Over recent weeks there has been a veritable flood of news items and news articles wherein scientists are saying that things are moving faster than we thought on global warming and climate change. One didn’t need to be a sleuth to find the cause. The University of Copenhagen has been hosting an international scientific congress on climate change under the heading “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions” from 10-12 March 2009 in Copenhagen where more than 2,500 researchers and economists gathered to update the world on the state of climate research ahead of key political negotiations later this year.
Even The Economist noticed. The key message summarised in this BBC report was that things are moving faster than the IPCC anticipated only two years ago and there is a greater risk of ‘tipping points’ being reached where climate change becomes irreversible.
Even modest temperature rises will affect millions of people, particularly in the developing world, [scientists] warn.
But, they say, most tools needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions already exist.
Lord Stern was in fine form:
He now says [his 2006] report underestimated the scale of the risks, and the speed at which the planet is warming.
He urged scientists to speak out and tell the politicians what the world would be like if effective measures against global warming were not taken.
He said that if the world was to warm by 5C over the next century, there would be dramatic consequences for millions of people. Rising seas would make many areas uninhabitable leading to mass migrations and inevitably sparking violent conflict.
“You’d see hundreds of millions people, probably billions of people who would have to move and we know that would cause conflict, so we would see a very extended period of conflict around the world, decades or centuries as hundreds of millions of people move, ” said Lord Stern.
“So I think it’s very important that we understand the magnitude of the risk we are running.”
He said that a new, effective global deal was desperately needed to avoid these dramatic scenarios – and the current global economic slowdown was in some ways a help.
“Action is rather attractive, inaction is inexcusable. It’s an opportunity, given that resources will be cheaper now than in the future, now is the time to get the unemployed of Europe working on energy efficiency.” (Emphasis added)
I’ve highlighted the movement of peoples and potential conflicts, because it is a new and very strong theme emerging. One can understand it if the 4-6C world, a very real prospect in the second half of this century, ends up looking something like this. NB map needs to be redrawn to take into account sea level rise which would inundate an area equivalent to Africa. This image from Slide 46 of James Hansen’s Iowa Coal testimony – large pdf) will give you the idea:
Look for the 75 metre shading. It won’t happen immediately, nor in a century or two, but that is the end result of a 4-6C world.
George Monbiot picked out three concerns.
Firstly sea level rise by 2100 could be two or even three times greater than forecast with potential disruption to 600 million people. Most were saying a metre, maybe more, which though serious is modest enough.
Secondly the dreaded methane gas release from Arctic soils could really take off with a 2C average rise.
Thirdly four degrees of warming (which we’ll certainly get if the methane takes off) could almost eliminate the Amazon, giving another large carbon pulse to the atmosphere.
Six key messages from the conference are outlined here.
There were many other topics, which we will be able to read about when the proceedings are published in June.
Meanwhile The Maldives are going carbon neutral as well they might, China is set to double emissions by 2030, India won’t contemplate targets as such but promises to keep its per capita emissions to the average of developed countries.
In Australia according to David Spratt this is where Penny Wong’s at:
In a mid-year meeting with a number of environment organisations, she was asked whether recent developments in climate science since the last IPCC report (such as the rapid loss of the Arctic sea-ice) meant the government needed to rethink its approach. Her answer was that she did not understand the question.
She, Rudd, and the rest need to get themselves up to speed, because this is what Australia could well look like under current policies (from David Spratt’s Science A powerpoint, slide 6):
Again, not in a year, a decade or a century, but if the Arctic methane, already bubbling away, gets out of hand, that end-state will be hard to avoid.
Thnaks Brian as always for a well-researched post.
Come on Brian, stop being so depressing!
Seriously, though, we’re all doomed. It’s a pretty perverse outcome (as a scientist) when I find myself hoping and wishing that the denialists are right after all…
Thanks Brian,
We really need to find out if Rudd government central is 1, hearing this message and 2, believing this message.
How can we find that out?
