The listener.

Welcome again, this is the iron fist and the velvet glove podcast up to episode

311, something a bit different for you this time, instead of the normal panel

discussion I decided to, it was time to do a little talk on climate change, a

bit of a one-on-one on climate change.

So I don't have a normal panel, but Joe the tech guy was sitting at his

computer twiddling his thumbs anyways.

So he's joining in and say Joe is there he'll chip in as necessary.

Thank you, Joe.

And, and I'll do a bit of us solo spiel or with Joe's help and try and explain to

you my understanding of climate change.

And basically give you a bit of a 1 0 1 of what it's about and the typical

arguments and the basic stuff that you need to understand about climate change.

When you are sitting at a dinner party and somebody starts mouthing off as a climate

change denier, and you want to have a few facts and figures and some argue.

Ready for you.

So, so that's what tonight is about it's climate change and some of the

ins and outs, and I'm no, I'm no expert by any means, but I'll do my best

to give you a bit of a run through.

I mean, the important bits, if you're in the chat room, say hello and

already, we've got what lead the wizard.

Good.

I Whatley good to see you there.

So so yeah, climate change.

So, okay.

When thinking about, well, actually, you know, we really should apologize

because we've reached 311 episodes of this podcast and really haven't

discussed climate change until now.

So it is one of the major, you know, Things that we should have spoken about.

And it's quite an oversight to have not have spent some time on it.

So apologies for that more makeup for a little bit tonight.

And I think we need some safeness chaplains to help console us with the

existential dread of climate change.

That's it.

And for some forgiveness, I need to go to confession and flagellate

myself, something like that.

So, so anyway and we'll definitely do a bit more on climate change

than we have in the past.

So once we've got this one under our belt, hello, to Daniel,

he's in the chat room as well.

So look, climate change.

Okay.

Let's face it.

There are climate change deniers out there, and there's a lot of them and,

and they seem to fall into the same sorts of people who would be anti-vaxxers

and who would say lockdowns don't work.

And who would say that five G is either dangerous or it's

a plot to control our minds.

People who are into conspiracies are into this sort of thing and, and sort of

denying that climate change is manmade and is a problem, or, or at least made

my is certainly a common thing out there.

I'll tell you what though with the anti-vaxxers they

are becoming same minds train.

Like when I tune in and watch the premiers with their daily talks

about the lightest COVID numbers.

If you do that, ah, if you watch that on a Brisbane times, Facebook

feed or heaven forbid a sky news, Facebook feed the comments section

there by the anti-vaxxers it's insane.

The level of people who are denying vaccinations and climbing

all sorts of things about them.

So they're not a fringe group anymore.

They like becoming mainstream.

But anyway, I digress.

We're talking about climate change in this episode.

So.

One of the things with, with climate change vaccinations lockdowns, et cetera,

is people feel that they can do their own research and figure it out for themselves.

And as part of all this, I came across a website skeptical science.

And it had a good little section about doing your own research, which I think is

worth mentioning at the beginning here, before we get too far down the track.

So the phrase do your own research seems ubiquitous these days often

by those who don't accept mainstream science or news, conspiracy theories,

and many who fashioned themselves as independent thinkers and on its face.

It seems legit what could be wrong with wanting to seek out

information and make up your own mind?

And does this webs, excuse me, is this websites is the problem is.

With doing your own research that's not what research is like.

When scientists use the word research, they mean a systematic

process of investigation.

Evidence is collided evaluated in an unbiased objective manner.

And those methods have to be available to other scientists

for replication these days.

When people say that they're doing their own research, I mean, they using a search

engine to find information that conform confirms what they already think is true.

So bear that in mind.

Next time you hear somebody say, do your own research Googling away

in your own bubble is not research.

So science is a process.

It's an attempt to understand reality and recognize how biased

and flawed the human brain is.

So real research is about trying to prove yourself wrong.

Yeah, right.

So the other thing, of course, in all of that is.

You're not as smart as you think you are, unless you're an expert

in a field you're researching.

You're almost certainly not able to fully understand the nuance

and complexity of the topic.

So experts have advanced degrees.

They've published research, they've got years of experience.

They know the body of evidence and the methodologies, and they're

aware of what they don't know.

So experts can be wrong, but they're much less likely to be wrong than a non-expert.

So thinking one can do their research on scientific topics, such as climate

change or MRN vaccines is to fool oneself, to some extent, so the information's

available, but it doesn't mean you've got the background knowledge to understand it.

So you need to know your limit.

So ultimately knowledge is a community effort.

We don't think alone.

And that what makes humans a successful species, we build off

what other people are expert in.

So that's why for anyone who isn't an expert in a particular field,

our best chance at knowledge is to trust what the majority of

experts in that area say is true.

And then no research is involved.

So unless you're an expert, there's a good argument for trusting what the majority

of experts in an area say is true.

If there's a clear and strong consensus, so in my little talk, the seeds evening,

I'm not about to try and paint for you.

The opposite picture of, of, of the of the mainstream view.

I'm just going to give you the mainstream view.

You want to find the try and waste your time on the opposite view.

Go ahead.

So really What is the consensus when it comes to climate change, what

do our scientists, and again, from this sign website, skeptical science

and I give a good explanation.

When I say science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.

So initially when the question was asked, what would happen if we put a lot of

carbon dykes dioxide in the atmosphere, there may have been many hypotheses about

what's going to happen, but over a period of time, the ideas are tested and retested

in the process of the scientific method.

Because all scientists know that a big part.

And so over a period of time, HIV is tested and retested.

