Emission Trading and climate change

Page 316 of 377 FirstFirst ... 216 266 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 366 ... LastLast
Results 15,751 to 15,800 of 18819
  1. #15751
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Local is more variable and the effects are becoming more obvious because the variability is wider and more common. Here in SA, in January on Friday the 13th, it is raining. Our water tank is overflowing. We've been here since 1994 and we have never had this kind of variability in January. Usually, we are baked dry and cooked.

    If you have any reasonable concern for the planet, then the major concern should be for the global effect of pumping CO2 into the planet's atmosphere. In due course, it will effect all of us. If you don't have any concern, then like any denier, you can pick and choose places that currently don't show obvious effects of climate change.

    Rather than quoting short news stories, just go and read some real science.
    im not sure you've understood my position.

    i take from what you write, that that is a good thing - Adelaide could do with more rain.

    i bet I've read more of the science than most here - it was one of my personal interests whilst semi retired for 4 years. Without doubt we should be concerned - on a personal front I have made significant effort to use recycled materials, and lock up significant carbon in a quality building that can be deconstructed.

    anyway, I've read enough to know I have no idea or special understanding

  2. #15752
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Inner west, Sydney
    Posts
    329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    I'm not stupid enough to listen to muppets like bolt quoting out of context. I think TF made himself a target by consistently being on the very pessimistic side over the last decade and a half - it's either because he genuinely is pessimistic or he has caught the politician disease of exaggerating everything thinking that will pull more people over to your POV.

    way back in 2000 he was spruiking then predictions for whom the time has passed now.

    australia of course is a very dry continent, I would expect if I picked a random year 50 years ago, some parts would be in drought at any given time.

    the problem with dire predictions is that when they are made, they often feel like they are too far away to be fact checked, but time moves forward rather quickly, and it comes to bite you on the @@@@.

    ill add another controversial figure who has done more to prevent the science coming through than anyone: Al Gore.

    well meaning, but again, becomes so alarmist (perhaps rightly so) that his arguments get massive publicity but then shot down in flames time and time again. The thought leaders need to search for agreement, make compelling and convincing arguments, not lawyer like, he is wrong I am right dogmatic points of view.

    when the most noise comes from the rational and centrist people we will move on. Whilever the socialist environmentalist groups have the podium, the position of the socially conservative right will continue to harden. We cannot afford this.

    in the same way, we cannot afford for the nuclear capable countries to be closing down plants due to green ideology, nor a green ideology that is against hydro power when it's possibly the very best all round solution to this parlous state of affairs.

    the general lack of rationality makes we wonder if reduction of co2 is actually possible, and that therefore, we will need to manage engineering solutions, eg modifying crops, potentially geo engineering etc.
    Excellent summary, I have similar views

  3. #15753
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    im not sure you've understood my position.

    i take from what you write, that that is a good thing - Adelaide could do with more rain.
    Correct, I do not understand your position.

    Changing the climate by loading the atmosphere with CO2 is not a good idea. Quoting blather from news sources is not talking about the science of climate change. If you have read actual science, why would you quote nonsense from biassed 'news' sources?

    Adelaide getting some wild weather is not a good thing, even if it does deliver extra rain in a dry climate. In the last few months we have had several storms that have knocked out the power system, and just after Christmas there were significant damage around the state from unusually wild storms. There were many people around the state without power for days from that event.

    SA weather: More wild weather hits state after Adelaide storm leaves trail of destruction - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    The extra rain delivered could not possibly balance the cost of damage from these events.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  4. #15754
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Correct, I do not understand your position.

    Changing the climate by loading the atmosphere with CO2 is not a good idea. Quoting blather from news sources is not talking about the science of climate change. If you have read actual science, why would you quote nonsense from biassed 'news' sources?

    .
    what quote?

    what biased news source? Are you seeing something not there to fit a pre conceived notion?

  5. #15755
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    what quote?

    what biased news source? Are you seeing something not there to fit a pre conceived notion?
    Just about every news source has a bias. Is that 'news' to you? Would be harder to find an unbiased news source. Better to quote real science than drivel from a news source.

    What we see from news sources is undue attention and reporting of denier positions on climate change which are not supported by actual published science. This is not an unusual situation because of the financial support of news organisations by profitable FF organisations who are having an impact on the health of the climate and the population.

    There are plenty of similar denier situations we have had to put up with. Tobacco, DDT, Thalidomide, Vaccines causing Autism. Probably plenty of others that didn't hit the news. Science solved those issues over time by doing appropriate science and publishing the results. Science has been working on Climate change for a long time now, the basics are pretty much nailed to the wall.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  6. #15756
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Just about every news source has a bias. Is that 'news' to you? Would be harder to find an unbiased news source. Better to quote real science than drivel from a news source.