Oh, yes, I read further. Wong> The next question then is
How do we get the information in through the fog?
BilB @ 3, I’m no good at this lobbying thing, but mehitabel on the other thread says the thing to do is to go for your local member, rather than the relevant (or irrelevant!) minister directly.
So I plan to let my local MP know about this post, and perhaps y’all can do the same if that is your wont.
This year I’m hoping to do a series of posts to bring our pollies up to date, beginning with why we’ve got to stop burning coal, like NOW, then the big one for runaway CC, methane, followed by others, including ocean acidity and implications for food.
I’ll make the canon balls, you can fire them if, when and where you wish.
I’m told by my LP colleagues that the don’t usually comment on these threads because they just want to go away and have a quiet cry. It’s important that we don’t lapse into quietude and resignation.
As a disclaimer, I’m not a scientist and welcome correction if I fall into error, make a clanger or if you can provide genuine comment or additional information.
Sign the gross feedin tariff petition! http://www.feedintariff.com.au/
I recall little Johnny squirming uncomfortably at some point, saying ’3-4 degrees will be a little uncomfortable for some’
I’m glad the catastrophic consequences of what, to many, must look like a ‘small’ rise in temperature are now getting some coverage. Its important that Aus scientists start to get as forthright as the bunch who gathered in Copenhagen. Perhaps once they’ve gotten over their jetlag, we might hear some strong scientific voices hit the airwaves.
While the debate around the CPRS remains almost exclusively an economic one we’re pretty much buggered. It allows Wong can carry on with her ‘we’re being attacked by both sides, so we must be doing alright’ line. It’ll only be the public’s realisation that she’s trying to negotiate with the science that will move us towards the need for deeper cuts and a scheme that will actually bring them about.
Ta for the info Brian … again.
I don’t find the truth, if that is what it is, or the potential reality whatever you like to call it, depressing.
Its the bloody head in the sand, ignore the evidence stupidity and wilful ignorance that gives me the irrits.
I read once that frustration is not having a problem but being powerless to solve that problem.
Here, with climate change and lots of other issues, the frustration is with those that have the power being too scared to face the evidence and retreating into short term denial and doing nothing in real terms.
Good post, Brian.
I just saw Stephen Schneider speak at UNSW. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/
Inspirational stuff. I’d love to say I’ll post when I get a chance, but I’m snowed under at the moment.
On the plus side, it looks like bushfires will not be too much of a problem for Victoria.
Climate change means regime change because the present crop of ‘leaders’ want to restore the kind of economic set-up that got us into this. To get the public thinking that a wet day in Au is a fine day did take a while… but we have the net now…we can go directly to the people and tell them that both capitalism and Marxism are through…and from now on its libertarian-socialism all the way.
The future will be anarchist or not at all.
A standard executive device of the past was the circular envelope. This was information that circulated within an executive circle in an envelope that displayed the circulation list on the outside with the requirement that each reader initialled their name, thereby indicating that the information had been read by each, and each executive,s knowledge status was confirmed to all.
We need to find a method of achieving that function, preferably with an extra selection box to indicate “believe or not believe”. This would then put the results on public record.
I have personally on, 2 occassions, taken this topic up with my, then, federal MP Kerry Bartlett the chief government whip at the time. And went through, with him, the implications of the methyl hydrates as outlined in Scietific American. This he photocopied in his office. I have also attempted to take up the issue with Bob Debus, my then state MP, who went to some lengths to avoid the conversation. I have also taken the opportunity of a lunch prior to the last election, at which I was sitting opposite Ian Macfarlane MP expired, and went through these issues at length (much to his discomfort). Prior to the last election I took these matters up with Anthony Albanese by phone noting a progressively declining interest as the election drew nearer.
I think that it is time to repeat the process. HOWEVER, this time it is crucial to put the reactions of the individual MPs on public record so that they will know that they will be held indiviually accountable for their position.
Keep firing those cannon balls. Your underwriting authority comes from thousands of informed scientists.
