Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

Always interesting to see how many times a deliberately twisted 20 year old comment can be resurrected to justify climate change denial.

Regardless of what Flannery intended with his infamous comment, governments at the time interpreted his and other similar high profile comment around that time to mean they needed to invest on that basis.

The 5 mainland states all built desalination plants and Tasmania built a gas-fired power station. In all cases the logic was to meet essential needs in the absence of future rainfall.

With the bizarre twist that, with the exception of WA, this amounted to effectively having scared them off from pursuing alternative supply schemes with lower fossil fuel use and thus CO2 emissions. WA being the exception simply because it didn't really have any alternative options.

In SA there was an alternative option to raise the height of an existing dam and increase total metropolitan water storage by about 75%. Sydney had the option to simply complete the Shoalhaven scheme. Brisbane and Melbourne both had the option to build new schemes based on surface water resources. Tasmania had the option to rely on wind energy as long as it was confident the hydro system wasn't going to fail.

I'm not saying Flannery directly caused all that, but governments did become somewhat convinced of a "never rain again" scenario that turned out to be far from the truth.

 

[basilio]

This is the current scientific reality of global warming that Climate scientists understand and attempt to live with.

‘It looks more likely with each day we burn fossil fuels’: polar scientist on Antarctic tipping points​

4-Louise Composite: AP / Guardian Design
Despite working on polar science for the British Antarctic Survey for 20 years, Louise Sime finds the magnitude of potential sea-level rise hard to comprehend
Jonathan Watts
Fri 27 Jun 2025 07.00 EDT


For more than 20 years, Louise Sime has worked at the British Antarctic Survey specialising in polar climate dynamics. She uses ice cores to reconstruct past conditions and predict future changes. She now leads several international Earth modelling projects.

... West Antarctica appears to be the area of greatest concern. Why?
This is the location of two huge and vulnerable glaciers: Pine Island and Thwaites. We know that their buttressing gate glaciers on the shore are thinning and retreating. That allows more of the ice sheet to flow into the ocean. Satellite images show this has been going on for some time and has accelerated at least since the year 2000.

All of those glaciers are connected together so if they slipped into the ocean that would add about four metres to global ocean levels. But the key question is how long this will take. Looking at past records of change in Antarctica, it’s likely to take hundreds of years. But a very large acceleration would be felt almost immediately and it would result in the global sea level going up much, much faster in the near future.

How does this compare with the situation in the Arctic?
The potential for Antarctica to increase global sea levels is scarier than for Greenland. Right now, they’re both contributing similar amounts to sea-level rise, but in future, it could be Greenland goes up a bit and then Antarctica goes up catastrophically.

Greenland has the potential to raise sea levels by five or six metres, but we don’t expect this will come in the form of an absolutely catastrophic, abrupt loss. Most of the ice in Greenland is not below sea level so we can see what is happening and we expect it will melt in a linear fashion.

By contrast, Antarctica has 80 metres of potential sea-level rise. We don’t expect all of that, but it is harder to know exactly what is happening. Much of Antarctica is below sea level and affected by the ocean, which means it is less stable and harder to observe. We also know there are parts of Antarctica where warm water is encroaching on to unstable shelves and we know that ice could retreat in some of the sloping basins – for example in East Antarctica and Wilkes Land. We don’t know where that tipping point is, but if we hit it, there will be an irreversible retreat of the West Antarctic sheet.

‘It looks more likely with each day we burn fossil fuels’: polar scientist on Antarctic tipping points

Despite working on polar science for the British Antarctic Survey for 20 years, Louise Sime finds the magnitude of potential sea-level rise hard to comprehend

www.theguardian.com

 

[sptrawler]

I love the fact that the public need to be informed, but I do wish they would mention how much difference to global warming would happen if Australia closed down tomorrow, it may make no difference to the outcome, who knows? No one gives those numbers.
The house may flood by 2050, whether Australia shuts down, or just continues to work toward reducing its emissions.

Why doesn't the ABC run an investigative report into how much global warming will occur, if Australia only achieved 50% of its target, or 75% of its target, what actual effect would that have on the WORLD global warming outcome.

Maybe then, NORMAL people could actually have a rational take on the debate, rather than media and ANU ( who were probably asked to conduct the investigation) and whoever funded the investigation.

I really don't see the point of scaring the hell out of people, other than to get a desired outcome, which could be to get them to barricade their house against rising sea level, get them to sell it, or it is funded by an agenda that profits from it, or its political which again boils back to money.

