WHC (ASX) Climate Change

Originally posted by Alex.shipway: ↑

I've underlines my responses - I agree, it is getting difficult to discern who has said what,

Thanks for the response, and again, thanks for engaging politely - it doesnt often happen. We can disagree on things, but I have no doubt you are a good person with good intentions.

"I'll summarise my argument and then you can read details belowCO2 is increasing, it is probably largely manmade, the planet is warming but not drastically, whatever we do to reduce co2 will make no difference because there is a tide of extra co2 emissions coming out of India and China next decade that will dwarf what the west reduces. We are better off spending money to grow our economy, R@D new technologies and adapt. Going down the transition path will cripple our industries, make China richer and achieve nothing in the big scheme other then virtue signalling."

Its a good summary and it looks like we largely agree on many points.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing ✔
It is probably "man-made" ✔ (Although, I'd prefer something like, "A lot of it is human induced" just being nit-picky)
The planet is warming ✔
But not drastically - Well, one mans drastic is another mans mild inconvenience. I would agree that the warming right now is probably not a drastic issue for us rich Westerners with the ability to adapt, but there are plenty of people around the world that would not be able to adapt like we can for many reasons.

Whatever we do to reduce co2 will make no difference because there is a tide of extra co2 emissions coming out of India and China next decade - Again, I think this argument is a bit weak, and I'll make one last comment that I heard back in my undergraduate conservation biology class. There had been a king tide, and thousands upon thousands of starfish had washed up on a beach. This lady was walking along the beach tossing them back into the ocean one by one when someone walked up to her and said "There's thousands of starfish on this beach, you wont make a difference" to which the woman picked up another starfish, threw it into the ocean and said "I made a difference to that one".

This might be idealist in me, but I dont think we should shrug out shoulders and say "we wont make a difference".

"We are better off spending money to grow our economy, R@D new technologies and adapt" ✔ - I agree, that technology will certainly play a big part.
Going down the transition path will cripple our industries - Maybe, maybe not. Did we tell the DVD manufacturers to not develop DVD's because it would cripple the video tape industry? Did we tell Netflix to shutdown because it would cripple Blockbuster and Video Ezy? Of course not! That's how we progress.

...Make China richer and achieve nothing in the big scheme other then virtue signalling. - We have the ability to do much of the work with out own resources, we dont have to make a foreign country richer.
Ill by pass the Bhutan stuff for now, it seems a little irrelevant, but I will add that Bhutan seems to have cheap, reliable, electricity.

"You - Sorry, let me clarify - it was not all in the atmosphere at once.It was all in the atmosphere at once, the plants and animals sequestered it over 100's of millions of years."

The highest estimated CO2 ppm in earths history is from the Ordovician which showed anywhere from 3000-9000ppm.

Several sources estimate Earths total Carbon is 1.85 billion, billion tonnes. (A quintillion) 1,850,000,000,000,000,000
The atomic weight of carbon makes up about 27% of the Carbon Dioxide molecule.
1 ppm of CO2 weighs 2.12 billion tonnes. Therefore the carbon part is approx 27% of this which means 1ppm of CO2 comprises of 0.57 billion tonnes of Carbon.
9000ppm therefore = 5166 billion tonnes of carbon.
Its late where I am, but I hope that math checks out - please correct me if I am wrong.
So, as I mentioned it was neverallin the atmosphere at a single point in time. It flowed. As you mentioned, nature sequestered it over millions of years.

"You - But you also ignored the point where I said when CO2 was much higher, it was also much warmer.Equally there have been times in much more recent history where co2 hadn't started increasing and temperatures were much higher then the surrounding years. For example the mid 1880's had a co2 of 290 compared to 1990 that ranged from 355-365 but average temperature was colder in the 1990's then in the 1880's. Hangon but co2 was higher but the temperatures were lower. This is drawn from the peer reviewed pages2k consortium.https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788. Graph is below, so clearly something in addition or other then co2 is playing a role.

Well, sure, 1875 (ish) had the warmest temperature average, until about 1940 (or you could say until the 1980's)
But that's just one year, that's why when measuring trends, scientists dont use small data sets. You could argue cooling from 1940 to 1960, or drastic warming from 1860 to 1880. But anyone looking at this graph can clearly see the trend is rising. There are short term (1-5 year) variations, that scientists are well aware of, and often include them in their data sets.