Fantastic contribution as usual, Brian.
I’ve read Hansen’s testimony, or most of it, and it crystal clear the world is no longer in business as usual mode, and we must re-think the way that we organise ourselves. Really the GFC is an opportunity, not an excuse, but no politician will seize that opportunity because then they will have to face the reality that we can’t pretend any longer that the usual solutions will work.
I’m beginning to think it’s the height of irrationality to even consider having children these days, knowing what we now know.
It’d be a waste of time drawing my local members’ attention to this, unfortunately, as the Federal one is the Mincing Poodle, and the State one is some local ALP apparatchick without, I suspect, much sway with the relevant minister.
adrian,on your point about bringing children in to the world:
I’m not going to agree or disagree, but it’s interesting think about which ‘group’ of people would chose that option, or more importantly which ‘group’ wouldn’t in the context of civilisation, past present and future.
Tipping points and all that…
It strikes me that the projected map of Australia after the 80m sea level rise would, suitably adapted, make a striking and effective new logo for the Australian Greens. It’s an image that deserves wider dissemination.
Adrian,
I put off having children partly due to the risk of nuclear winter…
Brian, well done.
It seems to me that the feedback mechanisms that you mention are not well enough understood. Positive feedback/s in a system can bring on really rapid change eg methane release.
Also some of the simple physical aspects – for example I read of the study of a lake that suddenly appeared perched on the top of a glacier. Those reporting the phenomena predicted that it would take many years to drain down through the glacier fissures. A month later the entire glacier had dissapeared – lake and all. It appears that the water had melted a huge hole in the glacier and it fell apart.
A similar event is described at: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/18/2221181.htm
My guess is that the situation may be already irreversible – unless we take some heroic engineering measures. Many that I have read about scare me.(Many of the “fixes” are irreversible) Maybe just painting the deserts white would work. http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/reflecting-on-climate-change.html Advantage is it is a first order fix and easily reversible. I must be going mad to even contemplate it.
Huggy
We see the AGW believers admit the models are worthless every time they open their mouths and say the climate is getting “worse” than predicted. Of course, most of them don’t realze they are damning the very work that is being used to support their cause.
Whereas chrisl demonstrates the depth of his wisdom by implying that ‘imperfect’ = ‘worthless’ and totally misconceiving the purpose of a model.
Um … no, chrisl. You’re completely wrong.
The IPCC projections of a couple of years ago were extremely conservative, at the lower limits of the range of possibilities predicted by the models. If I understand things correctly, we’re getting the more extreme outcomes, perhaps slightly earlier than expected.
See, I guess your problem is that you don’t have the wit to understand that the various climate models predict a range of outcomes, not a single, monolithic Outcome.
I’m glad I’m 65 and dying.*
I guess it just means we’re all going to have to fight/push/whatever each of us does/ jut that little bit harder.
*Doesn’t help much, though, since I sort of believe in reincarnation or the food for worms theory. Still haven’t made up my mind.
Location location location!!!
David I : How do you falsify the models?
Would 7 years of flatlining temperatures despite rising co2 levels do it?
Parts of Tasmania and New Zealand could be the go.
Thanks all.
James Hansen has long been a standout in giving his opinions as a scientist to policy makers, believing it to be a moral obligation. As other scientists now follow suit, he seems to be involving himself more directly. I believe he told Kingsnorth power station that they would be responsible for the extinction of 400 species. That was their share of the environmental cost according to his calculations.
Now he seems to be taking to the streets.
Amongst politicians you can only admire John Kerry:
chrisl, I’d take more notice of real scientists that I would of you. What happens in a given 10 year period is practically irrelevant.
Hansen reckons there are three levels of evidence in priority order.
First, observations the come from the history of the earth.
Second, recorded observations over the last 100 years or so.
Third, the models.
Chrisl you really need to tell what you mean by “models”.
Huggy
Oh god don’t encourage him by inviting him to elaborate. Soon he’ll be channelling Tim Blair or talking about the hockey stick.
