Yeah, sucks when that happens, doesn’t it?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8257374/climate-scientsts-receive-death-threats

notes that the climate scientists working on this issue are getting death threats here in Oz just as they are in the USA too.

***

The Climate change debate and especially the Gillard government’s proposed Carbon Tax is a huge issue in Aussie politics too at present.

However, as this study shows :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/03/3234342.htm

Most Aussies *do* accept the scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and caused by Human Greenhouse gas emissions and only 6% of Australians are “true climate change sceptics.” Although other polls say that on the slightly different topic of the Carbon Tax most Aussies (around 60% or so if memory serves?) oppose that particular measure.

***

Meanwhile global carbon dioxide emissions are hitting record levels :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/30/3230793.htm

which co-incides not so co-incidentally with this :

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html

now getting old~ish news from NASA regarding which year was the hottest on record globally.

Like a 0.5 degree temperature increase and a few inches of sea level rise. However will we cope?

This amount of change is (approximately) what has happened already.

Some additional temperature increase and concomitant rise in sea level is inevitable. The real question is how much. Most of the credible models have a few °C of temp increase (call it around 2 – 5 °C) and several tens of cm of sea level rise (call it around 50 – 100 cm).

To put this into some kind of perspective, a good deal of London is not much more than a metre above the average high water level. Add a storm surge (or just some damn’ big waves) and a high tide to the rise in sea level and you’ll have water coming over the Thames Barrier on a routine basis. Similarly, New Orleans could quite easily become uninhabitable in 50 years’ time.

The fact is that we don’t know. We can only model what is a very complex set of interactions. The consensus between the various models (each model being based on a seperate set of assumptions about such parameters as the thermal expansion of the oceans) is that the increase in average annual temperatures over the next 50 years will lead to consequences that directly impact on us in a substantial way.

And while we don’t know exactly what will happen, we can say what is likely to happen. With a reasonable degree of confidence.

BTW, I like the self-referential post-modern irony of your handle.

Has been two studies of old growth eucalypt forests done here in Australia in the last decade pointing to the fact that old growth forests are net -emitters of carbon dioxide (ie; they are returning more Co2 to the atmosphere than they are absorbing). I have come across a similar study done in Canada , I think, that pointed to the same conclusion. Not surprising when you think about it.

Which studies may I ask please?

Yes, that is interesting – & it surprises & confounds my expectations since I’d have assumed the tree’s would absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen in net terms – but I’d really like to know more and have sources to check for that.

Please can you (or anyone else who knows & cares to enlighten us) provide
the studies author(s) and the paper title(s) and, best of all, a link or two? That would be much appreciated if you can.

Thinking of analogies and metaphors for climate change & melting ice this :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/03/3235093.htm

is kinda neat and evocative. An artwork designed to engage the public and get folks thinking on this topic being carved in Sydney.

As thislink notes :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/30/3230188.htm

The Climate change debate and especially the Gillard governemnt’s proposed Carbon tax is a huge issue in Aussie politics too at present :

probably just what your crowd is known for, more lies and deception

After all, the scenario we might be facing in 50 years’ time would make Silent Spring seem idyllic.

Like a 0.5 degree temperature increase and a few inches of sea level rise. However will we cope?

(raises hand)

I’m NOT happy with Obama (and before Daffy calls me a Tea Bagger Birther Sara Palin flunkie, I voted for Obama), but I can do without those wacky hi-jink antics perpetrated by Bush #2. Oh, yeah, my sides were just splitting with laughter from 2000 to 2008. No, wait, that was an ulcer.

After all, as the great man (Bush) said, “Fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can’t get fooled again.”

Seriously, how do you even mess that one up? +0.01 for falling back to quoting The Who, if I’m feeling charitable.

Mostly, I agree.

There is, however, a slim chance that a grass-roots-level movement will emerge and tell the governments what they need to do about the problem.

After all, the scenario we might be facing in 50 years’ time would make Silent Spring seem idyllic.

Regarding “not wasting so much energy,” this ignores both growth in our energy supply and Jevon’s Paradox; increasing efficiency tends to increase the consumption of a resource rather than decrease it.

True.

Unless, at the same time the cost of that resource is substantially increased.

However, it’s serious and not just a laugh…. these individuals receive the votes of millions and have the support of powerful people in low places….

Guess you can get away from it if you believe in global conspiracies.

It’s not only inevitable, it is already happening.

The only question remaining is how much warming.

And how rapidly. Two. Two questions remaining.

And what the exact impact of such warming will be. Three. Three questions.

Amongst the questions remaining are such elements as…

I’ll come in again.

No one expects the… Spanish Inqusition!

Well that’s the typical response, isn’t it? I disagree with you on something involving Reagan, so therefore I’m some right wing ideologue.

You’re the one constantly trafficking in ideological smog, Daffster, whereas I constantly preach against it. I did not defend Reagan. In fact, the tree pollution quote is one of the reasons I never bought the whole Great Communicator nonsense. It is educational, though. Directly, it shows you don’t go to political speeches for your science. Less directly, it demonstrates that just because someone you hate makes a claim does not mean there can’t be a grain of truth there.

Did you even look up the Princeton study I mentioned? It concludes by saying that while there is a contribution, it is incorrect to shift full blame from humans to trees. Wow. That’s really running to the defense of Reagan, isn’t it?

I even added the caveat that its the trees *and* auto emissions that do a tango to create ozone, but you seem to have ignored that. I’m guessing you are voicing your vote loud and proud for “toss out of context zingers from our little ideological camps for the rest of our days.” Yeah, good luck with that.

–

PS: [Stewie Griffin voice] Oh, and thank you Discovery Web Site for initially deleting my post as spam without warning or giving me a reason why. Did you hire monkeys to code your web page or something? Hmm? Doing your thing to promote monkey employment? Hmm? Hmm? Some sort of simian outreach program? National Take A Monkey To Work Day? Hmm? Am I getting close here?

“It’s not only inevitable, it is already happening.

The only question remaining is how much warming.

And how rapidly. Two. Two questions remaining.

And what the exact impact of such warming will be. Three. Three questions.”

Agreed, on all points. But the simple reality is this: those are fantastically interesting questions, but seeking out the answers has about as much relevance to the way our nations and society’s operate as does the search for the Higg’s boson. ie, it’s an entirely intellectual exercise.

Suppose the answer is “5C in 50 years, leading to massive melting of landlocked ice as well as ocean water expansion, resulting in coastal destruction, ocean acidification wiping out coral, the destruction of the food chains that provide much of the seafood we eat, drought, flooding, etc, etc”… we will *still do nothing*. No one wants to hear that (it’s inconvenient, after all), and many simply don’t believe it (darn liberal conspiracies trying to socially engineer us into the stone age, darn it!).

So in the end, it’s just too damned exhausting to worry about, and pointless to argue about. All we can really do is sit back and see what happens… because that’s all we’re *going* to do. *shrug*

Ronald Reagan, 1981: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”

Careful, QD, your ideology is showing.