It’s causing warming– I agree it’s warming, but I disagree that it is all caused by co2 and the amount of change is debatable I also point out that water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect (over 50%) and that scientists models are extremely poor at accounting for water vapor and cloud cover, but they are good at curve fitting.
The reason why I disagree the amount it is warming is
a) the degree of warming is dependent on when you set your base.
b) most records have been homogenized aka adjusted from the original measurements)
c) people confuse weather with climate. In fact, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization defines climate as a thirty-year average, although climate researchers will sometimes discuss averages over a period as short as ten years. So changes in the weather from one year to another do not constitute changes in climate.
d) Water vapor is the most important of the greenhouse gases. Of course, the amount in the atmosphere at any given place and time varies greatly (the humidity changes a lot with the weather). But on average, water vapor amounts to only about 0.4 percent of the molecules in the atmosphere. Even so, it accounts for more than 50 percent of the atmosphere’s ability to intercept heat. A water vapor molecule on average spends less 14 days in the atmosphere so it is difficult to model.
e) predicting future effects of co2 on the climate is not science, in the words of the IPCC "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible". —Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – May 2018. s
f) It was an early-on (1990s), oft-repeated slogan used to hype computer models that said the Earth was warming at an uncontrolled, runaway, even catastrophic rate, as a result of humans’ unbridled use of fossil fuels. But then the “pause” arrived. Measured global temperatures—the physical evidence—didn’t significantly rise or fall for twelve years. Instead, they flat-lined, in spite of a continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. So, those touting global warming switched to “climate change” about 15 years ago. Climate change supposedly allows for temperatures to warm, cool, or stay the same. It is better in that sense."Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012."
It is going to cause a disaster – disagree, the earth has been significantly hotter, human deaths from natural disasters are have seen a 99% decrease in the past 100 years, and mankind is adaptable (According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.)

I agree, the amount of warming is debateable, and some areas will experience more warming than others. Some areas may even get slightly cooler. Overall, the average global temperature will indeed be warmer.

Water vapour indeed has a large greenhouse effect, but that effect is short lived as water vapour is in the atmosphere for no more than, say, 2 weeks. CO2 on the other hand remains up there for centuries. Again, scientists dont need to factor this in when making long term models, because, by definition, the water vapour isn't a long term variable. That being said, the warmer the atmosphere, the more moisture that can be "held" in it.

Correct, changes in weather do not constitute changes in climate. A single warmer year is no more proof of climate change than a single colder year is proof against it. Its the trend (as I said above)

Predicting the future of climate states is not the same as predicting the effects of climate change.

"So, those touting global warming switched to “climate change” about 15 years ago. Climate change supposedly allows for temperatures to warm, cool, or stay the same. It is better in that sense."

A myth, that persists to this day (although, the year is often changed). 15 years ago, (or even 20, or 25 years ago) gives us late 1990's. Well, the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGEwas formed in 1988. Better yet, one of the first major papers evidencing carbon dioxide and climate change was called, well, see below
So whilst many people use the term global warming and climate change interchangeably, the scientists have been using the terms correctly and to mean different things.

Global Warming = The overall warming trend observed on earth.
Climate Chane = The changing of the climate.
Furthermore to your point regarding no warming from 1998 to 2012 (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earths-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade#:~:text=Using%20the%20data%20that%20were,surface%20temperature%20from%201998%2D2012.)

It is going to cause a disaster – disagree, the earth has been significantly hotter, human deaths from natural disasters are have seen a 99% decrease in the past 100 years, and mankind is adaptable (According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.)

I didn't say it was going to cause a disaster- but again, one mans disaster is another mans mild inconvenience. I dont know if you've also considered our wildlife and environment. In the past, hundreds of thousands of years was quick enough to adapt, centuries and decades? not so much. You and I would probably be fine, but we live in a rich Western country. Not everyone does. Human deaths have indeed reduced (I'll accept your claim we've seen a 99% reduction) but that correlation doesnt mean we haven't seen climate disasters. We have stronger infrastructure, more accurate forecasts and warnings, much better health services.

