http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4045476.htm

 

NARRATION
Sea levels are rising and the consequences could be huge.
By the end of this century, areas that currently flood once every hundred years, could start to flood several times every year. The rising sea is the sleeping giant of climate change. 

Dr Mick O'Leary
Climates may change, you might have more drought, you might have more rain, but I think for me, the biggest issue and the biggest concern is what will sea level do in the coming centuries.

Professor Carlos Duarte 
Unfortunately, many of the mega cities in the world - and that also applies to the larger cities in Australia - have been built in low lying areas. 

NARRATION
That means much of the world's population will eventually have to deal with sea level rise. The question is, how high will the waters get? Well, we go to the remote north west of Australia and make a disturbing discovery. According to this geologist's work, sea levels could ultimately go up by a staggering nine metres!

Dr Mick O'Leary
It's pretty high, I mean that's going to displace nearly every mega city on the planet just about. 

NARRATION
But before we go north, let's start the story in the south, in Tasmania. To get some background on sea levels I caught up with Australia's expert, John Church. He's been in the business almost 20 years, and has a critical eye.

Dr John Church
The reason I first got into it was I thought that the numbers that were being bandied about then were too large. And so I sat down and did my own calculations of what I thought.

NARRATION 
Even with his scepticism John agrees we'll see significant sea level rise even this century.

Dr John Church
Evidence is unequivocal I'd say, it's very robust.

NARRATION
Now, seas do rise and fall naturally…and by vast amounts. Go back, say, 25,000 years. 

Dr Graham Phillips
People living here back then couldn't go for a nice stroll in the sand…25,000 years ago the coastline was about 10 kilometres that way, because sea levels were 120 metres lower than they are today. The cause was the last ice age.

Dr Mick O'Leary
Essentially all the water was sucked out of the ocean and deposited in the polar regions as ice and essentially locked up. 

NARRATION 
Indeed the lower sea levels determined history.

Dr John Church
They've actually affected the human migration from when we first walked out of Africa, and lower sea levels allowed people to migrate far more easily.

NARRATION
But the Ice Age eventually ended…120 metres of ocean was returned, and since then we've had a long period of stability.

Dr John Church
Sea levels have been basically stable for many millennia.

NARRATION
Civilisations have risen…civilisations have fallen…and the seas have hardly moved…until the 19th century. They then started to rise. At Tasmania's Port Arthur, there's hard evidence for it. In the early years of this penal colony, in 1841, a high tide mark was accurately etched into the stone.

Dr John Church
It's one of the very first benchmarks made anywhere in the world.

NARRATION 
According to this mark, seas have risen here by 13 centimetres since then. Thirteen centimetres may not sound a lot but it's enough to cause more frequent flooding at Port Arthur. And seas are still rising.

Dr Graham Phillips
Best estimates are sea levels are currently increasing at just over three millimetres a year. So at that rate, another Port Arthur size rise will take 43 years. But as we'll find out, that 3 millimetres is set to grow.

NARRATION 
The cause is global warming. It's projected to heat the world by at least two degrees by the end of this century…how high could that cause the seas to get? Well, that takes us back to north west Australia…to remote Quobba Station. Here Mick O'Leary is estimating how high the seas got last time the Earth was two degrees warmer. That was 120,000 years ago, just before the last ice age. The way to do that is identify the ancient coastline, by looking for 120,000 year old beaches. 

Dr Graham Phillips
So this would have been the old beach here.

Dr Mick O'Leary
That's correct. So if we just look over here, we can see a nice gently dipping slope of that bed to seaward, just as you get modern beaches slope to seaward, and we can even see containment in the sediments; large shells

NARRATION
Ah yeah, I see that.

Dr Mick O'Leary
...large coral fragments that would have been washed up from the fossil reef incorporated into the beach. This is a perfect example of a fossil beach right here.

NARRATION 
This fossil beach almost looks like a modern one but the sea never gets up here these days…it's many metres below us. So, what causes the sea to rise? Turns out, melting ice is only part of the story. Almost half of the current rise is due to nothing more than global warming heating the oceans.

Dr John Church
Over 93% of the energy that's been absorbed by the climate system is stored in the oceans.

NARRATION 
Think of how a thermometer works when it's put in hot water. As the red liquid warms, it expands…up the tube, allowing the precise temperature to be read off. 

Dr John Church
Exactly the same with the oceans, as you warm the water, the water expands and it has nowhere to go except up, so sea level rises.