That's the processes of the scientific method and scientists trying to get

it right and try to get it right because they get a reputation.

So the ones that don't pan out will fall by the wayside, the ones that work out and

make sense survive amongst the hypothesis.

And so there's no consensus in science is different from a political one.

There's no vote scientists just give up arguing because the sheer white of

consistent evidence is too compelling.

And that's what we've reached when it comes to climate and the consensus that

our plant, our, our planet is warming and that warming is caused by humans.

So there's a link here in the shiny Knights, which is They will

authors of seven climate consensus studies and the knives rule.

They and they each had done their own studies about what is the

consensus amongst scientists.

And they came out with a hundred percent.

Three of them came out with naughty 7%, actually four of

them said 97% once it 93%.

And the other one said 91% individually, they came up with that as the, as

the consensus view on climate change.

And they then write a joint Piper.

And the conclusions were that somewhere between 90 and a hundred percent of

experts agree that humans are responsible for climate change with most of

the studies finding 97% consensus.

Interesting to note that when science is unsettled, the argument takes

place in scientific forums, right?

When, when one side has lost, it moves to the mainstream media because they've

failed to convince their colleagues.

The only people they convince are the lay people who have no knowledge.

And so if the conversation is happening in the press or on social

media, it means that the scientists already know what the answer is.

And this person hasn't managed to convince his colleagues, his peers.

That's true.

That's, that's a good way of looking at it.

So I've got on the screen, the listener, if you're listening to this podcast

the audio version of this, and you sometimes watch the video version.

This might be an episode where it's worth watching the video version, because there

will be a few charts and graphs to put up.

So One of the other things that they said in their joint report was that

the greater, the climate expertise among those surveyed the higher, the

consensus on human caused global warming.

So there's a chart there that basically shows that the more expert

people were amongst the experts than the more likely they were to agree

on a human caused global warming.

So that's, you know, realistically, when you look at COVID and the, and the

disputes we've got amongst experts as to all sorts of things to do with COVID.

If we look at these figures of 97%, that's a pretty high and strong

figure in the scheme of things.

And we've really reached the point in life haven't made, where it's

almost impossible to expect a hundred percent agreement on things.

97% is pretty strong consensus.

So so, so yeah so basically my first argument was do your own

research is really limited.

If you're not an expert, you can fall for some pretty big traps.

And for most people relying on a strong consensus of experts is

the most sensible thing to do.

And the strong consensus of experts is that we've got human

caused global warming going on.

So we'll get into what, you know, the, the reasons and the arguments

and the facts and all the rest of it.

But that's a good starting point as to As to kicking off this discussion.

So, right.

By the way so those who are opposed to taking action to curb climate change,

having guised in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of

the expert consensus and they've been successful and the public badly

underestimates the expert consensus.

So apparently only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

So there we go.

All right.

So with all that changing what's that Joe that's changing limited

news is changing their teen limited news is changing their chain.

Yeah.

The Murdoch press now, now going to spruik human induced climate change.

Yes.

Why are they doing that?

I'm not fully across that story, but that's only come out in the

last time or two as an, a jug.

It has.

Yay.

Is it because of some government inquiry about them or something like that,

they feel they're under threat in some way, or is it because there's a change?

There's a handover from the old guard new guard.

Ah, okay.

So yeah, they've came out with some statement have in mind that sort of made

that clear, which is a strength, strange thing to have to do carbon zero for 2050.

I think there's supposed to be salty.

Okay.

Well with the Murdoch press on board, who knows what's possible, but at the moment

only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus amongst experts is above 90%.

Right.

So I'm no expert.

Of course you've gathered that.

And I'm not going to try and prove climate change is wrong.

I'm not going to waste my time on that.

I'll just give my understanding of the consensus view and

the reasoning behind it.

And and really, I'm just sort of looking at, you know, if you're at a dinner

party, people still have those things and the somebody mapping off phase a

climate skeptic, you'll have a few bits of arguments and information up your

sleeve that you can, that you can use.

So, so, right.

So one of the things that kicked me off is and I've got some information, I'll

be drawing on two sources for a while.

I'll be talking about in this episode.

One is a book called climate change.

What everyone needs to know second edition by Joseph Romm and book.

His credentials are pretty good and it's on the back of his book where he's being

involved in a lot of Stuff to do with climate change science and finishes off.

He's a senior fellow at the center for American progress, and he

holds a PhD in physics from MIT.

Like he's a smart guy and seems knowledgeable on the topic.

And a lot of his stuff is referenced.

The other thing that I'll be drawing on of coolest is the IPC reports.

So this is the intergovernmental panel on climate change, who just

came out with, they had 20, 21 report.

So that's really the sort of two sources that are, I'm going to be relying on.

And oh, who we got in the chat room.

What Lee, the wizard Harry and financial solvent.

That's a quite nice I'll let you read all that stuff, Joe, I'll get too distracted.

If I get into that singing out.

If this stuff does that I should know about, okay.

Please help Joe.

Okay.

Here's one of the things right from the get go that I didn't

understand about climate change and this whole idea of a blanket.

And I can remember Dr.

Carl talking on a podcast and it was about how energy would bounce

off the earth surface and would hit this sort of greenhouse gases and

then bounce back to earth and warm us up more than we were before.

And at the time I was thought to myself, well, if we've built up only

these particles in the atmosphere that are blocking the heat from leaving the

earth, surely those same particles would have blocked the heat arriving on the

earth at the same time from the sun.

So wouldn't may have been reflected.