By the way I have a property about 1m above sea level and I do have electric everything, car, hotplates(changed from gas to inductive), HWS (gas changed to electric), heating/ cooling (R/C and evap, previously gas heating)), electric bikes, electric scooters, electric lawn mower, electric chainsaw, pole saw etc. So don't use the fossil fuel lover answer, to what could be a reasonable debate IMO.

One million homes at 'very high risk' will be effectively uninsurable by 2050

One in 10 homes could be effectively uninsurable by 2050, while lost labour productivity to extreme weather could wipe $211 billion in household wealth, the Climate Risk Assessment warns, with tourism, trade, and property values forecasted to take a dive.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:

Alongside a loss in property value of $611 billion by 2050 under a 2 degrees Celsius warming scenario, the first national assessment warns of $211 billion in lost wealth from reduced labour productivity.

It paints a picture for housing where, even under 2C warming, some areas will become too costly to live, and planning laws for construction and home insurance business models will have to change.

The report's release comes days ahead of the federal government announcing a 2035 target for reducing emissions. It will be taken to New York, where other nations will also submit their updated targets.

 

[Knobby22]

By the way I have a property about 1m above sea level and I do have electric everything, car, hotplates(changed from gas to inductive), HWS (gas changed to electric), heating/ cooling (R/C and evap, previously gas heating)), electric bikes, electric scooters, electric lawn mower, electric chainsaw, pole saw etc. So don't use the fossil fuel lover answer, to what could be a reasonable debate IMO.

Hopefully your property price won't be effected, I really think we have about 10 years before people really start being really careful where they buy their houses.

1m is pretty high. Another 900mm to go.
Graph is from US government source so may be different in Australia.

 

[mullokintyre]

Two Dutch Engineers had a paper accepted to Journal of Marine Science and Engineering that has come to a conclusion that sea level rise is neither accelerating nor decreasing.
Instead of using a model, they foolishly analysed real data from about 150,000 coastal locations across the world, some of which go back more than a century.
Their conclusion, based on actual data, suggests that sea level will rise about six inches this century, the sam as last century.
The modelling done by others have been shown once again to be wildly pessimistic.
Mick

 

[Knobby22]

Two Dutch Engineers had a paper accepted to Journal of Marine Science and Engineering that has come to a conclusion that sea level rise is neither accelerating nor decreasing.
Instead of using a model, they foolishly analysed real data from about 150,000 coastal locations across the world, some of which go back more than a century.
Their conclusion, based on actual data, suggests that sea level will rise about six inches this century, the sam as last century.
The modelling done by others have been shown once again to be wildly pessimistic.
Mick

That matches my graph above. Their is a slight acceleration though.

 

[IFocus]

Haven’t got the graph but payouts by insurance companies in Australia due to weather events has increased.

Alan Kohler also put up the numbers pretty clear where we are heading.

 

[sptrawler]

Sounds like another case of reality hitting home.

Bowen says cutting emissions by more than 70% ‘not achievable’ as 2035 target criticised from all sides

Albanese says 62% to 70% range represents ‘the sweet spot’ as Coalition rejects ‘economy wrecking’ target while Greens label it a ‘betrayal’

www.theguardian.com

 

[qldfrog]

The level of propaganda...
Contrary to the narrative, sea ice is recently increasing .. but this is the way this is told.
.

 

[Smurf1976]

Looks like someone in Hobart has found a solution.

Just don't have temperature at all, that way you don't need to worry if it's increasing or not.

 

[sptrawler]

Another good article from the ABC.

Climate experts cast their verdict of Australia's 2035 targets

After much anticipation, Australia has its new climate targets. Now that the dice have fallen, we consult experts on their assessment of how these targets stack up with what’s at stake.

www.abc.net.au

Also a very pertinent point from the Guardian article, which we keep discussing in the energy thread.

Bowen says cutting emissions by more than 70% ‘not achievable’ as 2035 target criticised from all sides

Albanese says 62% to 70% range represents ‘the sweet spot’ as Coalition rejects ‘economy wrecking’ target while Greens label it a ‘betrayal’

www.theguardian.com

From the article.

While some analysis suggests it would be technically possible for Australia to achieve even more, our analysis finds that doing so would involve higher delivery risks and may require policies with considerably higher near-term social, environmental or economic impacts.”