    What we see from news sources is undue attention and reporting of denier positions on climate change which are not supported by actual published science. This is not an unusual situation because of the financial support of news organisations by profitable FF organisations who are having an impact on the health of the climate and the population.

    There are plenty of similar denier situations we have had to put up with. Tobacco, DDT, Thalidomide, Vaccines causing Autism. Probably plenty of others that didn't hit the news. Science solved those issues over time by doing appropriate science and publishing the results. Science has been working on Climate change for a long time now, the basics are pretty much nailed to the wall.
    You just accused me of using quotes from news sources or gathering information from news sources (that are always opinionated) - I'm just trying to figure out what you are talking about.

    your paragraph

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Changing the climate by loading the atmosphere with CO2 is not a good idea. Quoting blather from news sources is not talking about the science of climate change. If you have read actual science, why would you quote nonsense from biassed 'news' sources?
    .

  7. #15757
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    You just accused me of using quotes from news sources or gathering information from news sources (that are always opinionated) - I'm just trying to figure out what you are talking about.

    your paragraph
    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2
    now I'm not across all models and all climates, but it's hard not to notice that for instance Tim Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages in Australia have not even remotely come to pass. Increased heat does not cause reducing rainfall, nor even correlate in Australia s example.
    PhilT2 gave a fair resume of the cherry picking of Tim Flannery's remarks on water storage that you mentioned. http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...ml#post1040473

    From his link:

    Climate Change Entails Heavier Flooding
    As Climate Change Commissioner, Flannery is perfectly aware that intensified but rarer flooding constitues part of IPCC modelling. As such it is patently absurd to state that Flannery believes Australia will never again experience floods or that dams will never fill again.
    In asserting that Flannery believes Australia’s dams will never fill again, Bolt would have us believe that Flannery is aware of only the ‘drying’ aspects of Climate Change and is unaware of the ‘wetting’ aspects. This shows how dishonestly Bolt handles the Climate Change topic.

    For the benefit of denialists like Bolt I produce here an extract, via Deltoid, from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 12.1.5.1
    To summarize the rainfall results, drier conditions are anticipated for most of Australia over the 21st century. However, consistent with conclusions in WGI, an increase in heavy rainfall also is projected, even in regions with small decreases in mean rainfall. This is a result of a shift in the frequency distribution of daily rainfall toward fewer light and moderate events and more heavy events. This could lead to more droughts and more floods.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  8. #15758
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    PhilT2 gave a fair resume of the cherry picking of Tim Flannery's remarks on water storage that you mentioned. http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...ml#post1040473

    From his link:
    Can I be perfectly clear - I have not ever read bolts article nor any of the other "cherry picked" articles. Those views are entirely my own and come from decades of watching Tim Flannery come out with predictions on outcomes, particularly on many dozens of docos and interviews on Lateline etc on theABC. I don't have the inclination to spend many hours searching up quotes on digital media in order to prove them.

    the cherry picked quotes are the ones that get used because someone somewhere has stuck them in an article. At best, they are poorly worded statements by someone professing to be a scientist of renown.

    my point isn't that he is an idiot, though I suspect that he he too far out of his own expertise to be making public pronunciations, but that allowing himself to so easily be drawn into catastrophic scenarios that he does the political picture a great deal of harm.

    Quality scientists are well aware of doubt and use careful language, TF in my opinion does not - he is a political animal and a man with a cause.

    BTW! Phils article is another poor rebuff anyway and just follows the same he said she said genre. What the hell, who said Tim Flannery said we will never have another flood or the dams would never refill. I certainly wouldn't subscribe to him having dogmatic stupid beliefs such as that. He certainly commented at the time that ongoing droughts and shortages would be the new norm and continuing lower rainfall - he thought the pattern had changed, and it had not, we almost immediately stepped into an average rainfall picture but with increased temperatures.

    maybe it's not totally straw man , perhaps Allan jones or bolt said something like that, but you have to find someone that believes it before the article stands as a rebuff

  9. #15759
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    ok, typical Tim Flannery coming up. Not cherry picked, I simply searched Lateline tim Flannery, the picked something 10 years ago from the first page.

    link below to the whole thing, but within 90 seconds of reading a random interview with the man, here's what I read

    "PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: Look, what we've seen in the Arctic over the last two years has been such breathtaking change that you have to worry about stability for sea levels and for the entire Northern Hemisphere climate system. The rate of ice melt in 2005 increased by about five times over what it was previously and it's been very, very large again in 2006. Now if you take those two years as the new trajectory for ice melt in the Arctic - we've only two years of data there - but if we do that, there will be no Arctic to melt in five to 15 years and that is an astonishingly short period of time for an ice cap that's existed for three million years.

