertly applying political pressure on the compilers of reports. Politicians don’t want to confront the shit we’re in. Leave it til tomorrow.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      3 November 2014 at 5:07 pm

      Confronting the shit that we’re in means accepting that capitalism is the problem and that we thus have to get rid of capitalism and the capitalists – and they just won’t do that (Mostly because they all seem to want to become capitalists and the capitalists are helping them).

      • Bill 5.1.1
        3 November 2014 at 5:24 pm

        Indeed. And also don’t forget that many people genuinely believe that capitalism is natural and the way things have always been.

  6. marty mars 6
    3 November 2014 at 3:50 pm

    technology will save us!!! nah just joking

    politicians will save us!!! nah another poor taste joke

    something will save us!!! nah

    what do we do? – start changing our life and circumstances to meet the new realities coming up within imo our lifetimes

    but, but, but… yeah I know – it’s a shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite…

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      3 November 2014 at 3:54 pm

      technology will save us!!! nah just joking

      Technology

      the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

      So, yeah, actually it will – once we get the idiots out of the way that are stopping us from using the knowledge that we already have.

      • adam 6.1.1
        3 November 2014 at 5:33 pm

        Indeed most of the water power technology is really quite outstanding. Indeed I’m confused as why NZ has not gone to sun powered water cylinders – we get enough sun and it the tech is quite old.

        Just one of many solutions which are relatively cheap and can drop the reliance on electricity quite substantially.

        • KJT 6.1.1.1
          3 November 2014 at 7:50 pm

          Already have one.

        • weka 6.1.1.2
          3 November 2014 at 10:02 pm

          I think at least two reasons. One is that the industry hasn’t been set up here with enough support to shift the economies of scale and bring the prices down. The other is that sector advice still presents it as an alternative option and too many people don’t trust alternatives even if they’re interested (or it’s too hard to access). The govt should have stepped in and pushed the sector to adopt it as default. But hey, personal choice and all that.

          • adam 6.1.1.2.1
            3 November 2014 at 10:13 pm

            What personal choice Weka? When the market is effectively designed to produce profits over anything else – there is no choice. Especially in liberalism, were the market is GOD. Or the temple of the new god – money. I’m interested to see what makes you think consumers really have free will? I ask because I like your take, sorry I’m a bit bloody sore tonight, so please if I sound gruff – not my intention.

            • weka 6.1.1.2.1.1
              3 November 2014 at 10:49 pm

              There are plenty of people in NZ who can afford to install solar hot water. The govt thinks they should have a choice, rather than being pushed to do so. I think they should be pushed to do so (carrot and stick). In terms of the environment, collective action needs to trump individual choice. That freaks a lot of people out, but the really scarey shit is that even amongst those of us that get CC, very few are doing anything meaningful about it (in the sense that it will be enough).

              That probably doesn’t answer your philosophical free will question though.

              • KJT …
                4 November 2014 at 7:12 pm

                Pretty simple really. All new houses are required to have insulation to save energy. Not really a big ask to add solar water heating in the areas where it is useful, for the same reasons.

                Then we can free up more power generation for transport and other uses that cannot use direct solar power.

                Don’t know why houses are allowed to be built with all the glass on the South side. Doing that is just daft.
                National are happy to remove individual freedoms, such as the “right to withdraw our labour or by signing the TPP, to help their cronies make more money.

                When it comes to looking after the environment, they are suddenly all about, “individual freedom”.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  4 November 2014 at 8:08 pm

                  National’s all about individual freedom when there’s a profit to be made by big business but totally against it when it threatens those profits and insulation, better building codes and more efficient light bulbs threaten that profit as they all decrease consumption.

      • marty mars 6.1.2
        3 November 2014 at 8:36 pm

        How do you get from that definition to yeah it will? Are humans going to move the earth a teency bit further away so it can cool a bit. Hubris mate nothing but hubris.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1
          3 November 2014 at 8:41 pm

          We already have the knowledge. The problem is that we’re not using it seemingly due to private profiteers being concerned that they won’t get richer.

          • marty mars 6.1.2.1.1
            3 November 2014 at 8:51 pm

            If we have the knowledge and we are not using it (and I agree with you about that and the reasons you offer for that inaction) then what use is that knowledge, what use is it if it is never used. If that practical knowledge is not used then really is it true that we have that knowledge – as in part of the total of the thing called ‘knowledge’ is derived from actually doing it. If we know how to make a wheel and the advantages that come from having and using a wheel and for what ever reason we never build one or use it then can it actually be said that we have that knowledge?