Y from us as much as reflecting hate back into us is what

all of us sort of thinking.

I just couldn't get my head around it.

And I was talking to Joe in the chat room, Joe, what did he say beforehand?

Jane?

What were you saying about, yeah.

If you go into a greenhouse or possibly a better example that we've all had

is if you go and sit in the car, even on an overcast day you know, how much

hotter it gets inside than outside.

Yes.

And you can feel the sun's energy heating up the car.

Yes.

And not escaping.

Yeah.

So the heat manages to come through the glass of the windscreen or the

greenhouse inside, and then doesn't bounce out in the same level.

Sam is trapped within.

And so how does that work in terms of the greenhouse gases?

So.

The sun's Pake intensity is visible light of the solar energy

hitting the top of the atmosphere.

One third is reflected back into space by the atmosphere itself and

by the Earth's surface, they lay in the ocean and it seems especially the

ice being white and highly reflect.

So visible light coming from the sun.

One third of it bounces back into spice as the rough calculation.

So the, as an aside, the amount of energy is equivalent to four Hiroshima,

atomic bomb destinations per second, or 7.4 quadrillion kittens sneezes per se.

You could too much, Tom and Haynes, Joe, as an aside.

That's good.

Okay.

So one third bounces back.

The wrist is absorbed mostly by the by the earth, especially our oceans

and this price is hates up the planet, but the earth rewrites the energy,

it has absorbed mostly as hate in the form of infrared radiation.

So it rewrites the EITs, this infrared radiation outwards say some naturally

occurring atmospheric gases, let the visible light Skype through to interspace

while trapping certain types of infrared radiation, these greenhouse gases,

including water methane and carbon dioxide trap, some of the rewriting highlighted.

So they act as a partial blanket that keeps the planet as much

as 60 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it otherwise would be.

Which of course is normally ideal for us.

So visible light comes in, one-third bounces off two-thirds gets absorbed

the earth, rewrite the EITs infrared radiation that hits the greenhouse

gases, the gases, which allow the visible law to transfer through.

Don't allow this infrared to transfer through as easily and

then bounce it back to earth.

That's how it works.

So climate science predicts.

So if you accept that theory the prediction is that if the warming is

caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, we expect the lower atmosphere,

the troposphere to warm up the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere

to cool, and the boundary between them, the troppo pause to rise.

And all of that has been observed.

So for instance, recent warmings would you to increases in the intensity of

radiation from the sun then in addition to the troposphere stratosphere should

be warming too, which is not happening.

So for people who are climate change deniers, you have to at your dinner

party, talk to them about the, the lower atmosphere, the upper atmosphere and the

middle atmosphere and say, well, whatever alternative theory you may have, if you

simply say all the sun must be stronger at the moment that's, what's causing the

planet to heat up, then you would say, well, can you explain to me why the upper

atmosphere is actually cooler and cooler?

If if what you're saying is true, that doesn't make sense.

So the the sort of theory of this climate science neatly explains what's

actually happening in these atmospheres.

So I thought that was interesting, Joe, given your knowledge of cat sneezing

and Hiroshima bomb, do you probably all buried it or you are rare of those

levels in the atmosphere already?

Where are you?

I haven't yet.

There is a really good U Q online course which goes into the science of

climate change and how we know this.

And that was one of the things it discussed.

Along with carbon 14 isotopes or carbon isotopes.

I don't know if you're touching on that.

Th as a fossil carbon, rather than the forestation.

Yes.

I'll get to that.

Okay.

Alrighty.

So satellites measure less heat escaping out to space at the particle

wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs heat, thus finding direct experimental

evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect.

So if less heat is escaping the space, where is it going?

Well, it's going back to the earth surface and surface measurements, confirm

this observing more downward infrared radiation, a closer look at the damage

at radiation Fonz, more heat returning at carbon dioxide wavelengths leading

to the conclusion that this experimental data should effectively in the argument

by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection

between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

So again, If somebody wants to deny climate change, you need to say, well,

here's what the evidence is explained to me how our hotter son be the

explanation, given those challenges in those different atmospheres, right?

A couple of other bits of information, carbon levels.

So stuff with climate science is done, particularly with temperatures and things.

It's kind of a comparison to our pre-industrial is so they

look back 250 years quite often.

So at the Dawn of the industrial revolution, industrial revolution,

250 years ago, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was

approximately 280 parts per mil.

And it now exceeds 400 and That can specifically measure the type of carbon

that's building up in the atmosphere.

And I know it comes from the combustion of fossil fuels as opposed to other

sources such as deforestation.

And so so that's quite compelling as well that this increase in carbon

dioxide is from fossil fuels and where the reason fossil fuel carbon

is being released in the atmosphere.

It's pretty clear.

So so we've got us as the cause of the carbon entering the atmosphere and

we've got this evidence of, of what's happening with temperatures in the

atmosphere and we'll get onto evidence of temperatures happening on earth.

Now, before all that, though a skeptic might side.

Well, there might be other reasons why the planet is warming.

That might not be the only reason it might explain some of it, but

there could be other factors involved that are causing the warming.

And so but according to the science, the other factors that might affect

global temperature at this particular stage in the cycles should actually be

cooling the earth rather than hating it.

So one of those would be sun activity.

So the sun doesn't stay at a constant energy level.

It it goes up and down in the sort of approximately 11 years cycles.

But in recent years we've actually seen the deepest soul,

a minimum in nearly a century.

According to NASA, as I explained in 2009.

So we've had unusually low levels of solar activity that would

otherwise be cooling the earth.