Fantastic, Adrien.
Look, Australia owns most of that very affordable real estate, don’t we?
BilB @ 12
The modern political equivalent of the circular envelope is this one: a politician wishes to achieve leadership of his party and finds in his mail a mysterious envelope. He opens it and inside are three smaller envelopes. He opens the first one. It says, “campaign on climate change”. He does and wins leadership.
Then he opens the second one. It says, “listen to the coal industry, forget about climate change, and campaign on jobs”.
The opinion polls are still dire and a colleague continues to swear that he doesn’t want to replace him, so the leader opens the third envelope.
It says, “prepare three envelopes”.
How would I falsify the models, chrisl? Well, lessee, I’d start by making a prediction, then seeing whether or not reality matched that prediction. (The cognescenti call it the scientific method.)
So far, the models haven’t been falsified, despite numerous predictions (that happen to have been pretty much on the money) and failed attempts by persons like yourself.
Sorry, Ken, I just can’t help myself.
OK, lots of complaints, including about politicians who don’t listen to the science, flaws in the Rudd response, etc.
How about we all shove the logic and science in the face of the pollies… they’ve got two open inquiries on this now, and only for a short time:
economics.sen@aph.gov.au for the CPRS bills (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/info.htm)
climate.sen@aph.gov.au for the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy
(http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/climate_ctte/tor.htm)
If 0.01% of the population spent five minutes on an email, the politicians might actually think people cared enough to spend five minutes on it. With the few submissions they’ll probably get, the politicians will have proof that the citizens are hypocritical and don’t really care, so they can do whatever the polluter lobbyists tell them to.
Thanks, Dave. Meanwhile, I’m sorry to say at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel…
Come on guys….
New Yourk City was once under 1 mile of ice…..
The Mediterranean Ocean was once dry…..
There are submerged cities and buildings from ancient times…..
Greenland once had very little ice recently(that’s why the name Greenland)…..
It has been nearly 10C warmer in recent history…..
The last Ice Age was also in recenet history…..
Sorry people, but the climate is going to do what it is going to do. The CO2 capacity of plant life in no where near being taxed. There would be an incredible amount of vegitative growth. There is not. And as stated in the article, we have more to fear from natural occuring gasses being released than anything manmade, particulary CO2 (which is neglible), can cause.
Will the oceans rise someday, maybe soon. Probably. Will the waters subside, maybe soon. Probably. Could we have stopped the last Ice Age or the big melt that followed. Nope. Change is the norm.
Just released in the UK is the Age of Stupid (www.ageofstupid.net). It will make people stand up and take notice. Go and see it, get it shown in your local area and get people talking about these issues.
I quizzed Treasurer Swan at an LSE lecture last Friday about a lack of green mandate in the recent stimulas package and the CDM lifeline driving green investment offshore. He either doesn’t get it or is totally focused on ensuring economic growth/recovery. Amazingly short sighted.
I heard a great quote recently that in my mind sums a lot of this up:
“The long term is not the sum of numerous short terms” – Unfortunately in the current policy on run environment it appears to be.
jpsburke is definitely state of art spam.
“Change is the norm.”
And we should just should accept it? Hell no, we’re homo sapiens! Well you’re not. You’re just a fucking wimp throwing his hands up and bumbling off.
We change planet, planet doesn’t change us.
Regardless of AGW and the totally arsed geopolitical planning that left a major chunk of the globe’s easily extracted hydrocarbon resources in religiously tinder dry regions, it’s time we rejigged anyway how our energy generation and consumption works with various laws of thermodynamics in a closed system. It’s been pretty bloody inefficient and messy so far. But fun.
What is different about this particular warming is the reality that humans have dug up massive amounts of carbon and put that into the atmosphere as an atmospheric carbon preload. So when the methane boil off (an event that happens periodically through time) begins the atmosphere is starting from a higher base concentration. Methane hits the atmoshere and accelerates warming but 30 to 50 years later it has broken down to water and CO2 and the warming starts to decline. That is unless there is more CO2 than there has been for 300 million years.