NARRATION 
But this relatively mild rise will ultimately be swamped if the world's two biggest ice sheets…Greenland and West Antarctica melt. Sea levels will then soar. Did these ice sheets melt last time the world was two degrees warmer? To find out Mick needs to measure precisely the height of the ancient sea back then. One way to do that is to measure the height of the ancient corals…because they would have grown precisely to the old low tide mark. And he put me to work.

Dr Mick O'Leary
All go?

Dr Graham Phillips
Yes

Dr Mick O'Leary
Yeah, so our location - write location - is Red Bluff north. Red Bluff being the headland behind us.
This is probably the highest in situ coral we have for this section of reef. We can write the species or the general type, so just put acropora. And now we want to work out the elevation. Okay, so I'm going to stand on the coral. And this will be about the highest point. 

NARRATION 
The corals vary in height along the coast and the aim is to find the highest, because they'll be the measure of ancient sea level. But there's a potential glitch with Mick's measurements…how do we know, rather than the seas moving, that the corals haven't moved over the years.

Dr Mick O'Leary
There's no such thing as a stable coastline, coastlines everywhere around the world are being deformed and warped and uplifted and subsided at various rates.

NARRATION 
Even a simple earthquake in the past could upset the measurements. 

Newsreader voice over 
Here whole buildings have been sheered off to not even a centimetre high

NARRATION
Consider the one that caused the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami.

Dr Mick O'Leary
There are corals which are living quite happily in the sub tidal zone and that event lifted these corals up, out of that zone, maybe a metre, in that one event, and they're all dry and dead now. 

NARRATION 
To rule out coral reef movement, Mick took measurements right along the West Australian coast, as well as at localities overseas, like the Caribbean and South Africa.

Dr Mick O'Leary
And we find that these shorelines are present at those localities at those same elevations.

NARRATION 
So, his evidence is strong…average sea levels were seven to nine metres higher when the Earth was last two degrees warmer. That means much of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets must have melted.

Dr Graham Phillips 
Now this doesn't mean, as soon as the world is two degrees warmer the seas will suddenly jump by nine metres. 

NARRATION 
There'll be a time lag because ice sheets take a long time to melt…the full 9 metres would take many centuries. But even by the end of this century seas could go up by one metre. That may not sound much but remember just 13 centimetres is capable of this. And even if you live up high, little things could change…like your beach lifestyle.

Dr Graham Phillips
The problem for some beaches is we've built roads and buildings right up to the edge. So that means as the sea levels rise and the sand gets washed away, the beaches could disappear completely.

NARRATION 
But one of the most disturbing things is that sea level rise will be relentless.

Professor Carlos Duarte 
In fact its a process that is going to be with us for many centuries and millennia because once we've triggered this process, it's the one process that has the largest momentum, so we won't be able to stop that any time soon.

NARRATION 
We could build higher sea walls, but this kind of protection is expensive. 

Professor Carlos Duarte 
Assessments of the costs indicate that the cost will be much higher than we can afford, even in the wealthiest countries, so the most clever strategies are actually what is called a planned retreat.

NARRATION 
Planned retreat means gradually moving our cities and infrastructure inland - and plans have already begun. Along parts of the Welsh coast for instance, retreat will begin as early as 2025. And in Australia, we certainly won't escape the rising seas.

Professor Carlos Duarte 
Most of the cities in Australia, Melbourne, Brisbane, also Perth, have been built in what once were mangrove forest or salt marshes and therefore they are areas that can be easily flooded.

NARRATION 
Because of the cost of retreat, why don't we just adopt a wait and see attitude?

Dr John Church 
That's what we're doing at the moment I'm afraid. But that's putting many millions of people's lives and livelihood at risk.

Professor Carlos Duarte 
Whether we are persuaded by the solid weight of scientific evidence around climate change, or whether we remain sceptical, it doesn't matter, our houses will be flooded.

NARRATION 
Sea level rise is at least gradual, so if we start acting we do have the time to make the necessary changes.

• Reporter: Dr Graham Philips
• Producer: Dr Graham Philips
• Researcher: Wendy Zukerman
• Camera: Greg Pollock
  Tony King
• Sound: Richard Glover
  Dave Fraser
• Editor: Meredith Hopes

See also: global warming

Let's face it. The carbon "tax" (pricing) was not going to protect the planet from global warming on its own. But it is (and still will be needed in the future with a much higher price) a step in the correct direction. What our self-congratulatory useless primal turd is doing is totally counter-productive. At least a turd is expelling the unwanted unused unneeded portions of what we consume to survive. Hey hang on... May be in his own mind by the rejection of the carbon pricing, Tony thinks of himself along these lines?: a glorious turd getting rid of an unwanted policy. 