So so I will bring up a chart on for those were able to see it.

And what you've got is a temperature 11 year average is the

red line going up dramatically.

And you've got solar energy, essentially the blue line down the bottom, which

in the last since the 1960s leveled off and around 2000 actually decreased.

So it's not possible to blame increased solar energy as the cause of our global

warming scientists have measured it.

And that's not what it is.

What's some other reasons John has, when I talk solo, my voice

actually dries out quicker.

I've got a tank more water than went on with the other guys.

You need some Robina?

I do.

Okay.

One other reason volcanic activity is, is sometimes a cause, but in recent decades

volcanic activity has released particles had partially blocked the sun and also

serve to cool the planet slightly.

So the voltage canning activity would not have contributed to the

warming and the other possible influence last but not least is.

Is the orbit of the earth around the sun and the why that the planet

wobbles around its axis as well.

During that orbit.

So the orbit changes gets closer and further away from the sun and then

the upline that sort of bubbles in different lies as it goes around as well.

And there's a bit of a correlation between the, the orbit of the

earth and ice ages over time.

It's not the only cause of ice ages.

There are other factors, particularly carbon buildups as well, but it is, it

certainly has, seems to have perfect now.

According to ice cores from Antarctica over the past 400,000 years it's

being dominated, dominated buying glycine heels, so called periods,

ice ages that Moneta normally last about a hundred thousand years.

And it's been punctuated by, into glacial short, warm periods, which

typically last about 11,500 years.

So, so normally ice age of a hundred thousand years, and a nice warm

period of about 11,500 years and, and our current nice warm period.

Now current into glycine will hold the Hallows scene.

It's already been going 12,000 years.

So some people might say, well, if a new eyesight is imminent Mike, it's

gotten to be warming the planet.

And so let me just see here.

Let me just see.

So what are the conditions like?

So at the moment the earth should be cooling slightly, but the current

factors of orbit and tilt very weak and they're not acting within

the same timescale and they're out of phase by about 10,000 years.

So their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age.

So we've got quite an unusual combination of orbit and tilt at the moment.

That would mean we're not normally was slightly cooling or we should be slightly

cooling, but not entering an ice age and a similar sort of combination of orbit

and tilt happened 430,000 years ago.

That had a nice warm period lasting 30,000 years.

So we're in that sort of range at the moment.

So according to the orbit and tilt of the earth really we should be slightly

cooling, but really not very much.

And we should be really enjoying a a nice interglacial period of a 30,000

years rather than the normal 11,500.

So without him and interference, because of the orbit and tilt

there should be a slight cooling.

So essentially the sorts of things when people say, well, we don't know whether

the warming is caused by humans or whether it's caused by other factors.

When you look at the other factors, sun activity, volcanic action,

and the orbit tilt of the earth.

All those factors are actually pointing to a cooling rather than a heating.

So yeah.

You're anything to Joe to add to that that you're aware of in terms of factors?

No.

Are you going to cover off the amount of human released

carbon E compared to natural?

I don't know if I am, I have to get through my night.

CJ, let me see.

Let's see what happens is I go through them and see if it

covers what you're talking about.

Actually, maybe this next chart we'll, we'll do it.

I think.

Excellent.

So let's look at amplifying effects.

So I'm gonna to bring up a chart here.

Let me just share that on the screen.

And this is a temperature for the past.

420,000 years.

And it's basically showing peaks and troughs as temperature rises and

falls for the last 450,000 years.

Isn't it amazing that scientists can actually gather this DOD?

It's quite incredible to think about in what you notice is that when the

earth warms up, when temperatures increase, it really increases very

quickly and quite dramatically like the really sharp, almost vertical

line that just climbs up, hits a peak.

And then the S the cooling is a much more gradual step ladder, a step down

approach over a longer period of time.

So, so over the last 450,000 years, as you look at the fluctuations in

temperature, basically there are these really, really sharp, quick

sparks of an increasing temperatures.

And then a more gradual drop-off down to get to the lower temperature

and then another big spike.

So that also matches up with CO2 concentrations as measured at the

time, as well as quite a strong correlation between carbon dioxide

and temperatures, which is on the next chart that I've put up as well.

But just going back to that first one, where you look at how quickly

the temperatures rise and what that tends to indicate is that events happen

really quickly when there's initial warming, that there is an amplification

effect is possible with things, get a really quick raw lawn on accelerate.

For some reason, there are other, there are factors that must come into

apply that accelerate the warming the dimes sort of come into play sometimes.

To accelerate the, the, the cooling, if you like.

So let's get that all sake and look at me.

So data reveals over time, last 450,000 years, that when an initial

warming is triggered by an external force, such as orbital change,

the planet can warm up fast.

Then in turn implies that the climate system has strong amplifying feedbacks,

which turn a small initial warming into a large hating fairly quickly.

So what are these possible amplifying feedbacks?

And this comes from the book I mentioned before climate change.

Everyone needs to know by Joseph, Ron, and he said, One of the big ones is,

has sea ice and land-based ice shrink.

This causes a decrease in the Earth's overall reflectivity, which

leads to more absorption of heat, especially in the polar agents.

So that makes sense.

Start to lose that ice.

Get less reflection off the ice, more absorption.

Another key rapidly acting amplifying feedback is driven by water vapor.

As the planet starts to heat up evaporation increases, which puts

more water vapor into the air.

And guess what, what a Viper is a potent heat-trapping greenhouse gas.

My carbon dioxide.

Basic physics tells us that a warmer atmosphere is able to hold more

moisture at a right of approximately 7% increase per degree Celsius.