We are not talking about the Earth falling into the sun, here. We are talking about things changing enough to make three quarters of all human infrastructure of the last 300 years obsolete. We are talking about the obliteration of the world economy as we now know it. We are talking about mass human relocation within the next 60 years, within the life of my children.
Some years ago an explosion at a Japanese factory that manufactured a particular glue used in the production of silicon chips, caused a worldwide shortage of electronic components and put a shiver through the electronic industry. Think about the technological dislocation that is in store as Global Warming driven extreme weather increases in intensity and frequency. In Victoria and later in Western Australia single unexepected events caused massive disruption to gas supplies with huge industrial disruption. As disruptive events become more frequent and widespread our ability as a community to contain damage will be progressively diminished. Cyclone Katrina was a warning shot across the bows of our modern civilisation. Our political leaders have not properly thought through the “business as usual” approach to Global Warming.
Yeah but BilB dinosaurs used to walk the earth and they’ve found seashell fossils in central Australia. 100 years is equal to 10 million in the eyes of the lord. I needed a blanket on the bed this morning which is unusual for March, and we had another cool morning two weeks ago. I’m sure your kids will be fine.
See all climate change requires is to think outside the box.
These sorts of wild over estimations are why in a recent poll 41% of Americans said that they believed that global warming was being exaggerated.
Even on this Green / Left site there are probably people who lurk when global warming comes up because they believe it’s being over stated. When people see images like the one above and then check the IPCC’s top estimate in the FAR for sea level rise being 18″ or 45 cm people may start to check other projections.
The current measured trend is 0.16 +- 0.02 C per decade. With that kind of temperature change and a realistic discount rate for the damage done a hundred years from now the wisdom of taking drastic action is highly questionable. An ETS or a low tax has a chance, but a really expensive scheme won’t get up.
It is unclear as to what you are saying, Ken. If you leave your fridge and freezer doors open your house may seem a little cooler. The reality, though, will be that everything has defrosted. That is exactly what is happening with the Arctics. The recent snow in the UK and US was caused by a weakening of the traditional winter Artic depression which split into two and seperated allowing warm air to flow in to fill the gap pushing the now 2 low pressure cells further South. It felt like everything was cooling down when it was actually heating up really fast.
The whole mini ice age thing was about the Atlantic conveyor which terminates near England as it disposes of its heat colected in the Indian Ocean then sinks, thus giving Europe a more mild climate rather than the Moscow climate that it would have without. In the past, this conveyor has been shut down sooner when lower salinity water has flowed out of the Russian Arctic during warming periods. So far it has not happened even though the water salintiy near Norway has change considerably. If the Atlantic conveyor holds up because of its stronger heat content then that is really bad news. It is mechanisms such as this that cause rapid climate change with far reaching effects. It is really any ones guess as to how it will play out, but your assurances are fairly hollow by my judgement.
Ken’s sending up the stupidity of people like…well we all know who they are.
steve, when I clicked on your name @ 34 I got a warning that I was about to enter some kind of bodgie site and it might be an attempt to trick me. Your post demonstrates that you haven’t got to first base in understanding the issue. I can’t remember seeinmg so much ignorance packed into three short paragraphs.
Pedro S, last year I did a series on sea level change. In this one I took a look at what the IPCC did and didn’t do, and what Stefan Rahmstorf did with their data later. You should then read the one about what Hansen found and some real world implications.
Then you should read what the UNEP Yearbook 2009 Ch 3 says about sea level rise. Then feel free to come back and make a comment. Otherwise, frankly, you are wasting our time.
Ken, it’s strange that denialists spend half their time saying that 100 years of observations is not long enough to distinguish the AGW imprint from background noise and the other half of our time saying that the flattish graph in the last 10 years destroys the AGW story. Barry Brooke, if memory serves, says that 97% of the warming goes into the ocean, much at depth, where it matters in the long run. The temperature at a given point on the surface of the earth for a day or a year, or even a decade, has no significance whatsoever.