    And when you think that - the climate system of the Northern Hemisphere is structured by the temperature gradings between the Pole and the equator, you know, so it’s as you start changing the temperature of the Pole you start reorganising the climate system of the Northern Hemisphere. So I'm very fearful that not in 50 or a hundred years time but within 10 or 20 years time we'll start seeing very large scale changes in the bio sphere and people will realise, perhaps belatedly, the nature of this emergency."

    ok, so I have hindsight on my side, and no doubt his defenders will say, but he said "if we take those 2 years" and will say but he said "IF" . Well that's as maybe, but in the communication stakes on a current affairs program, that message of a total melt in 2 years is exactly what he communicated and further that by now we would see "VERY" large scale changes in the biosphere.

    thats just the first thing I hit - this is his modus operandi.

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1842715.htm

    i don't know many people ahoy wouldn't see that as somewhat alarmist

    Edit - on the plus side, he is OK with nuclear power

  10. #15760
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    So your quoted lateline article is around 10 years old, and Flannery was talking about northern hemisphere changes, particularly the Arctic Ice Cap, and about large scale changes between the pole and the equator in 10-20 years.

    Guess what: We are already seeing large changes in the northern hemisphere in 10 years. Didn't you notice the many similar wild events across the northern hemisphere in the last few years? Or the effects of the unusual weather on refugees on the island of Lesbos in Greece since just last week? It was buried in snow and people were freezing, and that is not a normal event.

    More often and more wild weather events, changes in the atmospheric circulation around the north pole are bulging into populated areas. Significant ice loss in the Arctic. 10 years to go, and the CO2 rise hasn't stopped yet. Flannery isn't an actual climate scientist, but he is a scientist. He might be exaggerating in some ideas, but that particular article quote looks to be likely on track IMHO.

    If science is warning of a likely substantial change in future climate due to our escalating emissions, we can take it as alarmism and do little to nothing about it, especially when people like Bolt take it on. That's pretty much the result so far, we as a population are acting too slowly to preserve our future environment.

    BTW, Flannery has an Arts Degree, a Masters Science Degree, and a Doctorate in Palaeontology.

    Think climate, not weather. Read real science.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  11. #15761
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    this is the point where I seperate from climate alarmists. While I don't think that AGW is good for us, I've consistently noted that the models of predicted outcomes have negatives attached outside of simple air temp - eg, in SE USA you get predicted worse storms, for NE predicted more serious winter storms, for Australia you get notably drier predictions.

    now I'm not across all models and all climates, but it's hard not to notice that for instance Tim Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages in Australia have not even remotely come to pass. Increased heat does not cause reducing rainfall, nor even correlate in Australia s example.
    Actually a great deal of Flannery's predictions have come to pass, but governments HAVE acted so the consequences have not been as severe as what they would have been if the science was ignored and there was business as usual - doh!. At times, water resources have been rationed or withheld, some reallocated, and new water resources have been developed, none of which calls in to question any climate science. The fact that average rainfalls in Australia aren't changing a great deal obfuscates how, when and where the rain falls. In Adelaide, for example, where once rain fell typically in one day out of three over the course of a year, now there are now typically months with zero rainfall, and but then deluges from weather systems from the tropics, leading to flooding and erosion. No-one who understands the consequences of global warming and climate change would be surprised by this.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  12. #15762
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Have any of the desalination plants been needed?

    i understand desal plants aren't a bad thing from an insurance perspective, but still.

    australias weather/climate is inextricably linked to the waxes and wanes of El Niño La Niña - the question should be as to how ocean warming will effect this relative difference if at all. Personally, I put much more weight in empirical data than predicted outcomes - I've seen so many solidly based predicted outcomes go the other way in another complicated system - the human body.

    so, your against nuclear aren't you John, how do you reconcile that with TF seeing it as a preferred option (not necessarily for Australia)?

    i think we can take it that we will always disagree on TF being a good predictor into the near future

  13. #15763
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    Have any of the desalination plants been needed?
    Perth's is currently supplying 47% of the city's water, Sydney's ran for two years straight at full capacity before the drought broke in 2012, Adelaide's is running, though not at full capacity and I can taste the difference in our water at home, and the Gold Coast one has run at capacity on a number of occasions.