We can do something to decrease the worlds co2– disagree, it's a fools errand. The population has increased 3 fold in 84 years! Let that sink in, we had 1/3 of todays population 84 years ago! These extra people breathe out 255kg of co2 a year, or an extra 1.5 b tonnes a year without doing anything else. 84% of people (that's over 6 billion) live in third world countries that are exempt from reducing carbon. These are also the countries who are industrializing and are poor, so they will always use fossil fuels as these are the most energy dense, reliable and cheapest forms of energy. Fossil fuels will increase in total tonnes used over the coming decade despite net zero policies in the west.

I cant reduce consumption and impact on the environment to zero, but that's not a good reason why I shouldn't try and reduce it at all.

I'll try to address your remining points in another post as I have run out of time, but once again, thanks for engaging politely, I'm sure we can learn a thing or two from each other.

Expand

The debate over fossil fuels is always based on some bad outcome that awaits in the future and ignores the immense, real and tangible benefits that we have all enjoyed from the advantages of fossil fuels. Every decision should carefully weigh the positives and negatives of any proposed course of action, especially when it involves trillions of dollars, millions of jobs and the future of a nation. The current debate does not do that.
But not drastically - Well, one mans drasticis another mans mild inconvenience. I would agree that the warming right now isprobably not a drastic issue for us rich Westerners with the ability to adapt,but there are plenty of people around the world that would not be able to adaptlike we can for many reasons.

I totally disagree, cheap reliable energy is causative forbecoming wealthier. The wealthier a person is the better they are able to adapt. For example for the billions of people who cook inside on wood and dung, and the three million that die prematurely because of it, a gas fire (fossil fuel) would immediatelky improve their life and life expectancy. . https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/air-quality-energy-and-health/sectoral-interventions/household-air-pollution/health-risks#:~:text=Over%203%20million%20people%20die,disease%3B%20other%20HAP%20data). England a few hundred years ago was the same as many third world countries today, desperately poor withe poor living conditions. This is what happened for them with the use of cheap reliable fossil fuels. Their quality of life improved on so many metrics, life expectancy, child mortality, education, literacy and food security. Forcing third world countries to use unreliable solar and wind will force them into a life of poverty. While you would have all Australians give up fossil fuels to protect other countries, the reality is that the countries you are largely trying to protect have the worlds largest fossil fuel subsidies. It is a fools errand.

This might be idealist in me, but I dontthink we should shrug out shoulders and say "we wont make adifference".
Nice story about the starfish, but the facts contradict your fable of thestarfish. Australia has reduced its emissions by 25% since 2005 and we have the highest solar rooftop penetration per capita in the world. But co2 emissions have kept growing from 30 – 37 billion tonnes in the world! In your analogy we are on the beach throwing back thousands of starfish, but it’s made no difference. We are on a fools errand.

A myth, that persists to this day
I concede this point, poor research by me

Going down the transition path will crippleour industries - Maybe, maybe not. Did we tell the DVD manufacturers to notdevelop DVD's because it would cripple the video tape industry? Did we tellNetflix to shutdown because it would cripple Blockbuster and Video Ezy? Ofcourse not! That's how we progress.
Your argument is that the best technology shouldwin. I agree, wind and solar are not the best and the proof is that we need subsidies to make them work. They also don’t work reliably as I demonstrated with a real life example of the grid in NSW over the past 48 hours. No matter how much wind and solar you add, you will have virtually no power available during the red box periods. That ain't great if your having emergency heart surgery

We have the ability to do much of the workwith our own resources, we dont have to make a foreign country richer.
That is absurd. I have run both IT companies in Australia and a manufacturing business in China doing energy intensive hammer forging, squeeze casting die casting and anodising.. We cannot compete because 1) our energy is ridiculously expensive 2) China is the market leader in Rare Earths, lithium, spherical graphite, anode, cathode and magnet production. We have a repressive Union movement that requires firms with 15 or more people to have a union trained delegate in every company by the 4^th quarter of 24.(https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/workplace-laws/legislation-changes/closing-loopholes/unions-and-registered-organisations-changes) As a consequence of these facts, we become less competitive every year. Last year our productivity fell 3.7%! (https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/productivity-insights/bulletins/bulletin-2024/productivity-bulletin-2024.pdf) We tried all the BS with the car industry and the unions killed it. We don’t stand a chance and all the bluster that comes from politicians about being a renewable superpower is all BS coming from people who have NEVER run a business or employed staff in their life. I spoke with an elected MP recently and they believed that Lithium was the largest component of a lithium battery (it's graphite and the stuff that comes from China is a by product of fossil fuels and is extremely energy intensive to make).
But anyone looking at this graph can clearlysee the trend is rising. There are short term (1-5 year) variations, thatscientists are well aware of, and often include them in their data sets.
0.6 – 1.3 degrees depending on who you listen to isnothing over a 175 years. In that period deaths from natural disasters hasplummeted. We have 5 times as many people, we live 130% longer, gdp is 7 timeshigher, and we consume 34% more calories per day per person. If we hadn’t used fossil fuels we’d all be living in poverty, cures to diseases wouldn’t have been found and we wouldn’t be having this conservation. Yuo and I probably wouldn't be alive. All discussions always refer to some perceived risk in the future, but always ignore the powerful real life benefits we enjoy today form this reliable energy source.