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1.1.1
              3 November 2014 at 8:56 pm

              Yes, we can be said to have the knowledge. The problem is the people preventing us from using that knowledge.

              • marty mars …
                3 November 2014 at 9:09 pm

                Do you think we will be able to get rid of the impediments created by those people and that we will be able to use the knowledge in time before it is too late?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  3 November 2014 at 9:57 pm

                  In some places in the world. NZ I believe to be one of those places simply because our location in the southern part of a large ocean and small population gives us extra breathing room.

                  Other places are simply stuffed.

  7. Draco T Bastard 7
    3 November 2014 at 3:52 pm

    Why renewables are always cheaper than fossil fuels

    Fossil fuels are a limited resource. A resource that can be used as feed stock for many things a lot of which are actually recyclable.

    What burning those resources up as fuel does is use them up permanently. After that, they’re gone. This means that we no longer have those resources available for our use.

    This is a question of Real Economics, of whether we should be using those resources for power generation or for something else. Considering that we can produce the power without burning those resources for fuel while having more important things that we could do with them that means that we’re making an uneconomic decision.

    This uneconomic decision has been brought about by the chase for profits and money through implementing scarcity. If countries implemented full renewable energy use they would save themselves a hell of a lot of money as the cost of providing electricity would drop to mere maintenance rather than maintenance plus the cost of the fuel plus the future loss of use of those resources plus the profits of the major oil corporations.

    This cost saving would be especially true if it was done by the state which is more efficient than private business and doesn’t have the dead-weight loss of profit in it. And there’d be no scarcity either as renewables are available forever.

    And that’s without taking into account the damage that burning fossil fuels does to the environment.

    We need to tell the world that the idiots that keep saying that if we stop using fossil fuels we will destroy the economy are the ones that are actually destroying the economy.

    • adam 7.1
      3 November 2014 at 5:36 pm

      In the carbons as fuel debate, one argument I don’t see – what right do we have to use this resource, when we don’t know all the applications it can be used for? I mean, what if it is the essential component for some future tech and we just keep burning it away.

    • tricle up 7.2
      4 November 2014 at 1:55 am

      11111 DRACO T B The house sits on dollar symbols .. we our surrounded with space weather forecasts and global forecasts can we not see everything is [ process process ] change and things are connected in the macro world.Our leaders need to get on the plane on reality without prejudice or basis there is no such thing as nonsense only non/sense if they can not sink into the essence of the matter what hope is there for a u turn.

  8. Disgusted 8
    3 November 2014 at 5:14 pm

    minarch posted:
    “once the monied classes coastal bachs start falling into the sea …”

    Hmm, should it start with Al Gore’s beach manson?
    There is one billionaire clearly not worried about the rising seas.

  9. b waghorn 9
    3 November 2014 at 5:49 pm

    NZ has large areas of land that is covered with tussock ,scrub and rock now instead of wasting large sums of money cutting wilding pines we should be planting it in conifers .

  10. Mick Buckley 10
    3 November 2014 at 5:59 pm

    “The only word for [Grosser’s] statement is delusional”

    Yeah, I heard it on the radio news and it made me quite angry.

    Hell, I’m no fan of Chuck Hagel but even he sees climate change for what it is (drought, flood, famine, war, pestilence) and makes Tim Grosser look like a puppet of the fossil fuel industry.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      3 November 2014 at 7:23 pm

      National is a puppet of the rich people and their sole purpose is to make the rich richer no matter how much it costs the rest of us.

      • KJT 10.1.1
        3 November 2014 at 8:38 pm

        I wrote this elsewhere but it is relevant here.

        “There is just no way we can have an environmentally sustainable society without it being socially and economically sustainable as well.

        Blue/Green. I.E. a few at the top continuing the march towards living in gated guarded and privileged communities while the majority bear both the costs of their excessive lifestyle, and! the cost of coping with resource and environment depletion, is a fantasy”.

      • Mick Buckley 10.1.2
        3 November 2014 at 8:40 pm

        Groser’s behaviour is definitely in line with what you say. Presumably he thinks the rising economic tide lifts all boats and maybe he even sees a destroyed environment as a future economic opportunity. But with a 4C temperature rise his descendants will suffer along with the rest of humanity.