But lets stop being so insulting here... Say I am insulting for one reason alone (well possibly two or three). Tony Abbott since the day he came on the political scene has insulted my intelligence. He has lied, he has achieved sewerness and he has become a nasty little man. But was he such before this? It is for his own conscience, if he can find it, to deal with. 

Soon we will have to do more, By 2050, our CO2 emissions will have to be close to nil. Tony Abbott and ninety nine per cent of his mates do not believe in global warming... And Mister Murdoch, who also does not "believe" in global warming, thinks we should mitigate it by climbing uphill while burning more carbon. Cavemen would be more intelligent than this.

I know, most of my Liberal (CONservative) mates do not believe in global warming. They don't want to know. And the only one Lib I know who knows global warming is happening is busy making a lot of cash because he knows "we're doomed anyway" so may as well enjoy. 

Anyway, we need to mitigate our emissions of CO2 and 5 per cent by 2020 is not going to cut it... And "Tony's Direct action" — which the Palmer PUP and Labor promised would bite the dust — might have to do... Er... not really. Of course Tony's "direct action", as Malcolm Turnbull exposed in 2010, is a crock that won't achieve an ounce of reduction in emissions, but is designed to feed cash back into the pockets of polluters. It's a sad pretence of doing something for the environment. For example Tony wants to plant trees. Sure. AT THE SAME TIME, he wants to cut more trees than could ever be planted with his little scheme and his Liberal (CONservatives) mates in Queensland and New South Wales are now giving free rein to farmers to deforest their lands at a rate of knots. HYPOCRITES! All this is going to do is create more drought, more dust, more pain for the farmers in search of a quick profit to repay bank loans. It's a vicious circle... 

So Labor and the Greens of Australia, you can be proud of what you have achieved with the carbon pricing so far. It has been far from "useless" as our useless turd-in-chief proclaimed yesterday. It has helped finance renewable energies and reduce Australia's emissions of CO2. More needs to be done, but don't encourage Tony's Direct Action. Australia may not have an anti-global warming policy for a couple more years, but it will be better than having the corrupt direct action of the turd... 

Please note for your books that, despite the theatrics, Palmer and Abbott have been "working secretly" on the destruction of the carbon tax BEFORE the last election by splintering the senate vote into a plethora of small parties that get into parliament by default. Labor and the Greens should have done the same. Say "have someone  (unrelated of course)" to create new political party that will split their own votes but will gain seat in the senate. Parties such as "the Carbon Pricing Party (CPP) or the Friends of the Environment Party (FEP) or the Sciences United Party (SUP), but beware there is a number of organisations that have nothing to do with proper sciences out there, but with muddling your brains with denialism. 

And of course, Tony Abbott will hypocritically place his hand on his heart and blame everyone else, Labor, PUP and the Greens, for Australia not having a global warming policy... Is this completely turdy or not?

Keep on fighting. Tony Abbott is hypocritical and dishonest. 

 

Gus Leonisky

Your local global warming expert

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said it seems certain that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was ''shot down'', saying if this was the case it would be an ''unspeakable crime''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-terrible-tragedy-tony-abbott-offers-condolences-to-families-for-what-would-be-unspeakable-crime-20140718-3c4sx.html#ixzz37mMjNwZR

Meanwhile, one could talk of the unspeakable crime of Tony Abbott dealing ruthlessly with asylum seekers... and that unspeakable crime of condemning future generations to more extreme weather that will generate deaths. Although it is impossible to "quantify" how many people would die from the repeal of the carbon tax, there will some death attributable to it. And eventually far more than even all the death combined in the Malaysian airline disasters. By mid century, these could total millions. I know, I am a bit cynical here, but this is only brought out by our cynical hypocritical PMshit. 
In fact since April, world commercial airlines have been strongly warned to avoid this Ukrainian airspace... And what word did our little shit used when an Iranian airliner was shot down by US missiles? An unspeakable crime indeed? Or did he say "shit happens"?... 
Our condolences to all the families who have lost someone in this fatal crash. 