    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    australias weather/climate is inextricably linked to the waxes and wanes of El Niño La Niña - the question should be as to how ocean warming will effect this relative difference if at all. Personally, I put much more weight in empirical data than predicted outcomes - I've seen so many solidly based predicted outcomes go the other way in another complicated system - the human body.
    The fact that the heat energy in the oceans drives weather, and 97% of the excess heat being accumulated due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is being stored in the ocean should be ringing alarm bells loud and clear! Global warming projections don't predict weather or the year on year chaotic behaviour of ocean currents, but global warming projections have been remarkably accurate in predicting the extent of additional surface heat retention (warming) globally. The projections are the result of applying basic laws of physics, the same laws of physics used to design houses, cars, aeroplanes and air conditioning, etc. The formula (model) created by Svante Arrhenius around 1896 is relevant today and explains the global warming from then until now quite accurately. Quite frankly, if basic climate theory was wrong or didn't work, nor would the computer work that you are using to participate in this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    so, your against nuclear aren't you John, how do you reconcile that with TF seeing it as a preferred option (not necessarily for Australia)?

    i think we can take it that we will always disagree on TF being a good predictor into the near future
    I am against nuclear because there is no waste solution within sight, even generations into the future. The world nuclear power generation industry has the most extraordinary case of nuclear waste constipation with almost all nuclear plants packed to the gunnels with intractable waste. Every nuclear power station is a Chernobyl/Fukushima in waiting. Fukushima failed because although the basic design was designed to cope with any foreseeable calamity, it was not able to cope with multiple calamities, which is what happened (tsunami and power failure). It's not unlike the Twin Towers failing - they were designed to withstand fire, and plane crash, but not fire and plane crash. The impact of the plane crashes destroyed the fireproofing of the steel structure and the ensuing fire weakened the steel until they collapsed. It is absolutely certain that there will be more nuclear power plant calamities in the future. Plus the whole idea that humanity can go on profligately consuming finite resources like we do now if only there was enough electricity is pure piffle.

    I don't particularly care what TF has to say about anything, other than when people deliberately mis-quote him (or anyone else) to perfidiously push an ideological barrow.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  14. #15764
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Actually a great deal of Flannery's predictions have come to pass,
    I'm not sure I agree completely with that. The convention in climate science is that a period of about thirty years is necessary to establish a trend. None of Tim's predictions have been given the time needed. The trend may or may not be going in the right direction but needs the time to become statistically significant.

    Al Gore suffers the same fate. His prediction of more hurricanes was based on research predicting a doubling of intense storms by 2100. (Vecchi, 2010) Deniers were screaming "Wrong!!!" before the first decade was up.

    There will always be errors in climate science, especially in the attempts to warn us of what may lie ahead. Personally I would prefer to take the chance and accept some flaws rather than blunder ahead in the dark and make no effort to predict what awaits us.

    The problems in the scientific side pale into insignificance compared to issues among the anti AGW ranks. There's not a lot of predictions, right or wrong, coming from that side but there are clearly issues with the understanding of basic physics and chemistry. My favourite is this US senator who is in denial of, well, just about everything.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc

    Conspiracy theories are popular too and saying that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to wreck US manufacturing apparently doesn't affect your chances of being president. Though our own Senator Roberts would dispute that as he leans more to it being a conspiracy by the UN. Then there's Tim Ball and the whole Principia Scientific crowd who are in denial of a greenhouse affect of any kind. And let's not forget Lord Monckton.

    Compared to that crowd Flannery is absolute saint.

  15. #15765
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    I'm not sure I agree completely with that. The convention in climate science is that a period of about thirty years is necessary to establish a trend. None of Tim's predictions have been given the time needed. The trend may or may not be going in the right direction but needs the time to become statistically significant.
    Fair comment, thanks.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  16. #15766
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    I'm not sure I agree completely with that. The convention in climate science is that a period of about thirty years is necessary to establish a trend. None of Tim's predictions have been given the time needed. The trend may or may not be going in the right direction but needs the time to become statistically significant.

    Al Gore suffers the same fate. His prediction of more hurricanes was based on research predicting a doubling of intense storms by 2100. (Vecchi, 2010) Deniers were screaming "Wrong!!!" before the first decade was up.


    nt.
    For al gore, not a bad review of the situation


    https://www.wunderground.com/resourc...ation/gore.asp

    its the association deliberately of a current weather event with global warming - same thing that Tim Flannery did during the drought. The problem is, if you assign weather outcomes to AGW, as soon as it turns the other way (as it inevitably does) people make the same weather equals climate mistake in the other direction.

    i like the wording in the review above, essentially it's a campaign add - it seems pretty clear that the "campaign adds" are doing nothing more than motivate the denial team, particularly on the right, and particularly in the USA.

    i don't know what the answer is, I don't know how to get the politics out of it, but it has to happen

  17. #15767
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    The general association of a weather event with the known changing climate we are in, is just a tick.

    The science tells us that we are in for higher variability. We might not be able to say for sure that any one single weather event is because of climate change, but we cannot ignore the frequency and scale of the events we live through.

    The expectation is that we are in for more frequent and more wild weather events as the climate changes.

    Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2617.html

    We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence6. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming.
    https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather



    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  18. #15768
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Adelaide's is running, though not at full capacity and I can taste the difference in our water at home
    I don't know what part of the city it supplies but I was in Adelaide recently and the water in the CBD didn't seem too bad.

