How Much Do You Know About Climate Change?...A Quiz.

[ramblingboy42]

I speak quite loudly about climate change and got 3 wrong.
Quiz: How well do you know climate change? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-10/climate-change-quiz/7017248)

[cafe latte]

I am a conservation biologist (my masters degree), and climate change is not as black and white as many think. I know it seems to get very heated in discussions, but separating real facts from politics is often the problem. Forest fires for example accounts for as much as half the greenhouse gasses as fossil fuels use, then there is the impact of volcanic activity. I am not saying fossil fuel use does not matter I am just pointing out the worlds problems are not all our own making, though we are not helping matters. Climate cycles, sun spots and natural events, el ninio and la ninia all contribute to global climate and much more than people think. Another thing that I find a little irritating is often singular weather events are blamed on climate change which is just total hogwash. Climate change can only be studied in minimum blocks of 10 years, really 100 year global temperature variations would be better to get a real idea what is going on. We need to look after the planet as we kind of need it in good shape to survive ourselves, and we need to reduce our impact on it as much as we can, but all changes are not man's fault. Yes I want change, but this is one topic that has got a bit like religion, you are a Heretic if you say anything is not part of the mantra. We need clean up our act, big time, but the story is far more complicated than just blaming it all on man.
Rant over
Chris

[ramblingboy42]

Please don't make this quiz a political discussion. I posted it just for a little amusement.

There is an open debate on climate change in Current Affairs.

[ATH]

The quiz wouldn't open for me for some reason. My own thoughts on it haven't changed in years though and I still think it's the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the taxpayers of the western world. Too big to stop now as probably millions of nice soft jobs with loads of jollies depend on it.:o
AlanH.

[Slunnie]

1 got 100%!

On my 2nd try.

[Greatsouthernland]

I am a conservation biologist (my masters degree), and climate change is not as black and white as many think. I know it seems to get very heated in discussions, but separating real facts from politics is often the problem. Forest fires for example accounts for as much as half the greenhouse gasses as fossil fuels use, then there is the impact of volcanic activity. I am not saying fossil fuel use does not matter I am just pointing out the worlds problems are not all our own making, though we are not helping matters. Climate cycles, sun spots and natural events, el ninio and la ninia all contribute to global climate and much more than people think. Another thing that I find a little irritating is often singular weather events are blamed on climate change which is just total hogwash. Climate change can only be studied in minimum blocks of 10 years, really 100 year global temperature variations would be better to get a real idea what is going on. We need to look after the planet as we kind of need it in good shape to survive ourselves, and we need to reduce our impact on it as much as we can, but all changes are not man's fault. Yes I want change, but this is one topic that has got a bit like religion, you are a Heretic if you say anything is not part of the mantra. We need clean up our act, big time, but the story is far more complicated than just blaming it all on man.
Rant over
Chris

Very well put sir.

I think it's counter-productive that media and political party dogma is creating ongoing senseless and self-serving argument between the uneducated easily convinced and those that think about the facts and how the agenda is played.

Those who understand the science and can think for themselves are heckled in public forums for merely discussing the bias of the argument, further avoiding the issues we can immediately focus on.

Here's hoping for intelligent discussion not to be censored by the blinkered vocal minority...yeh I know how it will go....:angel:

[Greatsouthernland]

Please don't make this quiz a political discussion. I posted it just for a little amusement.

There is an open debate on climate change in Current Affairs.

Kind of hard not to reference the individual party agenda and who yells loudest on carefully selected and partial statistics to grab the green vote.

Kind of like asking for opinions on a GST rise and not mention the Federal vs State party agendas and who benefits.

That quiz needs a factcheck! First answer isn't D, C is close, but there isn't a correct all inclusive option....There goes our education system...

China is listed in Q4 but isn't an OECD country! So you are asked which of the list but the answer the ABC uses doesn't use the list. Misleading? Yes. Why? Because even if you use Oceana as a guide (Australia+NZ+PNG+other proximal islands) this region produces 0.4% of the worlds CO2! But the ABC and others want to make us feel like a bigger producer than China or the USA...Northern America produces 4% (ten times more) China produces 6.2%.
That's a factcheck.

The 'current affairs' section is a closed group with probably 2-5 members, so not an 'open' debate.

How's this for scaremongering -

ABC says…and the World Met Office is reporting that 2015 is likely to be hotter still.