The report said even reaching the lower end of the range would not be easy, requiring, among other changes, a halving of current emissions levels, a six-fold increase in storage capacity, a quadrupling of wind capacity and electric vehicles accounting for half of new cars sold between now and 2035.

 

[sptrawler]

Here is a more comprehensive and detailed report of the target.

Way more wind, solar and EVs: The mammoth task to reach the 2035 target

Getting to even the bottom end of the government's 62 to 70 per cent emissions reduction target by 2035 will require drastic increases to solar and wind power capacity, electric vehicle take-up and an extension of the safeguard mechanism, according to the Climate Change Authority.

www.abc.net.au

Much of the heavy lifting — roughly half the job — would be done by cleaner electricity, requiring renewables capacity to go from less than half of Australia's power today to almost all of it (around 95 per cent) in 10 years' time.

The CCA said that even to hit a slightly less-ambitious 62 per cent would require a six-fold growth in storage like large-scale batteries, a quadrupling of wind capacity, a tripling of solar farm capacity and doubling of household solar and batteries.

Labor is underwriting renewables projects with its capacity investment scheme, but Treasury modelling envisages government policy would need to "evolve" over time to keep the rollout on track.

… Or else, brace for higher power bills​

Failure to reach near-completion of the renewables rollout, Treasury warned, would have drastic consequences for power prices because of the looming closure of Australia's ageing fleet of coal fired plants.

 

[IFocus]

“For the past 19 years, the minimum ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean has fallen below the levels prior to 2007,” Meier said. “That continues in 2025.”

Antarctic sea ice nearing annual maximum

As ice in the Arctic reaches its annual minimum, sea ice around the Antarctic is approaching its annual maximum.


James R. Riordon

 

[moXJO]

Haven’t got the graph but payouts by insurance companies in Australia due to weather events has increased.

Alan Kohler also put up the numbers pretty clear where we are heading.

Insurance companies just like jacking up premiums. Be interesting to see their profit margins year on year.

 

[basilio]

I have much respect for Alan Kolher. He is an excellent business analyst and can always see the bigger picture. This includes political, social and environmental issues that impact on business as well as the community.

Check out how he sees the future of Climate targets. A long read but well worth the investment. The rest of the analysis is equally challenging.

The government says its 2035 climate targets are achievable but mathematics suggests a different story​

By Alan Kohler

• Topic:Climate Change

4h ago4 hours ago

Can the Albanese government's new climate targets lower the risk of a catastrophic fire season like 2019/20 happening in the future? (ABCMyPhoto: Martin Von Stoll)

Link copied

The problem with an emissions reduction target, necessary though it is, is that its mere existence implies it is achievable and that if we do achieve it, we will be fine.

New CSIRO modelling suggests Australia's new targets are difficult to achieve, and even if they are, we won't be fine.

Australia will not hit the targets of 62-70 per cent reduction by 2035 and net zero by 2050 because the logistics of doing so require new forests the size of half of Victoria to be grown in 10 years, followed by further forests the size of two Tasmanias.

These plantations are not to be grown in the outback, either, but on existing farmland near the coast.

Farmland for forests may be the net zero trade-off

The problem with an emissions reduction target is that its mere existence implies it is achievable and that if we do achieve it, we will be fine. The truth is more complex.

www.abc.net.au

 

[IFocus]

Insurance companies just like jacking up premiums. Be interesting to see their profit margins year on year.

True but unfortunately the numbers are way higher than price gouging.

 

[basilio]

True but unfortunately the numbers are way higher than price gouging.

Which means what ?? what are you referring to here ?

 

[IFocus]

Which means what ?? what are you referring to here ?

just commenting insurance rising costs are more than just increasing prices.

 

[basilio]

The impact of global warming, mistakes and neglect on Iran.

‘We must change’: how drought and overextraction of water has run Iran dry​

Iranians blame climate change, sanctions, mistakes and neglect, and Iran’s vice-president wants to tackle them all

Patrick Wintour
Sun 21 Sep 2025 02.00 EDT

1. ---

   Iran’s vital statistics​

   • GDP per capita per annum: US$3,900 (global average $14,210)
   • Total annual tonnes CO2: 817m in 2023 (2.16% of global total emissions)
   • CO2 per capita: 9.03 metric tonnes in 2023 (global average 4.7)
   • Most recent NDC (carbon plan): 2015
   • Climate plans: rated critically insufficient
   
   A month ago, Benjamin Netanyahu pitched a calculated deal to the Iranian people. The Israeli prime minister suggested that if Iranians took to the streets and overthrew their government, he would flood the country with Israel’s top water experts, bringing with them cutting edge technology able to recycle and desalinate Iran’s water.
   Netanyahu clearly felt he had shaped his appeal to highlight one of the Iranian government’s great vulnerabilities, and on that he was right, even if he was precisely the wrong man to make such a pitch.
   Iran is facing multiple resource crises brought on by climate change, sanctions, successive mistakes and neglect by government. Blackouts, planned or unexpected, occur most days in dusty Tehran, even, ironically, at the US embassy, once the nerve centre of the defeated imperialists.
   