    Either that or I've got used to it. In the past it definitely wasn't good, at least not compared to the water here in Tas, but this time I simply didn't notice it.

    So far as nuclear is concerned, there will be incidents and mishaps with any technology that's a given. Nuclear energy is however unique in man's total inability to deal with the consequences.

    Coal mine catches fire, gas plant blows up, dam collapses or whatever. A lot of destruction and potentially lost lives at the time but we do have the ability to clean up and move on. Not so with nuclear.

    I'm not totally against it, in some situations it probably is the most realistic option, but it's the option of last resort in my view. Looking at Australia we've got:

    Lost of wind and solar

    A truly massive geothermal resource if only we could work out a way to harness it. This warrants a serious effort akin to that put into brown coal in the early days - "find a way or make one". The geothermal resource could supply 100% of our electricity for thousands of years so this is potentially something of very major importance.

    We've still got hydro sites that could be developed. Indeed if we're willing to link to PNG then we could run two thirds of Queensland, our second largest state in electrical terms, on hydro versus it's predominant reliance on coal today. And there's still worthwhile hydro resources elsewhere in Australia, more than the equivalent of building another Snowy scheme, so it shouldn't be dismissed.

    If anyone in the world can make carbon capture and storage work then it ought to be Victoria. Brown coal is pretty clean chemically, inefficient but it's clean in a chemical sense, and we've got the largely depleted Bass Strait oil fields not far away as a possible storage site. It's not without risks but I'd take that over nuclear for sure.

    Biomass isn't a total solution but it could make a much greater contribution than it does now.

    Significant potential for wave and tidal power, the latter being extremely predictable in operation and with some commercial interest having been shown recently

    And then there's the point that nobody would sensibly suggest we close every CO2-emitting power station by tomorrow afternoon so we don't actually need a 100% replacement just yet. And then there's energy efficiency to throw into the mix.

    I'd be supportive of nuclear only if both geothermal and carbon capture and storage have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to not be viable alternatives. Only then does nuclear start to look sensible in Australia. And even if we do need it, we could reduce the number of reactors and thus the inherent risk and waste issues by also pursuing the other things I've mentioned.

  19. #15769
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    just as an aside, it's not really a sustainable position to vote with opinion on any scientific topic. Whether it's GMO's, nuclear power or climate change, if you haven't at least done a post graduate degree in the arena and worked in it for some time, then you don't have even a rudimentary understanding let alone enough of one to be prognosticating one way or the other.

    perhaos the better way forward is for all thinking people to try and open their mind, then seek out comment from those that don't have an intractable position, or a political motivation (one in the same really).

    it might be the medium here, but on both sides there is an amount of certainty that has nothing to do with science or understanding but people's self belief in their own understanding.

    me, I go with a few scientific podcasts that are quite rigorous and happy to change their minds, but avoid those that have at times a barrow to push - regrettably, in Australia that means I have to question anything from Qantum these days as they have allowed a level of illiteracy and bias to become ingrained (yes, I know it's just TV, but still it WAS Great once)

  20. #15770
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    The thermodynamics of planetary energy balance is not an "opinion" any more than the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine is an "opinion".
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  21. #15771
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    I go with scientific opinion, you need to bring a healthy scepticism to your reading though, which means accepting that projections are based on models that will shift as more information and data comes to hand. It also means when real data differs to earlier modelling you look to see if there is a trend to change in the direction to the original model or if it is a failed projection. There is no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening the question that remains is only how severe and what impact will it have both economically and on our lives which includes damage from extremes and food production. In any group some people for whatever reason are off the mark and have a bias that destroys good judgement which means the odd climate scientist is a nutter but the proportion is low, most of the ones who miss the mark have simply put to much reliance on an assumption that is disproved with time. As far as those who resist the idea of climate change we know that they tend to be conservative thinkers resistant to any form of change, which simply means they either aren't very bright or tend to be one dimensional thinkers with what amounts to tunnel vision. This can make them successful in some areas, as their single focus prevents them being distracted but they are unlikely to be much benefit to society as a whole.

    In the end those of us without the formal scientific training are limited to reading the work done by others and our assessment can be no more than deciding if the source can be relied upon. That is why when we hear of individuals like Malcolm Roberts writing about climate change we can pretty much work out in advance there will be nothing of value in their opinions as past bias has shown the individual is unable to apply intelligent thought.

  22. #15772
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Climate change and it's causes should be viewed as very likely correct, I get that, certainty is a different thing though - religious people are certain, scientific thinkers should always accept the chance of being wrong.

  23. #15773
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    Climate change and it's causes should be viewed as very likely correct, I get that, certainty is a different thing though - religious people are certain, scientific thinkers should always accept the chance of being wrong.
    Individual published climate papers may have errors, and over time they (have been | and will be) corrected by newer and updated papers. That is a normal process in science.