So we'll get into some figures lighter.

Since the industrialized, the temperature has risen by about a degree.

That means that our atmosphere is holding about 7% more moisture.

As a result, another sort of amplifying feedback is clump.

Tines leads to more forest fires and you get carbon dioxide

released by burning trees.

And a fourth one that he likes to emphasize in this book is the thawing

of permafrost can also release additional carbon dioxide and methane.

Say Meetha mine is an interesting one compared to carbon dioxide.

As a heat-trapping capacity, it's 34 times stronger than carbon

dioxide over a 100 year time scale.

It's actually, it seems like it disappears from the atmosphere a lot quicker.

Over 20 year timeframe, methane is 86 times stronger.

A large part of the difference is that the atmospheric lifetime of

methane is approximately 12 years.

It was carbon dioxide.

It's a lot longer, but they're much stronger in terms of trapping eight.

And so is a big problem that we have to be concerned with.

And this guy in this book talks about methane being released from the permafrost

and he's a little bit he nights, apparently the IPC report, Joe, they

don't really take into account the meth.

Being released from the permafrost as an amplifying effect, as much as this guy

likes to say, have you heard much about methionine permafrost, anything like that?

Yeah, so I think lots of Siberia, they're saying the permafrost is

thawing and there's big concerns that a large amount of medium

will be released very, very soon.

And also I think there are some big holes appearing in parts of Siberia.

Mm.

I think I read somewhere where the may time was escaping sight quickly

that the, the a frost was not freezing either during winter because of

just so much movement of methane.

And I think also images of, of like a permafrost on fire not so long ago.

So there's a lot of methane in the air to be released and it's dangerous

in terms of its heat trapping.

Okay.

Other things to be aware of severe precipitation.

So we seemed, it seems anecdotally as we look around that well actually

it's a matter of fact, really the worst Deluges of Ryan have jumped,

not merely be cool is warmer.

Air holds more moisture that in turn gets sucked into my just storm systems.

Climate scientists have explained that climate change is altering the jet

stream and weather patterns in ways that can cause storms storm systems to slow

down or get stuck, thereby giving them more time to dump heavy precipitation.

So when it rains, it pools literally.

So that's one of the things that scientists are looking at is that this

climate change is causing a change in the in the Northern hemisphere in particular

because of the jet stream changing, right.

And these weather patterns getting stuck and hovering either areas much longer,

whereas in the past they would move on.

So causing more damage, greater Deluges of Ryan.

That's what happened in America a few years back with a polar vortex.

And so the weather systems, the jet streams moved and there was a

large surge of Arctic care, the move down over central north America.

And they had very, very cold temperatures because of that.

Yes.

So shifting that called air down because of the movement jet stream

and the jet stream also changing such that these systems don't move on

sometimes like they normally would.

An interesting one is snow.

So when it's cold enough to snow, snow storms, we field by more water

vapor and thus be more intense.

So you may have heard of the saying it's too cold to snow.

If it's very, very cold, then there is too little water vapor in the

air to support a heavy snow fall.

So we've known for a long time that warmer than normal winters

actually favor snow storms.

So oh, it's secure.

It's considered a desert because it is so cold that it doesn't snow.

There you go.

Yeah.

So there's very little precipitation though.

I called it.

Can't hold the moisture.

Yeah.

So so according to this theory, what we will find is at the beginning

and end of winter, it will be slightly warmer and you'll get

rain will result instead of snow.

However, during the middle of winter, the extra water vapor in the atmosphere

that is now called enough to create snow will mean you'll have largest

nudge storms will be developing.

So.

Here's a tip for you, dear listener.

If you get nothing else, if you're booking ski holidays over the next

century, I'm booked for the middle of the season, not for the shoulder

beginnings or in periods and you'll be falling to be the skinning at least.

So so where am I up to?

That's what we know there.

Now I'm going to move on to the so that's a lot of the, sort of

the theory of climate science and in what we think happens.

And the intergovernmental panel on climate change came out with a report.

It was their sixth assessment report in a, provides a high level summary

of the understanding of the current state of the climate, including how

it is changing and the role of human influence in the state of knowledge

about possible climate futures.

So a bit of a summary of where we're at.

That's what's the IPC report.

So.

What did it say about the current state of our climate?

It said that each of the last four decades has been successfully warmer

than any other decade that preceded it since 1850 and global surface temperature

was 1.09 degrees higher in 2011 to 2020 than it was in 1850 to 1900.

A lot of these comparisons, again with this sort of 1850 to 1900

period, this pre-industrial period.

So we're about a degree Celsius, a warmer in our global surface temperature.

I've a land it's even more.

So it's 1.59, as opposed to the ocean, which is 0.8, eight.

I'm giving you these figures.

There's actually a range.

And I'm giving you the, sort of the main, what I'm giving you.

Some of these figures.

So, and they're saying that they think that basically all of that

is to do with human induced causes.

Let's see, one, one degree doesn't sound like much does it, but let's

putting up another chart, which we'll try and put that into contexts

on the screen is another chart.

And this goes back 2000 years and basically see the changes in

global service Jesus on the left is but yes, that's right, baby Jesus

on the lift and 2020 on the far.

Right.

And you'll see that there's a band of of temperature variations, and.

Essentially the temperature changes that we've had right at the end

is this crazy, ridiculous spike.

That's just come out of Norway in comparison with the trend

line to the previous two.

Can you turn that into present presentation mode instead?