   

A taxi driver tries to cool off by having water poured on his head on a hot summer day in Tehran, Iran, in July. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images
The president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is disarmingly open about the scale of the crisis. “There is currently a problem with water, electricity and gas. There is no water behind the dams. The wells beneath our feet are also running dry. Those who claim there is water should come and tell us where this water is …”

For five years, Iran has been struggling with a drought that, experts agree, has been made far more severe by climate change. Steadily dropping levels of rainfall – a sweltering Tehran had only 158mm of rainfall last year, 42% less than the long term average – have combined with excessive consumption, particularly in agriculture, plus mass unauthorised extraction of groundwater and a fondness for prestigious but faulty engineering projects.

The water is running frighteningly low and this summer no fewer than 19 of Iran’s dams had only between 3 and 15 % of their water left. The capital’s three dams – Lar, Malu and Amir Kabir – were at critical levels by September, but appeals to the citizens of Tehran to cut their water consumption by 25% have not yet worked, so now there are plans to halt all construction work in the city for two years. Iran is now on the brink of the taps running dry.

In an interview with the Guardian in her Tehran offices, Shina Ansari, Iran’s vice-president and head of the government’s Environmental Protection Agency, does not disguise the gravity of the crisis. “Iran is located in the so-called dry belt of the Earth, and we have faced challenges for a long time, but over the past three decades the temperature has risen by 1.8C and over the past five years there has been a 30% reduction in rainfall. Right now we are in the fifth consecutive year of near drought.”

There have been mistakes in the past, she says, such as locating water-consuming industries in dry areas, or placing large populations in areas that do not have enough water resources. “Due to the major limitations that we face, we have no other choice but to change some of our agricultural methods.” This, she admits, is socially sensitive.

‘We must change’: how drought and overextraction of water has run Iran dry

Iranians blame climate change, sanctions, mistakes and neglect, and Iran’s vice-president wants to tackle them all

www.theguardian.com

 

[Smurf1976]

I have much respect for Alan Kolher. He is an excellent business analyst and can always see the bigger picture. This includes political, social and environmental issues that impact on business as well as the community.

Full credit to Kohler and agree with your comments but one point sticks in my mind.

A rather long list of people who are not business analysts but who are instead technical experts on various aspects of all this have been saying for an extended period now that the approach being taken will not, cannot, achieve the stated aim.

So what's Kohler's magic secret?

What enables a business analyst to cut through where countless technical people have failed over a period of decades?

That isn't a personal gripe, it's a genuine curiosity.

To the issue itself, ignoring arguments about the importance or otherwise of reducing CO2 emissions and just assuming the need is real (to avoid getting bogged down in that argument), overall we're in one hell of a predicament that I'll summarise with a series of brief points:

Fossil fuels are not the sole source of emissions. Eg cement production releases CO2 regardless of what fires the kiln, then there's methane from various sources, oxides of nitrogen, and an assortment of man-made chemicals. Some of these are easy to eliminate, some there's no fix for at present.

Some uses of fossil fuels have no easy substitute. Aviation, some metal extraction processes, etc.

A very considerable volume of fossil fuel is consumed for purposes where alternatives are technically possible but in practice problematic, mostly due to economics.

Another considerable chunk of fossil fuel use is technically and economically replaceable but faces barriers on account of cultural preferences, ideology, politics, etc.

Another chunk is doable, faces no real barrier, but will happen only slowly for an assortment of economic and practical reasons.

There are things that work and can be proven to work but that do not scale due to technical or resource limitations. Most notably biofuels.

The problem is the whole thing's become ridiculously political. Anyone who points out a problem is promptly labelled as this or that, rather than listening to what they're saying, the reasons for it and considering what solutions are available. To the point it's effectively shut down any real, rational discussion of what needs to happen. One side insists everything's going fine when clearly it isn't, the other insists there's no problem to fix, and from there it's an endless argument.