    Climate change causes and effect in general though, is found correct. We know why, and there are thousands of published peer reviewed papers that all point to the same reasons and basic cause. Way more than 'likely correct'. Could climate change be tipped out the window by a cause that is not yet found? Of course it could, but the chances are so miniscule we should be reacting to the causes we already know.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  24. #15774
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    Climate change and it's causes should be viewed as very likely correct, I get that, certainty is a different thing though - religious people are certain, scientific thinkers should always accept the chance of being wrong.
    Ocean temperature, land temperature, ice melt etc etc, there is enough evidence to show we are experiencing change, the only question is by how much, sure there could be a self balancing mechanism out there but you wouldn't be expecting it. Rather than worrying about is it true I'd be more worried about the potential for the gulf stream to shift south.

  25. #15775
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    The thermodynamics of planetary energy balance is not an "opinion" any more than the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine is an "opinion".
    Agreed as such although to be fair it's a lot easier to measure what's going on with an engine than it is with an entire planet.

    Measurable amount of heat in, measurable amounts of mechanical power, heat into the cooling system, heat out the exhaust and so on. Much more certain than an entire planet where we can't directly measure exactly what's going where in real time.

  26. #15776
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smurf View Post
    Agreed as such although to be fair it's a lot easier to measure what's going on with an engine than it is with an entire planet.
    I don't think that statement correctly characterises scientific understanding of the Earth's energy balance. Direct measurement of the Earth's radiative heat balance is possible by the spectral analysis of Earthshine (sunlight and IR emissions emitted by the planet) by satellites. Before the satellite era, measurements were made by observations of Earthshine reflected in the moon, the first of which were made way back in the 1920s by Danjon.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  27. #15777
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I don't think that statement correctly characterises scientific understanding of the Earth's energy balance. Direct measurement of the Earth's radiative heat balance is possible by the spectral analysis of Earthshine (sunlight and IR emissions emitted by the planet) by satellites. Before the satellite era, measurements were made by observations of Earthshine reflected in the moon, the first of which were made way back in the 1920s by Danjon.
    Satellites only cover a small fraction of the earths surface - all data I see on this subject is calculations and estimates with provisos on albedo, forestation and absorption rates for oceans, land mass etc plus impact of geology.

    its too simplistic, it's a bit like saying it's just entropy, failing to note that ts an open system.

    if it were simple, all the models would have accurately predicted the oceans effect as a matter of course.

    anyway, is reducing population growth through education and contraception a more likely successful strategy to curb co2 than trying to get disparate countries to agree on reductions?

    second - should we not also be more focused on stopping deforestation and commencing reforestation in rainforest areas to try and turn back the tide?

    finally, how do we encourage less consumption of "stuff"

  28. #15778
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Modelling the distribution of energy in a chaotic system such as the ocean/atmosphere is difficult, but that is not because the anthropogenic forcing component of the entire Earth's energy balance is indeterminate.

    All the talk of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 or 2 degrees is just dealing with the transient response. To keep the long term response within some sort of habitable limit, greenhouse gas emissions needed to stop completely in about 1980. In other words, there is so much warming already committed that if all emissions stopped today, there will still be serious climatic disruption in the longer term. Global warming will likely solve the population problem, not the other way around.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  29. #15779
    Apprentice (new member)
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Rod,
    I am pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry. It's goal is to show that CO2 is not a stable gas in our atmosphere as claimed. While I live in the U.S., one particular concern I have is the ozone hole over Antarctica. Why ? Please take the time to read this link.
    Linking Ozone Depletion to Climate Change
    Linking Ozone Depletion to Climate Change

    This link is to (banned) ozone depleting substance persists,
    https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/augu...esearch-shows/

    If my experiment is successful it might show where CO2 supports the ozone layer and at the same time might help scientists to find out how
    a banned fluorocarbon is destroying the ozone layer over Antarctica.


    Doolittle

    p.s., to be clear, my experiment might show that water and co2 in our
    atmosphere encourage ozone to occur. The experiment itself is quite
    simple, the physics behind it isn't.

  30. #15780
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Where are all the RF global warming controverts these days? Hiding under their air conditioners, afraid to acknowledge it's getting hot here on planet Earth?

    http://www.neoteo.com/wp-content/upl...17/01/02-9.jpg
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  31. #15781
    Apprentice (new member)
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4

    Default

    John2b,
    With climate change, here is some serious reading if you don't mind. You see, if CO2 increases by as little as 30 ppm the frequency of Ice Ages
    increase by a factor of 2.5.
    Current CO2 theory is based on speculation that started at the last of the end of the last mini Ice Age. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius believed that CO2 caused cooling. His conclusion was based on studying Ice Ages. His formula for the warming of CO2 is what is used today. Why does this matter ?
    The ozone layer was discovered in 1913 by French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson. It is possible that if CO2 encourages ozone to occur that the cooling effect of allowing ozone to occur is greater than the warming potential of CO2 and water in our atmosphere that allows for it.