Yeah, I can make it the guy that's the best I can do as it sounds, or

even Andrew was asking Ron, okay.

Andrew Fullscreen at Trevor and that's the best I can do.

I think so.

So you can see that the band of global surface temperature changes fairly

consistent, actually going down a bit.

And then this crazy spike at the end is where we currently are.

So one degree is a lot.

So.

By the way, show notes on the website, iron fist, velvet, glove.com, dyer.com.

You'll see a PDF will appear where all this stuff can be accessed.

So, so yeah, so that's one degree since 1850.

So till now, and most of that is attributed to carbon monoxide,

but a fair proportion of that is attributed to methane.

On the positive side, we did quite well with sulfur dioxide where we

reduced that, and we would have had some cooling as a result.

So that's in relation to aerosols and things like that.

So we have actually done some things, right.

In fact, Joel mentioned we also get changes in ocean currents.

Yes.

Concern about the there's a global ocean circulation, which takes heat

away from the equatorial regions and moves it up towards the polar

regions the most well known, obviously being the Gulf stream, right?

And with a melting sea ice, you get a desalination or a watering down of the

saltiness of the ocean, which interferes with the flow of the water currents.

And that will actually make the equator warmer on the poles colder.

Okay.

But it seems to be that there's an amplifying effect that the Arctic

in particular is warming up faster than anywhere else on the planet.

It seems.

And that's because the ice is melting there and a few other factors.

So there's a range of things happening.

Isn't there all into applying amongst themselves.

There is.

And the concern is that any one of these could suddenly tip us over as he

showed with the warming, the forcing to tip us over a catastrophic edge.

So there's a whole bunch of complicated things that interplay

and one could accelerate and cause all sorts of amplifying factors.

So didn't read that one about the sea counts, but I hadn't finished

the book yet, but I might get, I might find something there.

So anyway, carbon dioxide and methane that responsible for a fair bit of

the a fair bit of the global warming.

And we did quite well in terms of reducing nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

So we've done some good things.

Okay.

Also just in terms of carbon levels, So in 2019, the atmospheric

carbon dioxide concentrations were higher than at any time.

In at least 2 million years.

We can say that with statistically high confidence and concentrations

of methane and into what's that nitrous oxide into that would be

nitric oxide, I think into, oh, sorry.

Nitrogen dioxide.

Would it be, I don't know, a noxious oxide.

They were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.

So CO2.

Currently higher than any time in the last 2 million years, hand methane

and nitrous oxide higher than at any time, at least the last 800,000 years.

So it makes you what, sorry.

Giant makes you laugh.

Doesn't it?

Cause pause for concern.

So so one degree may not seem like much, but we're also seeing

some big F but we're seeing some already big effects on our planet.

So the Arctic sea ice last summer Arctic sea ice area was smaller than at any time.

In the past a thousand years, we can say that with medium confidence

almost all of the world's glaciers are retreating synchronously, synchronously,

synchronously, synchronously complicated.

Yes.

Since the 1950s, that's unprecedented at UN in at least the last 2000 years.

Sea levels.

You know, the scene level globally increased by about 20

centimeters between 99 0 1 and 2018.

And it's currently increasing by 3.7 millimeters per year.

That's sort of right of increase is going up.

So the main sea level has risen faster since 1900 than either any preceding

century in at least the last 3000 years.

So that's going up very quickly.

Hate extremes have become more frequent and more intense.

Well called extremes have become less frequent and less severe.

And Ryan extremes, the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events

has increased in Sonata in fifties.

So looking towards the future, according to the IPC report, and

they've done some modeling and delis.

Now, if you listened last week to what we talking about, the Delta Strine

and modeling of hospitalizations and deaths in your mind, you should be

saying models, models, because it's a difficult thing, creating models and

having any confidence in what they, what they say, but we've got to do it

as the, I think we've got isn't it.

So what they've done a bit like with the Delta striding, where there

were sort of like good, medium and bad sort of scenarios, that's what

they've done in this report in terms of our carbon emissions they

basically had five different scenarios.

Sort of too bad two good and one in between and looking at what

might happen to our climate, depending on which of the scenarios.

So in terms of these scenarios, the, the best of them assume that we would

get to net zero emissions shortly after 2050, and that we would actually enter

negative territory slightly in sort of negative over the next 50 years.

And actually I should put this one up on the screen.

Let me do that.

So put that up on the screen.

So that's the best I can I explain it and I'll put that on

for let's see, you can see that.

Okay.

That's the best I can do.

So if you're looking at the screen the bottom line, Aqua blue net emissions

shortly after 2050, and go into negative emissions for the rest of the century.

Second best scenario, we're going to zero emissions by about 2075.

And they negative after that.

The middle scenario, which is the one we'll probably concentrate on

a fair bit, is where nothing much changes in terms of our emissions.

Till about 2050, where it slowly goes down, but we're still emitting

carbon more than we are absorbing it by the end of the century.

And then the two worst scenarios, which are probably the way our

politics is wrong, operating, becoming even more likely where we

increase the carbon that we emit.

At different levels.

So that's the five different scenarios that the IPC looked at the RPCC looked at.

And, and let me just get out of that screen and get that one out of the Y

and let's see what they had decided.

So, yeah, I remember we've already had a one degree increase in temperature

since that 1850 to 1900 period.

And let's look at what they say will be that long consequences.

Okay.

It's up on the screen and at the top of the screen is the best case

scenario and the bottom of the screen is the worst case scenario.

So In the near term under all of these scenarios, they reckon we're

going to look at at least another half a degree Celsius increase.