But, this synopsis from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology…

Looking ahead – how might 2015 end? These values mean that while 2015 will be warmer than average, we can be quite certain that the year will not be Australia’s warmest on record—which occurred in 2013 with a +1.2 C anomaly.

Looking at possible outcomes based on historical scenarios, the average from the reference period (1961–1990) for November to December results in an annual temperature anomaly for 2015 of +0.59 C; the eleventh-warmest year on record.

[cafe latte]

Please don't make this quiz a political discussion. I posted it just for a little amusement.

There is an open debate on climate change in Current Affairs.

I am not a member of current affairs and from what I here about it I dont want to be. I was not making this political, I was pointing out that the quiz was deeply flawed. My missus was a prominent research scientist, one of the best in her field in the world (she is a lot smarter than me), but she got fed up with how things worked. The main reason she gave up is she was due to get 40 grand for developing a new drug, but the company took her idea and found a way to make it adding a new step ie do the same thing differently. Anyway that was just background, what I wanted to mention here is the problems with research is a phd student might be given a project to prove a hypothesis or make a drug for a given condition whatever, but always a very specific question. Basically the student will get funding for their phd, but they need to get results or the funding finishes and they dont get a phd. People will do a lot to make sure this does not happen. My missus has followed on other peoples work a few times for possible wonder drugs from phd students who presented amazing results and they simply didnt work in reality work as the student had fudged the results to keep their funding, sad but true. Right now there is a lot of funding to prove climate change is all caused by man, ie a lot of very specific questions funded by people who want the answers they want, if that is not what you discover funding finishes this is not how science should work, but sadly it does. I will add this goes to both sides of the climate change debate some will be doing research to prove the existence of climate change and mans input and to a much lesser extent some will be trying to prove otherwise. Neither side will except answers that dont fit.
My missus loved science and as I said was one of the very best in her field and was once described as being one of the top 5 top five young scientists in the world. She turned her back on it all because of what I have said above. She went into science to change the world only to find it was all about money and corrupt.
All this said on the topic of climate change I am sure we are making an impact, as I have said before, but we must be very careful believing everything we hear from either side. New evidence comes out and makes the news, but who funded the research (not always easy to find out as one organisation can be funded by another) is it an oil company trying to prove all is hunky dory or is it a radical green group? With this charged topic we need to be so careful as there is more Bull than there normally is in science and there is normally a LOT.
Chris

[ramblingboy42]

crikey guys, just have a go at it and see you how you score.......

[Homestar]

8 out of 9. :)

[DiscoMick]

7 out of 9. Should have been 8, but I misread one question.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[cafe latte]

crikey guys, just have a go at it and see you how you score.......

It is my subject and I studied a long time a I am passionate also, but the quiz is deeply flawed. If the questions were known fact no problem, but the quiz is not correct. I spent years on my subject but of late there is so much misinformation it is not funny. I want to see change but I am fed up with bad science been shown as fact.
Chris

[bob10]

Well, the rest of the World seem to think there is a problem. All of a sudden, thev USA is the World leader on Climate Change. How about that.

World Leaders in Paris Agree to 'Historic' Deal on Climate Change - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/world-leaders-agree-historic-deal-climate-change-n478931?cid=eml_nbn_20151212)

[ATH]

I treat the whole thing as an expensive hoax on the western taxpayer as I've said previously.
40 thousand participants and "observers" in Paris like the local tosser mayor of Joondalup WA spouting that "Local councils have much to offer with their experience in climate control blah blah" or some such rubbish and you've got to admit it's just a great big jolly for the hordes attending.
I certainly believe in climate change but when any pollies can control that, I'll also believe in flying pigs.
By all means cut pollution of all kinds, but don't blame western advanced nations for something completely natural going on since time began.
The bankers in Switzerland and other secretive banking countries must be rubbing their hands with glee at the huge sums of western taxpayers brass that will be flowing into their coffers soon from countries like India etc. who are going to be paid to help them combat global warming!:D
Absolute joke.
AlanH.

[cafe latte]

Well, the rest of the World seem to think there is a problem. All of a sudden, thev USA is the World leader on Climate Change. How about that.