 

 

Those dismayed at the many humiliations Tony Abbott has brought upon Australia have had another appalling week. Alan Austin reports from France.

PM Abbott: Not waving, drowning

‘Australia abolishes carbon tax. Step backwards?’

That’s the intro to Thursday’s article in Taiwan’s Taipei Times.

It continues:

‘Tony Abbott praised the scrapping of a "useless, destructive tax," while critics called it an embarrassment that would make Australia a global pariah.’

Strong words. But if Australia was not already a global pariah before this week, it is now.

Last week’s report at IA on worldwide negative news bulletins on Abbott’s performance quoted 30 articles in 16 countries. Not too bad.

To these can now be added Taiwan, Sweden, Singapore and Japan. That’s 20. Not good.

Then must be added India, Switzerland, China, Pakistan, Qatar, Norway, Macedonia, Bahrain, Hong Kong and Kuwait. That makes an even 30 countries all running highly damaging news stories about Australia. And, no doubt, there are more.

Issues include Abbott’s attacks on the poor in the May budget, the unravelling of relations with Indonesia and his multiple humiliations abroad.

Two issues this week have dismayed the watching world even further.

Switzerland daily gazette Tages-Anzeiger reported the carbon tax repeal, noting Australia is the first country in the world to abandon climate control measures:

‘The controls were directed at the 350 biggest polluters in the country. The Conservatives triumph.’

 

read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/out-of-his-depth-abbott-sinks-australia-further-into-the-merde,6682

 

Australia’s repeal of the carbon price has provoked a largely negative reaction overseas, with former US vice president Al Gore calling it a “disappointing step”.

Gore said Thursday’s abolition of the mechanism means that “Australia is falling behind other major industrialised nations in the growing global effort to reduce carbon emissions and ensure a clean and prosperous future”.

“[It is] a disappointing step for a country that continues to experience the worsening consequences of the climate crisis.”

Gore, who appeared alongside Clive Palmer in a bizarre press conference in June to iterate the Palmer United party’s position on the carbon price, said be was encouraged by the support for the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Climate Change Authority.

“These programs are examples of Australia’s long and continued excellence in combating the climate crisis, and must continue,” Gore said. He added that he was “hopeful” that Australia would adopt an emissions trading scheme (ETS), as advanced by Labor and, in a radically watered down form, by Palmer.

Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s climate commissioner, also voiced disappointment at the carbon price repeal.

“The European Union regrets the repeal of Australia's carbon pricing mechanism just as new carbon pricing initiatives are emerging all around the world,” she said.

“The EU is convinced that pricing carbon is not only the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, but also the tool to make the economic paradigm shift the world needs.

“This is why the EU will continue to work towards global carbon pricing with all international partners.”

The European Union has had an emissions trading scheme in place since 2005. The scheme, which covers around 45% of total greenhouse emissions from the 28 EU countries, was due to be linked to Australia’s own emissions trading scheme, but this will now not happen.

The UK, which is part of the EU ETS, has declined to officially criticise Australia over the abolition, although a senior UK Conservative recently condemned Tony Abbott over his “reckless” approach to climate change.

However, a spokeswoman for Ed Davey, the UK’s climate change minister, told Guardian Australia that Britain wanted to work with countries to “encourage ambitious action” on climate change, preferably via carbon pricing.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/18/australia-carbon-tax-abolition-international-criticism

 

Australia had a price on carbon for two years. Its impact on energy consumption and production was as expected, with energy usage falling in absolute and per capita terms and energy production shifting substantially towards clean, renewable sources.

Now that it has gone, the following snapshot outlines how well the economy has continued to perform while the carbon price was in place.

It has been noted many times before that as the carbon price was being introduced, then opposition leader Tony Abbott suggested “this toxic tax” would "act as a wrecking ball across the economy” and that the economic consequences would be "absolutely catastrophic".

It was also forecast that the introduction of the tax would "wipe out jobs big-time" while towns like Whyalla would be "wiped off the map" and "ghost towns” would be created as a direct result of the tax.

These forecasts have proven to be ridiculously wrong. If a market economist or Reserve Bank of Australia official used those projections to form a hard forecast for the economy and financial markets, they would have been forecasting a deep recession for Australia – perhaps worse.

The embarrassing misjudgment of those forecasts would have no doubt lead to the sacking of those making such outlandish and costly forecasting errors.

A look at a myriad of data on the economy shows why.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/25/four-facts-show-carbon-tax-not-damaged-australia