  11. BM 11
    3 November 2014 at 6:47 pm

    I’d prefer to spend money dealing with issues as they arise instead of the trying to stop it approach.

    • Weepus beard 11.1
      3 November 2014 at 7:04 pm

      Have you considered that by the time issues arise it may be too late, no matter how much money there is?

    • Macro 11.2
      3 November 2014 at 7:10 pm

      Well you are a fool.
      Read the literature by world economists with regards doing something to try to ameliorate climate change (we’re never going to stop it now), or carry on with BAU and the catastrophic situation and mind-blowing expense that will bring. The conclusions from these people (Nordhaus from Yale, and Stern from UK et al) is all the same. Do something about it now. Leaving it to the future will be disastrous.

  12. RedLogix 12
    3 November 2014 at 7:37 pm

    Well that’s progress – BM finally accepts there is a real problem.

  13. johnm 13
    3 November 2014 at 8:33 pm

    The IPCC and all the above comments are hot air! Basically we’re done, the party’s final closing time not quite with us yet, but coming.

  14. Draco T Bastard 14
    3 November 2014 at 10:53 pm

    NRT:Climate change: Its us or the coal industry

    And pretty much all other fossil industries need to go ASAP. This is not optional.

  15. Maui 15
    4 November 2014 at 12:06 am

    What’s this climate change thing about? I don’t see many people worried about it.. 🙂

  16. dale 16
    4 November 2014 at 12:53 am

    Whats stopping us? The fact that the warming stopped 18 years ago, the ice caps have grown and the ipcc is full of shit!

    • Murray Rawshark 16.1
      4 November 2014 at 12:59 am

      What mechanism caused the warming to stop 18 years ago? Which ice caps have grown, and since which date? You seem like a really intelligent guy and a deep thinker with impeccable sources. Please help us learn.

    • RedLogix 16.2
      4 November 2014 at 1:10 am

      At last a really important and highly respected scientist at The Standard who can explain to us ordinary people exactly why we don’t need to worry about this.

  17. philj 17
    4 November 2014 at 8:48 am

    xox
    One minute, CC not an issue. Nek minute. (50 years + later). Nothin’ you can do about it. .. too late. Must go an watch Breakfast TV … 😉

  18. joe90 18
    4 November 2014 at 8:51 am

    Scientists: What History Reveals About Sea Level Rise

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5ZUnps9k8

    (Peter Sinclair)

  19. Phil 19
    4 November 2014 at 1:40 pm

    “There are certainly some large companies like New Zealand Steel, Tiwai Point, that have real competitiveness issues that if you unleashed Green Party views on them they’d probably go out of business.

    “Equally one remembers the massive carbon tax they were going to put on dairy farmers and then we saw a 40 percent fall in the dairy price.”

    Get that? Groser believes that the recent fall in milk prices was due to Green Party policy, not international market forces. The only word for this statement is delusional.

    Groser fails at a soundbite. MS fails at reading comprehension.

    The loser is reasoned debate.

  20. Tanz 20
    4 November 2014 at 2:44 pm

    Global warming was made up by the Masons, was it not. Just scare tactics. Govt has grabbed onto it – tax dollars for ‘carbon trading’. A croc.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1
      4 November 2014 at 2:49 pm

      The Masons, and the Physicists, and the Cryologists, and the Botanists, and the Chemists, and the Oceanographers, and the Geologists.

    • joe90 20.2
      4 November 2014 at 2:55 pm

      Oh, Tanz! how nice it would be if we could only get through into Looking-glass House!

      (apologies to Mr Dodgson)

  21. Tanz 21
    4 November 2014 at 2:52 pm

    and the wealth of scientists who have disproven it, but they just don’t get a mention. It’s like believing that the moon is made from cheese.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1
      4 November 2014 at 2:57 pm

      The wealth of scientists who’ve disproved what?

      Citation* needed. Oh, and some evidence re: the cryosphere.

      *don’t waste my time with blogs or videos – peer-reviewed literature or it’s just froth.

    • RedLogixFormes 21.2
      4 November 2014 at 3:17 pm

      Oh FFS – go to any science organisation like GNS or NIWA or any University Geophysics dept where they have working scientists doing actual research theoretical, computational or most vitally, actual field work. The vast majority of these people active in the field would whole-heartedly support this IPCC report.