I have the next 20 years in terms of, by the end of the century, 2100,

under the best nice scenario, we're still going to look at another sort

of half a degree of increase in temperature from what we've already had.

And under the worst case scenario, another three and a half degrees.

In other words, middle scenario, another degree, 1.7 on average, these

are all guesstimates, the statistical ranges, but even on the best estimate,

we're looking at by the end of the century, another half a degree.

Possibly another and on the worst case, another three and a half degrees.

And so that's their estimate of what's likely to happen in terms of temperatures,

best case best case was the top one.

Yes.

Another one, but best case of our worst emissions 4.4, it could be

as bad as that was best estimate.

The best estimate.

Sorry.

Yeah.

So it's halfway between 5.7, correct?

Between 3.3 to 5.7.

Yeah.

So yeah.

That's what the IP cc's saying that we're looking at and you'd have to think based

on current policies around the world, we're looking at at least the medium to

worst case scenarios, at least another one or two degrees or at least another

two to three degrees is on the card.

Isn't it?

So let me get rid of Put that off there and come back to it.

Okay.

So so really what are we looking at?

It's virtually certain that the land surface will continue to

warm more than the ocean surface, likely 1.4 to 1.7 times more.

It's virtually certain that the article continue to warm more

than global surface temperature.

Very likely heavy precipitation events will intensify and become more frequent.

And there's a channel shop.

It'll be in the nights, basically sighing the sorts of things that are normally

10 year events in terms of precipitation will become five-year events and even

more intense and 50 year events and others will just become more commonplace.

So these major Storm systems, particularly in the Northern hemisphere, it seems

J they just, the way there's that with that the way the climate is operating

and seems particularly to affecting the Northern hemisphere, just anecdotally

in my view, compared to the rest of the Southern hemisphere, what I'm hearing is

I'll probably retire back to the UK then.

Yeah.

You'll probably retire back to them.

Yeah.

Why is that?

Cause then because then it'll have an Australian light climb.

My wife visited her niece in Ireland and had trouble because

there was a hurricane there.

Like you never have hurricanes in Ireland, are you?

But that's the other thing you get, Joe is if you want Australian climate, you'll

get Bush fires and hurricanes as well.

Do you want that?

Okay.

One interests me as well is sealer.

So let me put the sea level one up.

So under the, under the medium case scenario we're looking at, by the

end of the century, I an increase in sea level of about 0.7, five meter

that's under the medium case scenario.

Under the best case scenario, we're looking at half a meter

and under the worst case, we're looking at nearly nearly a meter.

I believe we had one night, five that's increasing sea level by 2100.

I live in Queensland.

Well, we all live on the coast, nearly all of us in Australia.

Aren't we?

And how many places can you think of that would be in deep trouble?

If there's a 0.7, five of a meter increase in the sea level, like by

the end of the century, that is going to cause a lot of problems, not only

in Australia, but around the world.

That's one of the biggest impacts I think, besides the storms that

will ravage places, the sea level one is going to be a real kick out.

Yeah.

Well of course, if you're Peter Dutton, you joke about that, right?

To your mates in front of a microphone, don't you, that's what he's been doing.

Yeah.

And if this continues, the sorts of things that could happen in the centuries

later are too scary to contemplate.

Yeah.

I'm in this concern about a lot of the Pacific islands

that are built on Carla tolls.

Because even now the slightest storm, the storm surge is going across the islands.

The islands are getting inundated.

If they get another half meter a lot of the islands are

literally just above sea level.

Yes.

And we've got those areas like Louisiana in America, and that, that had just

built on swamps and reclined land.

So they're enormous trouble if sea temperatures rise.

So, so that's the kind of nutshell breakdown that I wanted to give on

climate change was where we stand.

So let's go through some of the Joe, do you want to add anything before I

thought might get through some of the comments and see what people are saying,

unless you want to add anything of your knowledge of climate change, including

cat sneezing to the mix before we do that I can't think of anything off hand.

Okay.

So I'll just start at the most recent Tom, the warehouse guy, China is responsible

for around 25 to 28% of all emissions.

Let me pull it up on the screen actually.

The next highs is the U S at 11%.

Climate change is another failure of international law.

Now, enforceability, there's an interesting debate because the bricks

countries, so Brazil, Russia, India, China they didn't go through the industrial

revolution and they argue that the first world, so Europe and the states

went through the industrial revolution.

Created a lot of pollution at that time.

So we've had our chance to pull it with greenhouse gases and they need their

chance to leap forward their industry to build up their economy to the same

level as Europe and the states have.

And therefore the west should be reducing their emissions first, allowing India and

China, a bit of leeway on their pollution.

Before we start becoming heavy handed and emissions trading, it

sounds a fair enough argument.

Plus we've just outsourced our carbon emissions to a developing country

because they're making all this stuff.

So that's what happens when you, when you make stuff, isn't it, to some

extent is some of that manufacturing would be part of the problem, but,

but in terms of, you know, they're building, I mean, cement causes is a

big factor in terms of global warming.

Well, when you've had dirt roads and mud hearts and you start

creating skyscrapers and freeways, you end up using lots of cement.

And I think it's a strong argument to say, well, you guys have

the chance to industrialize.

What, what do you, we just don't get the chance now or how come you

got a free ride caused the problem.

And now we're all in the same boat together.

Like I think it's actually a legitimate argument, Tom, the way high sky.

Do you have any sympathy for developing countries?

Do you think perhaps the developed countries having done their fair share

of polluting and moved on maybe should have harsh of restrictions on them now

as a result, what do you think, Tom?