    Jim

    Who Discovered Ozone, Ozone Layer, Its Depletion And The Ozone Hole? - Science and Inventions

  32. #15782
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    "There hasn't been any warming since 1998" haven't heard that lie for awhile, one thing about liars as their position weakens most slink off to the shadows, mind you there are the odd exceptions and the Americans seemed to have elected one of those as president. This should be an abnormal year as El Nino would have turbocharged temperature, hopefully it actually drops back to a flatter increase over the next decade.

  33. #15783
    Apprentice (new member)
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4

    Default

    @All,
    These 4 links suggest ozone depletion and not co2 has been causing global warming. At present the Greenland Sea abyss is warming 10 times faster, searchable, it's heat comes from hydrothermal vents. An easy experiment is to place 1 liter of nitrogen, 2 1/2 cc's of co2 and 1/2 cc of water in a 2 meter diameter weather balloon (other than those 3 items the weather balloon is empty. If it is floated up to near the tropopause, the balloon will expand to equalize it's internal pressure with that of the upper troposphere/tropopause.
    If gases like O2, H2C, CH2O or O3 (ozone) are found in it then CO2's role in our atmosphere would need to be reconsidered.
    The reason co2 is credited with global warming is because some scientists had said that a rise of 50% in atmospheric co2 is what ended the last Ice Age. Now other scientists are saying that the rise in co2 occurred 800 years after the Ice Age ended. This is because cold water absorbs co2 and warm water releases it.

    What caused the end of the ice age? – Niels Bohr Institute - University of Copenhagen
    Does "Global Warming Pause" Debate Miss Big Picture?
    https://phys.org/news/2013-02-ozone-...-recovery.html
    Linking Ozone Depletion to Climate Change

  34. #15784
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I thought it was well accepted what role the various ozones have. One of the tables from the ipcc report summarises the various influencers of climate

    http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...luence-faq.PNG

    Skeptical science also has various discussions on these topics. The question you should ask yourself though, is why would the IPCC make stuff up, or get things so totally wrong, such that 19th century science usurps it?

    https://skepticalscience.com

    Would require a really big conspiracy, and once conspiracies get above 100 people, they get too complicated over time . There's not much you can say to someone who doubts man landed on the moon for instance - they have already suspended rational thought.

  35. #15785
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post

    anyway, is reducing population growth through education and contraception a more likely successful strategy to curb co2 than trying to get disparate countries to agree on reductions?

    second - should we not also be more focused on stopping deforestation and commencing reforestation in rainforest areas to try and turn back the tide?

    finally, how do we encourage less consumption of "stuff"

    Without a doubt, the most sensible observations made in this thread to date.

  36. #15786
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    Without a doubt, the most sensible observations made in this thread to date.
    The UN put forward these ideas many years ago in a document called Agenda 21. The nutters have been going crazy over it ever since. Many people believe there are two rational sides to this debate and that an intelligent discussion could be had. I can't find much evidence of that.

    We have now reached a point where the increase in consumer demand nullifies any slowing in population growth. China has had population control in place for a long time but the growth of industrialisation and consumerism mean their CO2 output is growing immensely. Billions of people in the third world want the same standard of living as the overweight, diabetic couch potatoes in the west. Who are we to say no?

  37. #15787
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Not a lot to say, just look:


    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  38. #15788
    Apprentice (new member)
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    I thought it was well accepted what role the various ozones have. One of the tables from the ipcc report summarises the various influencers of climate

    http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...luence-faq.PNG

    Skeptical science also has various discussions on these topics. The question you should ask yourself though, is why would the IPCC make stuff up, or get things so totally wrong, such that 19th century science usurps it?

    pharmaboy2,
    It might be stranger than you think. In 2013 the IPCC came out with 2 reports. One stated that the ozone layer was set to start recovering.

    quote;
    Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assess...mmary/ch5.html


    I hope ya'all read this very carefully. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.
    quote is from above. The link shows the IPCC knows the ozone layer is important. As for me, am wanting to demonstrate how CO2 allows for both CH4 and ozone. It's a neat trick they don't know.
    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-repo...c/sroc_spm.pdf

  39. #15789
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Here's the impact of ozone on global warming in perspective, pharmaboy2 (scroll down to see):

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...d5ac-297062977
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  40. #15790
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Not a lot to say, just look:
    I think a major tipping point - the first year that global warming and climate change has disrupted the normal winter production of ice in the Arctic.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  41. #15791
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Here's the impact of ozone on global warming in perspective, pharmaboy2 (scroll down to see):

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...d5ac-297062977
    Ah, one thing that is interesting in that lot, was deforestation. It seemed to only take account of albedo changes, when the big differential for deforestation and land use is local climate changes - causes of receding glaciers, loss of precipitation etc, effects on local temperature monitoring stations.