      That’s ten’s of thousands of individuals, in hundreds of different institutions, across dozens of countries – over many, many decades – have all contributed our current understanding of climate. I worked as a techie for one group many years ago. I have a good idea of how they think and work.

      The idea that somehow this enormous, disparate group of highly trained and skilled researchers have all conspired to support a fraudulent scam made up by the Masons is beyond ludicrous. The sheer logistics of such a scam, the mass co-ordination of such a lie, all without so much as one incriminating email, or one secret conference – over how many decades? (FFS even the Masons would be embarrassed to be associated with such drivel.)

      I personally know at least four people working directly or in a closely related area. I’ve talked to them about this astounding disconnect between what they know is happening (because in many cases they’ve seen the data and evidence with their own eyes) – and the doofus delusions you are spouting Tanz. They just think you are a nutter at best. They are just usually too polite and professional to say so in public.

      Wake up – this is the real world calling.

    • lprent 21.3
      4 November 2014 at 3:54 pm

      I can count the number of scientists current in the field who think such things on my fingers and toes. Curry for instance. They provide a valuable skepticism that mainly results in papers showing them that their logic have logical and evidential issues big enough to drive a truck through. But at least they provide different arguable viewpoints.

      There used to be thousands two or three decades ago. But the obvious evidence has kept accumulating and most have decided that there is no alternative theory that fits (In case you hadn’t realized – scientists make their bones as much by destroying theories as they do by creating them).

      Sure there are a few Emeritus professors of Chemistry, Geography and the like. It is a good way to pick up extra income at the trough of oil, gas and coal companies. They also usually aren’t particularly clued up on the science of climate change. I have to chortle when I look at how they get shredded because they really show no knowledge about the subject and usually just use hobbyhorses out of their own science fields with little relevance. But I guess their pay is pretty good to help them get over the humiliations they get.

      • RedLogixFormes 21.3.1
        4 November 2014 at 5:19 pm

        Sure there are a few Emeritus professors of Chemistry, Geography and the like.

        It’s a bit of an occupational hazard. The best known example was the great Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev (of Periodic Table fame, plus other important work), spent much of the last years of his life storming out of scientific conferences offended by the new-fangled ideas of quantum mechanics.

        As new science ideas arise it’s inevitable that some of the prior generation will reject them. In one sense that’s a good thing, a degree of skepticism and protection of the existing consensus is very useful in minimising wrong-turns and mistakes.

        At the same time science is never really settled; there will always be new data, new insights and sometimes radical leaps into new territory that eventually win acceptance and adherence from the majority.

        But scientists being a remarkably individualist bunch there will always be some of the old guard who never let go their objections and resistance to change. It would be surprising if they did not exist.

        • ropata:rorschach 21.3.1.1
          4 November 2014 at 9:11 pm

          Engineers in the field have to deal with real-life consequences of increased rainfall or drought in some areas, accelerated erosion, and record fluctuations in temperature.

          This means increased drainage, more dams, more water processing, higher tide barriers, more forest fires, and nations paralysed by endless summer.

          If you’re in any doubt about climate change ask a civil engineer. They keep the weather out so we can pontificate on the internet.

          IPENZ study of CC impacts (pdf)

  22. dale 22
    4 November 2014 at 10:16 pm

    Someone asked for a reference for my statement. Climate Depot is an excellent source of reliable information backed up by many scientists , meteorologists and photographic proof from NASA. The latest photos of the Arctic will surprise and delite.The polar bears will live on.

  23. dale 23
    5 November 2014 at 1:53 am

    When you compare the predictions and computer models from the IPCC with what actually occurred you have to start asking some serious questions. I love the debate on this issue. Will the science ever be settled? Maybe. But until then I will trust the sixteen solar panels on my roof providing around 3 Kw to do my bit.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1
      5 November 2014 at 6:19 am

      When you compare what? The IPCC doesn’t do any computer modelling – they summarise existing data.

      “What actually occurred” is well within the range of forecasts the IPCC reported in AR4. Obviously someone has been telling you something different.

      As for “settled science” – you are full of these little mistakes.

      I’ll leave it to Professor Gavin Schmidt to bring you up to speed:

      …knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing.

      There, now say thank you for the charity and try not to make such a public display in the future.

      PS: if you voted National you voted to shit on everyone else, and no amount of solar power is going to change that.