World Leaders in Paris Agree to 'Historic' Deal on Climate Change - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/world-leaders-agree-historic-deal-climate-change-n478931?cid=eml_nbn_20151212)

Not arguing with you Bob, all I said is the quiz is deeply flawed. When Poly's tell us what to do I am also suspicious especially when they they are after money for carbon credits or something ie money for nothing ie buying and selling something that does not actually exist.
I never said there was not a problem, I said I did not believe in all the science as it was deeply biased on BOTH sides. I think we need to change our ways, but I also think people and governments are making a lot out of this which is why it has got the legs it has. WE NEED TO CHANGE, but not all on this subject is what it seems or for the reason it seems it is mostly not about the planet, but about money, like everything else..
Chris

[ATH]

Of course we need to change many polluting ways. We also need to change the massive amount of land clearing/trees that are cut down throughout the world including Oz, for agriculture.
We need to stop raping the seas and dumping catches because they don't meet quotas etc. .... the EU is probably the absolute worst for this.
We need to stop all the crap about the Japs eating a few whales and telling porkies by calling it scientific etc. yet we allow others to fish the seas for krill which is whale food!
What's going to kill more whales? Harpoons or starving them to death?
We also need to cut back on the amount of travel the vast hordes of pollies and useless bureucraps we employ forever undertaking "fact finding missions".
Mostly we also need to cut the huge population explosions in Africa especially as that is the very worst thing for our planet. That may mean action which will cause many to scream and shout about "imperialism and forced birth control" but that is what has to happen as the world cannot possibly support the huge growth in people.
And stop Main Roads WA from planting traffic lights everywhere creating huge traffic jams. :D
AlanH.

[ramblingboy42]

oh dear.......

....to post #15 , not yours Ath.

[cafe latte]

Of course we need to change many polluting ways. We also need to change the massive amount of land clearing/trees that are cut down throughout the world including Oz, for agriculture.
We need to stop raping the seas and dumping catches because they don't meet quotas etc. .... the EU is probably the absolute worst for this.
We need to stop all the crap about the Japs eating a few whales and telling porkies by calling it scientific etc. yet we allow others to fish the seas for krill which is whale food!
What's going to kill more whales? Harpoons or starving them to death?
We also need to cut back on the amount of travel the vast hordes of pollies and useless bureucraps we employ forever undertaking "fact finding missions".
Mostly we also need to cut the huge population explosions in Africa especially as that is the very worst thing for our planet. That may mean action which will cause many to scream and shout about "imperialism and forced birth control" but that is what has to happen as the world cannot possibly support the huge growth in people.
And stop Main Roads WA from planting traffic lights everywhere creating huge traffic jams. :D
AlanH.

I agree with what you are saying on many points, the Japs and Whaling annoys me very much too. All I am saying is not all issues in this topic are what they seem we need to look at this with eyes wide open. I am not a radical greeny and I am not blindly opposing change as many do. I studied this and I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, but the BS needs to stop. Lets 'save the planet', actually lets save ourselves. Too many are trying to line their pockets though with this that is my problem and most are making policies..
Chris

[bob10]

The agreement was almost derailed by one word.

How one word nearly derailed the Paris climate deal | The New Daily (http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/12/13/one-word-derailed-paris-climate-change-summit/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20151214%20The%20New%20Daily%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=24229734&spUserID=MTIxODgyNjMyMTEwS0&spJobID=701340770&spReportId=NzAxMzQwNzcwS0)

[carjunkieanon]

Hi Cafe Latte, you might be able to answer this.

Heard someone on ABC radio today banging on about trees being part of the solution to take up carbon in the air. But?

An acre of trees takes up 2(ish) tonnes of carbon per year (roughly).
'I' use 17 tonnes of carbon per year (roughly - according to Wikipedia).

So I'd need to plant 9 acres of trees per year just to cover my usage. Those trees need water etc. Then, when they die, they release the carbon anyway, unless i turn them into furniture or books.

How much carbon is stored in asphalt? Couldn't we just make more roads? Or make asphalt and dump it to the bottom of the ocean?

R

[Eevo]

Then, when they die, they release the carbon anyway, unless i turn them into furniture or books.

i think they return carbon to the ground, not into the air.

[bee utey]

Your theoretical 9 acres of trees would soak up your carbon emissions continuously, no need to plant more every year. I'd imagine that you would harvest mature timber and bury the waste instead of burning it to maximise your carbon into the soil. Dunno what burning does to the carbon balance. The method of working out how much carbon stays put in your soil is complex.

Where does charcoal, or black carbon, in soils go? (http://phys.org/news/2013-04-charcoal-black-carbon-soils.html)

[benji]

I got 100%, but only because I answered q1 wrong.