Predicting the future of climate states isnot the same as predicting the effects of climate change.
If you cannot predict the future of climate states, it isa guess not science. The scientificmethod involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitiveassumptions candistort the interpretation of the observation. Scientific inquiry includes creating a hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments andstatistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on theresults.
I didn't say it was going to cause adisaster
If it’s not going to be a disaster why spend 10’s oftrillions of dollars? Why are we having this conversation? Deaths from natural disasters have plummeted,and that is my point, humans are the greatest of the species because we adapt.If you want to adapt you need to pick the winning technologies, and lithiumbatteries, EV’s, solar and wind are not better technologies, they are notcheaper and they are not more reliable, so we shouldn’t be blindly chargingdown the path of inferior technologies.
You didn’t answer any of the following which aresummarised below
1) whydon’t you lead the way, chuck as many starfish back into the ocean, anddisconnect from the power grid. Spend the money you want the government tospend on your behalf and get your tesla power wall, source some solar not made onslave labor, get a battery powered bicycle, walk places, grow your vegetablesand disconnect.
2) Are youhappy to promote slave labor solar panels, do you think this is an acceptablecost of the rooftop solar penetration we have in Australia
3) Ihave shown you the links to the research (Simon Michaux) that proves that thereare not enough minerals to build out the current green revolution, so what’syour answer?

(20min delay)
Last $7.65		Change 0.020(0.26%)		Mkt cap ! $6.399B

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
$7.69	$7.71	$7.64	$24.66M	3.217M

No.	Vol.	Price($)
1	5000	7.640
5	3080	7.630
1	1000	7.620
2	2065	7.610
2	11000	7.600

Price($)	Vol.	No.
7.670	9000	1
7.680	7000	2
7.690	5500	3
7.700	24000	3
7.740	5000	1

Climate Change, page-866

Microcap Wrap: 5 explorers with news out today

Sun Silver gets that drill to thrill feeling from high grade hits at Maverick Spring

Recce's R327 found effective against E.coli during clinical trial

Week 26 Wrap: Cerberus of inflation barks – rents, electricity & fuel – and world watches two elders bicker

ChemX Materials kicks off first stage works at WA high purity alumina pilot

Silver Mines models five new calderas close to 396Moz Bowdens deposit

Wealth Within weighs in on shock 4% inflation read – and stocks that could survive the gloom

Ava Risk Group expands US presence with A$0.7M Substation Deal

Larvotto identifies new exploration target at NSW's Hillgrove, boosting shares by nearly 20%

Lithium Universe (ASX:LU7) board visits Quebec to engage key stakeholders

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News

Climate Change, page-866

Top Stories

Microcap Wrap: 5 explorers with news out today

Sun Silver gets that drill to thrill feeling from high grade hits at Maverick Spring

Recce's R327 found effective against E.coli during clinical trial

Week 26 Wrap: Cerberus of inflation barks – rents, electricity & fuel – and world watches two elders bicker

ChemX Materials kicks off first stage works at WA high purity alumina pilot

Silver Mines models five new calderas close to 396Moz Bowdens deposit

Wealth Within weighs in on shock 4% inflation read – and stocks that could survive the gloom

Ava Risk Group expands US presence with A$0.7M Substation Deal

Larvotto identifies new exploration target at NSW's Hillgrove, boosting shares by nearly 20%

Lithium Universe (ASX:LU7) board visits Quebec to engage key stakeholders

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News