After all the “greenhouse effect” is not some twentieth century pomo construct; invented by a bunch of hairy palmed academics seeking a soft job (They are over in the nuclear camp). Fourier came up with it and Svante Arrhenius actually called it that. Both realised that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere had a heat trapping effect.
Now if a couple of 19th century boffins could predict our present situation from first principles why are there still a whole bunch of brain dead morons out there disputing the science? There is no question at all about the the basic science of global warming. The only question is about the rate of change, the point is that if we are underestimating this we are already in very deep do do. We may be out painting the deserts in a few years. Sorry Ms Bilby.
Huggy
Here is an interesting article about the conveyor and climate. One of the key areas not covered is the interplay of the conveyor with methyl hydrate beds.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
Bilb it is Methane Hydrate or Methane Clathrate, Methyl Hydrate is an anti-freeze.
Stuff is present in the oceans wherever the temperature/pressure profile permits (> 300m).About 10,000 Gt of Carbon is thought to be sequestered in this stuff. If the pressure is lowered or the temperature increased then Methane will be released.
You want positive feedback? – well this is one big one.
Huggy.
Adrian’s comment describes my intention perfectly.
I could also have yelled “Y2K Y2K” a few times but I’m saving that for my rebuttal argument.
Climate change illustrates why we should be teaching kids how to gather and critically evaluate data from a very early age if they are to be capable of making an informed, constructive contribution to democratic processes. Unfortunately people prefer to devote resources to teaching ‘Australian values’ and employing chaplains.
Oh well, too late to do anything about it now.
Good point, Ken. Y2K was in fact a very real danger as was proven recently. The very fact that a big deal was made about it, well ahead of time, meant that the problem was defused to the extent that the bomb was a total fizzer. With out all of that preparation though… You will remember the collapse of the US west coast telephone system caused by a single microprocessor command, END, being in the wrong place. Y2K had that same potential thousands of times over. As does Global Warming, but by many magnitudes greater.
And your point is very real, we are giving far less determined effort to Global Warming than we did to a simple microprocessor configuration flaw.
Oh and those morons who believe our future salvation lies in nuclear power should read this:
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/nuclear_renaissance.pdf
They won’t of course – it’s all too hard.
Huggy
Well, Huggy, for now I’ve bookmarked it.
Ken @ 42, really sorry I missed your irony . I think on reading the first para I was thinking, “What’s wrong with Ken, is he off his nut?” And my mind was too engaged with that to clear enough to work out the second, which at that time I just found confusing.
So, if I may be so bold, my humble suggestion is that perhaps the last sentence could have gone first.
Ken @ 47, and everyone, do yourself a good turn and listen to Richard Fidler’s conversation with our Lynne Hinton. She’s pure magic, that lady. Lynne was the Principal of the school my youngest son went to when he became a refugee from multiple bullying, most atrociously by the teacher, in Year 4 at another school. That was when Lynne’s school had 48 kids, well 50, she rounded up a couple more so that she wouldn’t lose the third teacher.
She says that no matter what disruptions to the schools program, philosphy and mathematics were top priorities and had to be done. I might do a post on it one day.
Kids who can understand the world, take in and sort out evidence, listen to and respect others, and reason logically end up doing better across the curriculaum and also end up with a better sense of self.
That is really powerful, Brian. I have downloaded the conversation and will pass it on to my daughter’s primary school principle. I agree with Lynne Hinton completely, and have been heard asking primary principles if philosophy could be introduced. It is very engaging listening to Lynne Hinton explaining how philosophy is handled in the primary school context, because that is the key. It is just a twist of thinking. Thankyou very much for that.