I've studied ice core samples, and although the climate has stabilised to what it was in the past, just like a ripple getting smaller in a pond, we still see the qarming and cooling cycles of the past. currently we are overdue for a warning cycle.
But. ...what we find according to the ice core data is that this warming cycle is happening a lot quicker than any time in observable history.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

[carjunkieanon]

Your theoretical 9 acres of trees would soak up your carbon emissions continuously, no need to plant more every year. I'd imagine that you would harvest mature timber and bury the waste instead of burning it to maximise your carbon into the soil. Dunno what burning does to the carbon balance. The method of working out how much carbon stays put in your soil is complex.

Where does charcoal, or black carbon, in soils go? (http://phys.org/news/2013-04-charcoal-black-carbon-soils.html)

Slaps forehead, I should've seen that I wouldn't need to plant annually (better leave the math's homework to my wife). Though, I gather mature trees take up less carbon than new growth, so I'd probably need to plant a few 9 acre plots throughout my life. [bigwhistle]

[cafe latte]

Hi Cafe Latte, you might be able to answer this.

Heard someone on ABC radio today banging on about trees being part of the solution to take up carbon in the air. But?

An acre of trees takes up 2(ish) tonnes of carbon per year (roughly).
'I' use 17 tonnes of carbon per year (roughly - according to Wikipedia).

So I'd need to plant 9 acres of trees per year just to cover my usage. Those trees need water etc. Then, when they die, they release the carbon anyway, unless i turn them into furniture or books.

How much carbon is stored in asphalt? Couldn't we just make more roads? Or make asphalt and dump it to the bottom of the ocean?

R
No you only have to plant them once the trees will convert CO2 all the life of the tree. Yes when the tree dies carbon will be released via burning or decomposition, but no where near what was converted during the life of the tree.
Chris

[kenl]

If the pollies were really worried about this they would limit population growth, it is the elephant in the room.

[Homestar]

If the pollies were really worried about this they would limit population growth, it is the elephant in the room.

The biggest problem with that as I see it is that what happens when the existing population ages? We are already seeing the issues this is causing the welfare system. Imagine if you had net zero population growth - in a few generations the average age would be dramatically higher with a lower number of the working population trying to support them.

I don't disagree we have too many people on the planet, but slowing the growth down would have many long reaching implications.

I don't know what the answer is - cataclysmic weather events to wipe 100's of millions out? That's the way it will probably go eventually - Mother Nature will intervene and restore the balance.

[vnx205]

Yes, it seems that is why China has had to relax its one child policy.

Finding solutions to problems is easy. Finding solutions that don't create other problems is more difficult.

[Redback]

I got 6 out of 9, one was a hit the wrong one by mistake one was couldn't remember whether it was 2025 or 2030 as the target and the other I had no clue.

My opinion on Climate change is, yes I know it's happening and yes we are affecting it in some way, and yes we need address it, but I also think that most of the change is due to the planets natural cycle, will us reversing what we have done, help slow the planets natural cycle, assuming our affect has sped it up, I have no idea.

I know one thing for sure, Australia isn't doing enough compared to the rest of the world.

[Greatsouthernland]

...

I know one thing for sure, Australia isn't doing enough compared to the rest of the world.

I would respectfully disagree. Being less than half of one percent contributor of CO2, with a similar share of global GDP, the large proportion of our media attention and federal budget is certainly honorable.

It has already been shown that a carbon tax costs us a fortune and makes NO difference to the globe, considering the basic facts that the BIG contributors to 'green house gasses' are India, China and Russia. Let's stop punching above our weight and pretending that we can lead the world on this and every other 'good Samaritan' project, we simply don't have the revenue and contrary to some minority government opinion, the developing world doesn't march to the beat of an Australian drum.

** correlation does not imply causation **

More data in the mix...

Pirates and global warming

Below linked chart - showing that in 1820 there were 25,000 pirates and the global average temperature was 14.2 degrees C, while in 2000 there were 17 pirates and the global average temperature was 15.9 degrees C.