The warehouse guy.

What else we got here?

Dire straits is an upside I'll get ocean views in my house.

Getting in will be fine.

You just need a tinny.

Yeah.

Okay.

This working my way back through time here that was Andrew talking

about fresh water is lighter than salt water, but I don't know how it

affects ocean currents, blah blah.

Let me see Harry and financially soul and says, this is great.

Now we can swim any day in September.

Actually I wonder if this is going to do with the stingers coming down normally

in Queensland, the stingers were just a, sort of a north Queensland phenomenon in

terms of you can't swim in the summer, in the summer in north Queensland.

Cause there's just too many stingers and they're finding that era Kanji was found

or Fraser island last summer, I think.

And I thought it was a couple of years ago, but yes.

So that is one of the problems hearing and financially solvent is maybe I

won't be able to swim on the gold coast in Salma because of goddamn stingers.

So that is another problem.

Let me see what else we got here.

Andrew says the science around the cause of climate change might change some minds.

What about just planning for the consequences?

Agee increased climate refugees or water wars, et cetera.

So, well honest government ads have alleged that the liberals have

put people in both CSI row and.

The bureau of meteorology who have refused the higher levels of

refused to allow the words, climate change in some of the reports.

And I believe Trump banned any planning for sea level rise rod.

Yep.

So, so there has actually been a pushback against planning for climate

change from science denying governments.

Yeah.

Should we bag religion while we're right?

I mean, one of the problems is that, you know, oh, it's the end times

Jesus is going to come and save us.

It doesn't matter.

That's right.

That's one of the things, if he believe that the rapture is eminent,

that the end times are near, then it's like, well, why would I

bother with all this sort of stuff?

Like why put ourselves through pain now?

Because we're all outta here.

In the next 10 or 20 years when the ratchet comes, this is one of the problems

that with, with this sort of religious belief, like we're not joking here.

This actually has an effect on public policy, if you leaders

believe in these sorts of things.

So yeah, I don't know if if you can't change minds, it makes it harder to get

the right people in power to make the policies so pushing it against the flow

polo, if the biggest, if the biggest, most vocal opponents to climate change

acceptance has changed their minds.

It will be interesting to see what impact that has.

Yes.

And Murdoch newspapers is sort of what you're thinking

of when you're saying that.

Well all of the Murdoch press, so Fox news, particularly in the state.

Yep.

Andrew said in the chat room is the number of people accepting climate change

increases, even Murdoch must realize deny views will cause people to turn him off.

Maybe, maybe that's why he's done it.

Certainly a lot of that, maybe not the nationals themselves, but

a lot of their electorate, the farmers have seen the change and

are becoming less and less enamored.

And I believe who's the doctor in, in uh, Sydney, the female

doctor who won a seat yeah.

Former president of the AMA.

Is that the one you're thinking of?

Yes, I think so.

Yeah.

I can't remember.

She, she was a former liberal member and she jumped ship because of climate change.

Yeah.

So, so there were a lot of conservatives who said, you know I'm very much a liberal

through and through, but your policy on climate change just, I cannot support.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Earlier on Tom said evening all, it would be good to hear your thoughts

on Al gore and his work early on with global warming and an inconvenient truth.

A lot of people get global warming and climate change confused.

I guess one of the problems with this is that these sorts of issues have

become so tribal, whether it climate change, vaccinations, whatever, putting

a politician as the front man for this is probably not a good idea because

people will just immediately reject him because they know what tribe

he is and they won't even listen.

You might be somebody who's more neutral would be a better front man for this.

It certainly did contribute to the polarization.

The other thing, according to the UK course the, the furry much led to, it was

initially there was talk about a tax on the right wing and politics is anti-tax.

Yes.

And that politicized, the whole push back of we don't want yes.

And other tax interfering with our business led to the

rejection of the science.

That was the reason for the tax.

So rather than just arguing about a price on carbon is

actually a very right-wing way.

Yeah.

Let the markets decide.

And yet it was turned into a cudgel.

Yep.

It was turned into a tax and it wasn't, it was a price on carbon that we have.

Yeah.

I think one of the topics we'll do over the next next time we get onto this will

be What policies have been proposed and how these carbon taxes and other things

have what was proposed and how they would work and, and what, what is a good system?

So can't get into that.

The system is basically everybody bidding on how much carbon they'll

save, if you pay the money and then paying money and not checking

how much carbon they've actually.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, what could go wrong with that?

Yeah.

Surely that couldn't happen.

Paying people money like that.

Surely.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't know enough about it.

I guess what you're saying is that's what we've done and

yeah, it is what we've done.

Yeah, no surprise.

Is it all right in the chat room?

I think I've covered most of the ones that were they you had your own

little private jokes going in there at different points, which I can't go into.

If you've got anything else be quick, because we're about to Finish

up with this one as our little introductory one on climate change.

And if you've got any other ideas that you'd like to explore on this topic,

give us a buzz, send some message.

Let me know.

Joe, you're not around next week.

You've got something on yeah, it looks like I'm going for a

little trip up to the beach again.

Right?

They don't have internet driving around central Queensland.

I can probably jump in from the cabin.

I have no idea what the quality will be like.

Okay.

It might be just shy and myself.

We've got lots to talk about.

It has been a lot of things have happened over the last week.

So lots of good stuff to talk about next week with the panel

might be just myself and Shea.

And yeah.

So hope you enjoyed this episode on climate change, short and sweet,

but a good little intro and we'll be back next week with something else.

Bye.

For now.