Interestingly and relevently enough, last night I found myself at the primary school with my youngest who will be moving to high school next year, at a high school presentation night for the chidren who will be moving forward next year. There were a number of high school teachers and about 15 high school students who all gave presentations about what high school meant for them. At question time the only primary student question (all others were from parents) came from a boy who asked how bullying was handled in high school, were new kids from primary school picked on because they were new. The answer was, of course, good support structures and a concerted effort to raise students self esteem, but I would have enjoyed Lynne Hinton’s reaction to that.
So back on topic, one of my questions to the high school principle was “how was global warming awareness handled in the high school carriculum”?
BilB, I’m glad you liked the interview. I think I’ll definitely try to do a post, but I’d want to give Lynne a look at it and try to get her on board as a commenter.
In the early days she had a lot of help from Philip Cam of the U of NSW. She got funding from the Feds for some basic literacy program they were funding at the time, which paid for Cam to come up and help her set up the program. At the time Catholic Education Office in Brisbane were keen on promoting the subject and were onto Cam already. So there is a bit of it about.
Google Philip Cam and you’ll get some of his stuff.
It strikes me that global warming is one of those topics that could fit in across the curriculum in just about any subject. Some teachers might shy away because it is ‘contoversial’ however.
Last night I attended the book promotion with Philip Sutton, co-author of Climate Code Red which Paul alerted us to. Informative and exciting is the short report. Sutton is very clear and succinct on the science, but his strength is on social/political change strategy.
He reckons he’s actually more hopeful than he has been for 30 years, although we are teetering on the brink of disaster. He thinks the pollies are bloody hopeless by and large, so we are going to have to go ahead ourselves. They can then get the message and catch up, because only they can do what needs to be done in the macro political sense.
Definitely a report on the meeting will be my next post, but I’ll try to let him know so that he can set me straight if necessary.
I don’t know whether Paul was there lurking. I suspect not. Maybe there were other LPers there too. I didn’t play on at the restaurant across the road. I was the geezer in the back row who asked the very last question after the bell. I actually get palpitations from nervousness when I do that kind of thing, but luckily I didn’t kark it.
Drew Hutton did very well, BTW Paul.
On the go it alone front, Brian, also at last night’s event was one of my daughters friends father whose civil engineering (works for) firm has just finished their work on a major hospital project. This guy is quite a performer, and he seemed to be interested in an energy project so I gave him all of the information and background for Dr Franz Trieb and the European CSP programme. Let’s see if anything happens. The other coincidental event was the return of a very close friend from London where has just finished the de-polution of the Olympic stadium site (used to be a gas works). So having been away from Australia for 2.5 years he returns to a whole new scene where he has a little more flexibility than in the past. Taking opportunity of his immense knowledge and situation I filled him in on an algal oil production concept that I have been trying to get tested. He agreed that it had substance and will explore the methods for arranging a beaker test. I will let you know how that pans out in due course.
Small seeds, but we must try.
Look, Australia owns most of that very affordable real estate, don’t we?
.
Yeah and I’m sure that the Big States of the world will respect our property rights when the shit hits that fan.
Maybe this wil explain a few things:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127004.200-give-us-clarity-on-climate-targets.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg20127004.200
Appears the bofffins are not explaining themselves very well. So what is new ?
Huggy
I dunno, Huggy. How much clearer can you get than what Hansen has been saying?
David, it seems to me that very few scientists understand Hansen in terms of how he actually understands what’s happening. He makes scientists too a bit uncomfortable. But he tends to be about 5 years ahead of the pack.
I’ve gotta go now, but I’ll try to expand tonight, perhaps in a new post.
It’s the Scientists en masse who tend to become inchoate. Too many voices too many perspectives with minor differences.
Hansen is just one voice, seen by some as a dangerous radical etc.
It really is a two cultures thing (Snow was correct). The Pollies who almost all come from the Liberal arts and the Law are anable to properly “construct” the message as thay have no science at all mostly. FFS there are stll “educated” people out there who believe in Intelligent design and the literal truth of the bible.
Huggy.
“My orchids couldn’t be happier.”
But how do they taste?
Spam now deleted Nabs!
(I thought people ate lotus not orchids)