Henderson presented the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s".[7]

In 2008, Henderson interpreted the growing pirate activities at the Gulf of Aden as additional support, pointing out that Somalia has "the highest number of pirates and the lowest carbon emissions of any country".[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#/media/File:PiratesVsTemp%28en%29.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[DiscoMick]

Australia is the highest emitter of carbon per head of population in the world, so we certainly should be doing everything we possibly can to fix that. If everyone said it wasn't their problem, then nothing would happen to fix the problem. We should stop trying to wriggle out of our obligations and just get on with it. Its in our economic interest to go big on renewables, because it is already creating lots of jobs, and we've only just begun. For once, it would be nice if Australia was a leader, instead of an also-ran. Transforming our economy would be good for the planet and also good for Australia.
We made a good start with the carbon tax, which lowered electricity emissions by about 2% from memory over the two years until it was stupidly cancelled by the Abbott Government. In the following two years emissions rose by about 4%. So, the carbon tax worked, and it brought in income whch reduced the budget deficit, but the government's current Direct Action policy of subsiding polluters with taxpayer dollars is both a drain on the budget and a failure.
It's time to ignore the diehard deniers, admit we were wrong and get serious about reducing emissions and developing an economy based on smart thinking and innovation. Isn't that what PM Malcolm said he wants - innovation? Let's do it.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Eevo]

removed

[cafe latte]

Australia is the highest emitter of carbon per head of population in the world, so we certainly should be doing everything we possibly can to fix that. If everyone said it wasn't their problem, then nothing would happen to fix the problem. We should stop trying to wriggle out of our obligations and just get on with it. Its in our economic interest to go big on renewables, because it is already creating lots of jobs, and we've only just begun. For once, it would be nice if Australia was a leader, instead of an also-ran. Transforming our economy would be good for the planet and also good for Australia.
We made a good start with the carbon tax, which lowered electricity emissions by about 2% from memory over the two years until it was stupidly cancelled by the Abbott Government. In the following two years emissions rose by about 4%. So, the carbon tax worked, and it brought in income whch reduced the budget deficit, but the government's current Direct Action policy of subsiding polluters with taxpayer dollars is both a drain on the budget and a failure.
It's time to ignore the diehard deniers, admit we were wrong and get serious about reducing emissions and developing an economy based on smart thinking and innovation. Isn't that what PM Malcolm said he wants - innovation? Let's do it.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
Few are saying humans have nothing to do with the problem, some are just not agreeing with the whole mantra. Aus a country is one of the lowest polluters, but yes it is true we dont have a very large population, but Australia is a bit different to many countries too. Huge distances for example between population centers, you are not going to get around in a city car never mind an electric one. You really cant compare counties by looking at per head of capita as it is always going to be cleaner to provide for a large number of people than small number.
There needs to be a balance of doing what we can do the reduce carbon emissions without hurting the economy too much as well. Other countries like China and India who are the major polluters need to act now, there is no point in Australia reducing their emissions if the big polluters dont act as well.
And look at this picture and tell me nature is not a big part of the problem (you need to launch it to see the map)..
Sentinel (http://sentinel.ga.gov.au/#/main)
Chris

[DiscoMick]

Few are saying humans have nothing to do with the problem, some are just not agreeing with the whole mantra. Aus a country is one of the lowest polluters, but yes it is true we dont have a very large population, but Australia is a bit different to many countries too. Huge distances for example between population centers, you are not going to get around in a city car never mind an electric one. You really cant compare counties by looking at per head of capita as it is always going to be cleaner to provide for a large number of people than small number.
There needs to be a balance of doing what we can do the reduce carbon emissions without hurting the economy too much as well. Other countries like China and India who are the major polluters need to act now, there is no point in Australia reducing their emissions if the big polluters dont act as well.
And look at this picture and tell me nature is not a big part of the problem (you need to launch it to see the map)..
Sentinel (http://sentinel.ga.gov.au/#/main)
Chris

The reason we're the highest emitters per capita has nothing to do with distance or population size, its simply that we generate more of our electricity by burning coal than most countries. It's not even necessary to go to renewables to fix this. Simply switching our power stations to gas, as Britain is doing, would significantly reduce our emissions.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Eevo]

Simply switching our power stations to gas, as Britain is doing, would significantly reduce our emissions.


the individual has little no no influence over this.

[cafe latte]

The reason we're the highest emitters per capita has nothing to do with distance or population size, its simply that we generate more of our electricity by burning coal than most countries. It's not even necessary to go to renewables to fix this. Simply switching our power stations to gas, as Britain is doing, would significantly reduce our emissions.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Or go nuclear power Like the UK, or then again maybe not..
Chris