    Second thing that's interesting is aerosols, though I've always just lumped it into visible ar pollution - as horrible as it sounds, there in potentially lies some sort of geo engineering solution, especially to moderate climate while the carbon cycle catches back up through slower measures.

    Of probably greater importance though in the face of climate change, is the development of GMO crops to increase yields in changing climates - there have been some phenomenal advances in this area just in the last year or 2

  42. #15792
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    As the freight train thunders along the track towards the car stalled on the level crossing, the occupants of the car are tinkering with the failed windscreen wipers, trying to get a better view of how to lessen the impact. There's been some phenomenal advances in wiper blade technology in the last couple of years...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  43. #15793
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    As the freight train thunders along the track towards the car stalled on the level crossing, the occupants of the car are tinkering with the failed windscreen wipers, trying to get a better view of how to proceed. There's been some phenomenal advances in wiper blade technology in the last couple of years...


    One of the big issues is sea level rise and so far I haven't seen much progress on the development of GMO rice that withstands storm surge or grows well under a metre of salt water at high tide. Still a useful tool but not a solution.

  44. #15794
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    Satellites only cover a small fraction of the earths surface - all data I see on this subject is calculations and estimates...
    If that were true (which to the best of my understanding it is not) then it certainly isn't anymore: NOAA’s GOES-16 Weather Satellite Captures Its First Images of Earth | Space Exploration | Sci-News.com

    Will there be a dramatic shift in scientific understanding as a result of this new 'whole Earth' view? Hint: not if cars, computers, air-conditioners and other technology (developed by the application of the same laws of thermodynamics) happen to be working in your quarter of the globe, FFS!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  45. #15795
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    The bookies are always on the lookout for new ways to relieve the punters of their spare cash so firms are now taking bets on when the Larsen C glacier will calve. Expert opinion has it likely to occur this month or next but there's a level of uncertainty with this. But when it does happen the 2000sqm iceberg released will be one of the largest ever.

    Contrary to some press reports this event itself will not contribute to sea level rise as the ice shelf is already floating. However the shelf is helping to hold back the rest of the glacier which after the break will increase in speed and push more land based ice into the ocean which will contribute to sea level rise.

    Global warming cannot be blamed for this as glaciers calve naturally but the ice shelf is thinner and weaker than it would normally be due to warming.

    Paddy's bookmakers are quoted as saying "This will be the biggest breakup since Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie".

    You can literally bet on when a massive iceberg will break off Antarctica

  46. #15796
    Community Moderator phild01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney, north
    Posts
    15,620

    Default

    Was watching a part of a show, Human Universe with Brian Cox.

    Only part because he puts me to sleep, anyway he was going on about the earths elliptical orbit. He says the earth's axis points towards Polaris but in a few thousand years the axis begins to move and points to a different place in the sky, and is said to precess, tracing out a circle in the sky every 27,000 years. This changes where summer and winter occur and varying the earth's climate. He adds that the planet's influence , like Jupiter, conspire to amplify the effects of precession. The most important change is every 400,000 years, that the the planet's orbit ellipse itself being bigger, then smaller, bigger, smaller.

    Also the Earth's geography amplifies the effect of precession of rapid and extreme climate fluctuations, like the Rift Valley going from wet, rain and lakes (when the earths orbit was at it's most elliptical), to dry within a few thousand years. Ten million years ago those Rift Valley lakes disappeared due to geological changes. This led his discussion onto human evolution and brain size advancing at a point coinciding when the earth's orbit was most elliptical and climate at it's most volatile.

    So the theory is that human intelligence advances at a time when the earth's orbit is at it's most elliptical and climate is mostly volatile.

    So will we evolve to a new level of higher intelligence as a consequence of any dramatic climate change!

  47. #15797
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phild01 View Post
    So will we evolve to a new level of higher intelligence as a consequence of any dramatic climate change!
    Only problem: We don't have 400,000 years to play with.

    There is a difference between long term climate procession and humans stuffing up the climate in a few hundred years.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  48. #15798
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    lol



    explains a lot...

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  49. #15799
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    The coming ice age is having some peculiar effects here in Australia:

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  50. #15800
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Marc, chuck us some of your snow and ice, will ya mate?



    (Yes I know a heatwave isn't proof of climate change, but why shouldn't I follow the behaviour of the AGM deniers who happily post out of context 'facts' all the time?)
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

Page 316 of 377 FirstFirst ... 216 266 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 366 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •