Climate Scientists Open Up

17 comments on “Climate Scientists Open Up ”

• Comments are now closed

1. weka 1

   1 October 2017 at 3:03 pm

   Very good. Makes sense that Australian scientists would be getting to this now.

   I still think the most serious problems are political and social. If we decided to change now, there is much that could be saved that will otherwise perish. It’s what’s stopping us from change that’s the primary threat.
   • Bill 1.1

     1 October 2017 at 3:36 pm

     I’m not sure what you mean by saying “makes sense that Australian scientists would be getting to this now”

     The people within the scientific community I speak to are variously based in NZ, N. America and Europe, and they’ve been talking along the same lines in private for some years now.

     I think we agree there are massive political and economic (maybe roll it all under the label of “cultural”?) barriers set before or against any serious action on global warming. But if you listen to those interviews, those scientists aren’t actually stepping away from any of it. They’re still talking in terms of job opportunities and retirement and what not…and probably still flying somewhat willy-nilly around the world – because that’s what academics do.

     I’ve no idea what can be saved or not saved off the back of immediate change. Some stuff is locked in, and there’s a real possibility that some tipping points that remove global warming from our hands have already been crossed. Ice melt and acidification of the oceans come immediately to mind as possible areas or examples where that might already be the case. The truth is that no-one knows what, if any, inevitable consequences are now set to flow from conditions we’ve already brought into being.
     • weka 1.1.1

       1 October 2017 at 4:31 pm

       I meant that in Australia, because of the landscape, climate, and the way non-native people live there the issues of that is about to go down is much more in your face than lots of other developed countries. So it makes sense to hear scientists there speaking publicly about this and that MSM would broadcast it.
     • weka 1.1.2

       1 October 2017 at 4:40 pm

       “But if you listen to those interviews, those scientists aren’t actually stepping away from any of it.”

       I suspected that. The bits about ‘I’m looking after my family at least’ made me think there’s still a way to go. Not that people shouldn’t do that, but when it becomes a conflict between that and doing the right things by CC, we have a significant problem. As you say, careers are still more important.

       “The truth is that no-one knows what, if any, inevitable consequences are now set to flow from conditions we’ve already brought into being.”

       I work off the principle that any harm we can lessen or prevent gives systems better chances of surviving and adapting. So in that sense, I will always be working for change. Which means it’s still useful to tackle the cultural/social/political issues even if we are locked into some things (or might be locked in). I see hope in those scientists speaking out, and risk too, because it may push some people into despair and choosing to give up or party while they can.
2. Incognito 2

   1 October 2017 at 4:26 pm

   I was reading something last night that is very pertinent to this post:

   What leads to this sidelining of environmental concern and action is the same thing that manufactures environmental problems to begin with: the social constitution of daily life—how we as a human community institute the many structures and motivations that pattern our days, making some actions convenient and immediately sensible and other actions not.[author’s italics]

   https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/41607_1.pdf

   This PDF is the first chapter of the textbook An Invitation to Environmental Sociology by Michael Bell.

   http://michael-bell.net/ [recommended!]

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mayerfeld_Bell
3. Pat 3

   1 October 2017 at 4:34 pm

   rather bleak, though realistic imo, outlook….and nothing that couldnt been gleaned by reading between the lines of a lot of articles regarding climate change
4. RedLogix 4

   1 October 2017 at 5:51 pm

   Interesting how David Griggs is specifically contemplating cooler locations to move to. Sort of smartarse I know, but looking out the window Ballarat would be a suitable choice most of the year.

   It’s still 11 degC with a chill breeze outside, and I’m typing this with three layers and a beanie on. (Then again I have to admit that in a few months time it’s be in the high 30’s as soon as those desert winds start heading down.)

   But yes it’s good to hear some researchers speaking their private thoughts out loud. Most feel very conflicted by the demands of their profession and the constraints placed on them by the institution they work for. But from my modest personal contact with them I’ve always understood that what they publish is but the most conservative interpretation of what they believe.
   • lprent 4.1

     1 October 2017 at 6:41 pm

     But from my modest personal contact with them I’ve always understood that what they publish is but the most conservative interpretation of what they believe.

     Yep. It is what they can either definitely prove or that there is a very high degree of confidence in.

     The problem with climates is that to get certainty, researchers really need a time machine to go back to something like the end of Karoo Ice age 26 million years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages). We have been in the Holocene interglacial of the current Quaternary ice age for the last 11 thousand years (and the ice age has been actively running for about 2.58 million years and strongly cooling the planet for the 40 million years prior). So nothing in any recent geological history gives up much of a hint about processes at the fine detail required to give high enough certainty to predictions when it comes to timescales. When your observations of the last period of actual greenhouse effect accuracy levels is at best in tens of thousands of years, trying to map that on to hundreds of years with the effects of fossil carbon burning being far above any natural processes is just possibilities.

     Since they can’t do that, all that they can know for certain is that increased CO2 into the atmosphere will strongly increase the greenhouse effect. It doesn’t matter if this happens via burning fossil fuels (like we are doing now), or of the rate of carbon sequestering drops (as happened at the end of Karoo) and we will be pushed back into the the normal temperatures – which neither us nor our client species evolved in.

     About the only thing that anyone can say with any scientific certainty is that it isn’t going to be comfortable over the next decades and centuries.
     • JC 4.1.1

       1 October 2017 at 10:04 pm

       “The current epoch, the Holocene, is the 12,000 years of stable climate since the last ice age during which all human civilisation developed. But the striking acceleration since the mid-20th century of carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise, the global mass extinction of species, and the transformation of land by deforestation and development mark the end of that slice of geological time, the experts argue. The Earth is so profoundly changed that the Holocene must give way to the Anthropocene.”

       https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/29/declare-anthropocene-epoch-experts-urge-geological-congress-human-impact-earth

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

       https://twitter.com/AntarcticReport/status/911320704703799296
5. eco maori 5

   1 October 2017 at 9:08 pm

   This is a awesome Bill the reality’s of climate change .
   NOW MSM don’t think I’m picking on you’s . I’m just telling it like it is I saw a news item on building eco efficient home’s with solar and I thought well that’s good but at the end the bull shit artist said that It would cost 20 % more but I say one could get a house designed and built for the same price as a standard house what’s so expensive about having the house orientated to take advantage of the sun in the winter and shade in the summer you have the sun shining on a large thermal mass ie concrete floor or wall to store the sun’s heat and release it all nite or all the time .
   And solar is cheap in NZ and is only going to get cheaper all that has to happen is a law to make energy company’s pay 95 % of the retail price for solar power tariffs feed into the grid I say that 5 % of the price would be enough to cover there cost for providing this service to solar power users . You could just have basic kitchen and bath room and just these saving would cover the cost of installed solar power $10.000 to $20.000 .
   It’s not like we have invented some new technology we have been building like that for thousands of years . It’s just some people have been repressing this way of building /living as big business will miss out on some of there profit’s. MSM shape our view on reality and when OUR media is being manipulated to distort the reality than we are being ripped off of the TRUTH and we need to come up with a answer to solve this problem One good thing is that social media is heiping get the TRUTH out to the people
6. lloyd 6

   1 October 2017 at 11:24 pm

   If you live in Australia temperature and drought, followed by cyclones are short-term threats. In NZ heat waves are unlikely to be a threat as we are surrounded by sea. Most city dwellers will have to worry about sea level rise, especially with storm surges. Floods are also more likely in NZ.
   Stormwater standards, minimum floor levels and infrastructure vulnerability need to be looked at. Houses on piles are less likely to be flooded than ground level concrete slabs.
   New Zealand should be designing for a significant sea-level rise – 60m would not be silly.
7. Paul Campbell 7

   2 October 2017 at 12:08 am

   I seriously worry that the first real change issue we’ll actually seriously react to will be the sudden arrival of 10M+ Aussies

   I kind of think we should call them on all the crap they rain down on kiwis who move to Oz, and mutually switch to requiring residency visas while they still have climate deniers running the place
   • AB 7.1

     2 October 2017 at 1:00 pm

     If it gets that bad they won’t be taking any notice of NZ immigration laws. They’ll be looking for lebensraum
     • Gristle 7.1.1

       2 October 2017 at 2:36 pm

       Previously I commented that after the Flag Referendum that the next time a flag change is debated that it was likely to be at the point of gun. My guess is that Australia (or America or China or Indonesia) will come looking for some water and arable land.
8. Whispering Kate 8

   2 October 2017 at 1:35 pm

   AB Had to look up your word “lebensraum” – now I see what you mean. They won’t be the only climate refugees scrambling to come to NZ, our Pacific neighbours will be urgently requiring somewhere to live as well. That’s not even bringing into the equation all those wealthy citizens of the US and Europe coming down here for a bolt hole.

   The fact that we are placed right in the ring of fire and have earthquakes and dormant/live vulcanoes playing their tricks every so often, the poor beggars coming here will have to contend with that instead.
   • eco maori 8.1

     2 October 2017 at 8:52 pm

     1 No selling land to foreigners this is basic security of OUR Sovereinty.
     2 9 % compulsory Kiwi saver and invest the funds in Green TEC most of our youth don’t even pass one thought about retirement mine do because I’m all ways talking / lecturing them about there retirement saving plans and this will decrees inequality.
     3 Compulsory voting this will sort out a few problems.
     Tax on carbon no complicated bullshit scheme just a tax that will disincentives the use of carbon based products E.C.T
     Water fees sounds better than tax anyway so both these fees/tax’s should be designed to achieve there objective which is to stop / lower carbon emotions and improve and maintain good supply and quality of OUR water.
     They should never be used as a revenue gathering tool because I think that will fuck up the main objectives of the fees which is to pass on to OUR children a pristine WORLD.
9. eco maori 9

   2 October 2017 at 10:14 pm

   I think irrigation is good but as a insurance against a drought 2 to 6 month’s of the year not in locations were you have irrigate 12 months as that is unsustainable and that takes away our low cost production advantage and that is stupid in my view

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS