Emission Trading and climate change

Page 56 of 377 FirstFirst ... 6 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 106 156 ... LastLast
Results 2,751 to 2,800 of 18819
  1. #2751
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So just to clarify: are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published; or do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature; or do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology; or do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)?

    For you see, as I mentioned, the peer-review process is far from perfect, but to equate this with the ridiculous distortions we have seen recently by some of these bozo's is equally ridiculous, and can probably only be matched by the suppression of free science by religious zealots throughout history.

    And no, Climategate certainly did not alter the peer-review process. Like all corruption, it was merely exposed. It is now incumbent on society (no, not just scientists) to determine whether we are happy being manipulated and treated like idiots by the "experts", or whether we say we want accountability and transparency from our scientists. We get enough lies, corruption and ideology from our moronic politicians and their media puppets.
    Nicely put Doc.

    There is no bigger liar in politics than Rudd, his lies are breathtaking.
    THE RUDD government had already called in advertising agencies to pitch for a $38 million taxpayer funded campaign to sell the mining tax before announcing the new tax, despite arguing it was a campaign of misinformation by mining companies that justified the "urgent" expenditure.


    Kevin Rudd planned mining ad campaign planned before industry backlash | The Australian
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  2. #2752
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Dudd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Nicely put Doc.

    There is no bigger liar in politics than Rudd, his lies are breathtaking.
    [/b]

    Kevin Rudd planned mining ad campaign planned before industry backlash | The Australian
    Well, at least he learned from the last time. ETS Mark1 failed because the taxpayer funded propaganda wasn't enough. For ETS Mark2, he is going earlier and costlier than before, as he thinks we will buy it this time. What an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Once scientifically and statistically rigorous real world studies demonstrate a causal relationship that is replicable and both internally and externally valid.

    Or Rudd spends enough of our money on propaganda.

    Either one will achieve general acceptance.
    Yes, definitely still going with the second option.

  3. #2753
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So just to clarify: are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published; or do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature; or do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology; or do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)?
    Q1 - are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published?

    A1 - In general, yes. I agree the emails imply there was an attempt to coerce the editorial team at just one of the many, many international scientific journals that publish climate change papers but to suggest that this demonstrates one sided bias and prevents anti-AGW papers from being published is gilding the lily.

    Q2 - do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature?

    A2 - Absolutely not. If a scientific paper is good enough (regardless of topic or persuasion) then it should not be blocked from publication.

    Q3 - do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology?

    A3 - You labour under the misapprehension that I have an ideology to support...I retain an open mind. There is bias and pressure on both sides of the debate - to suggest its a one way street is naive.

    Q4 - do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)?

    A4 - this question is the same as the first....and so is the answer.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  4. #2754
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Please forgive.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Q1 - are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published?

    A1 - In general, yes. I agree the emails imply there was an attempt to coerce the editorial team at just one of the many, many international scientific journals that publish climate change papers but to suggest that this demonstrates one sided bias and prevents anti-AGW papers from being published is gilding the lily.

    Q2 - do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature?

    A2 - Absolutely not. If a scientific paper is good enough (regardless of topic or persuasion) then it should not be blocked from publication.

    Q3 - do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology?

    A3 - You labour under the misapprehension that I have an ideology to support...I retain an open mind. There is bias and pressure on both sides of the debate - to suggest its a one way street is naive.

    Q4 - do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)?

    A4 - this question is the same as the first....and so is the answer.
    Please forgive my incessant questioning, but you were making a rather cogent argument until this, so I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding your position before rebuking it. I have been assuming you have read the information already posted in this thread, so if you have not, please advise.

    I am not naive enough to take a position that there has been "zero" pressure applied from the anti-AGW Theory position, I myself continue to apply such pressure. But I hardly hold the sway of a journal editor, government minister, or IPCC scientist in influencing published material.

    So you say there is bias and pressure on both sides of this argument. Are you suggesting (surreptitiously) this bias and pressure has been "equally weighted" throughout this debate, or do you concede that this bias and pressure has been weighted more to "one side", particularly so prior to Climategate. You see, if it is the former, then we will have an interesting time presenting our evidence to support our differing viewpoints. If it is the latter, then we can agree the debate has been biased and pressured in a "one-sided" manner, we can just banter over the scale of the imbalance (with supporting evidence of course).

  5. #2755
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,218

    Default

    In the interests of continuing this discussion,

    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?
    I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage?

    If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  6. #2756
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So you say there is bias and pressure on both sides of this argument. Are you suggesting (surreptitiously) this bias and pressure has been "equally weighted" throughout this debate, or do you concede that this bias and pressure has been weighted more to "one side", particularly so prior to Climategate.
    Q1 - Are you suggesting (surreptitiously) this bias and pressure has been "equally weighted" throughout this debate?

    A1 - No. But then I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other.

    Q2 - do you concede that this bias and pressure has been weighted more to "one side", particularly so prior to Climategate?

    A2 - No. Of course not. But then like I said before "I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other". And the so called 'Climategate' changed nothing as far as I can tell.

    In the end, I prefer to assume that the peer review process is applied and delivered as objectively as possible by each and every journal in accordance with their editorial criteria so that all the submissions to that journal are dealt with equitably based on the quality of the content rather than the opinions of the authors. But there are tens of thousands of scientific journals being published out there....it is fair to assume that there are a few that aren't as rigorous and fair-minded as they should be. Buggered if I know which ones though...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  7. #2757
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dazzler
    Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?

    I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage?

    If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.
    There where a few responses....none of them helpful.

    The equal and opposite physical reaction is that the atmosphere has got more dense...

    Is that any help?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  8. #2758
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    In the interests of continuing this discussion,


    I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage?

    If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.
    I thought it was a question directed to the "other side" so I passed on it.

    Here is my take:

    1. We are talking about "flow systems" here. The analogy isn't 'filling a bucket with water' (which is an accumulation system), but rather 'filling a leaking bucket with water'.
    2. What we have is a CO2 flow system where there are processes that generate CO2 ('sources') and processes that consume CO2 ('sinks'). To use the above analogy, the water filling the bucket is the 'source' and the water leaking out of it is the 'sink'.
    3. Assuming it is a stable system, the level of CO2 (or water) will reach and stabilise at a particular level (aka 'equilibrium' level).
    4. If the 'source' is increased by pumping in more CO2 (or water) at an increased rate, the CO2 (or water) level will rise, but this will also increase the pressure at the 'sink' too so the sink rate will also increase (i.e. using the leaking bucket analogy, the water level will rise and increase the 'head' pressure driving water through the leak). Overall there is an increase in the CO2 (water) level as the increased 'head' is required to increase the 'sink' rate. The CO2 (water) level will eventually reach a new, higher, equilibrium level.

    The short answer to Dazzler's question, is there is an 'opposite' reaction to CO2 - but 'equal' will depend upon your definition of 'equal'. Eventually, the CO2 'sink' rate will catch up with the increased CO2 'source' rate, but the atmospheric CO2 level will increase as a result.

    To complicate things further, the climate system is a number of coupled flow systems: there is the CO2 level as one system, and there is the CO2 level to temperature system.

    At present, the temperature rise due to the existing level (rate) of CO2 emissions hasn't yet stabilised (analogy: the water level in the leaking bucket is still increasing). The prediction is a 1.2 degree rise of which we have so far experienced a 0.7 degree rise with another 0.5 degrees required for the temperature to reach equilibrium. However, we are actually increasing the rate of CO2 emission at the moment so even a higher temperature rise is anticipated.

    Clear as mud!

  9. #2759
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,218

    Default

    So, under current conditions it's diminishing returns?

    In recent years they have been taking chemicals out of our vehicles fuel to reduce pollution, so is there a chemical that can be added to cancel this pollution?

    Now I know I will become a laughing stock for this example, but if for example citric acid was to counteract the pollution caused by fuels, if we planted Orange trees they could supply food, consume some of the CO2 in the process, and negate the affects of the vehicle emissions if mixed with their fuels. Surely there must be some chemical that could assist.


    Rod, feel free to ask Mr Watson to bomb this off if it's out of whack.
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  10. #2760
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    In recent years they have been taking chemicals out of our vehicles fuel to reduce pollution, so is there a chemical that can be added to cancel this pollution?

    Now I know I will become a laughing stock for this example, but if for example citric acid was to counteract the pollution caused by fuels, if we planted Orange trees they could supply food, consume some of the CO2 in the process, and negate the affects of the vehicle emissions if mixed with their fuels. Surely there must be some chemical that could assist.
    The short answer is "yes, but..."

    The basic chemical reaction, when burning hydrocarbons is something like:
    CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O + energy
    In essence, CO2 is a by-product of our use of fossil fuels to produce energy.

    To somehow chemically null out the CO2 and turn it in to something else will require energy. So, yes, we could develop a system to convert the CO2 in the something else, but it will require energy - for example to drive the above equation backwards Due to inefficiencies,we'd end up with a process that will requires more energy to clean-up the CO2 than is produced by the hydrocarbons in the first place.

    We might as well not burn the hydrocarbons in the first place as it will take more energy to 'clean it up' than is produced! This is essentially a foundation of the "greenie" view of the world - i.e. we should use renewable energy instead.

  11. #2761
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    In the interests of continuing this discussion,


    I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage?

    If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.
    Don't know do you?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  12. #2762
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The short answer is "yes, but..."

    The basic chemical reaction, when burning hydrocarbons is something like:
    CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O + energy
    In essence, CO2 is a by-product of our use of fossil fuels to produce energy.

    To somehow chemically null out the CO2 and turn it in to something else will require energy. So, yes, we could develop a system to convert the CO2 in the something else, but it will require energy - for example to drive the above equation backwards Due to inefficiencies,we'd end up with a process that will requires more energy to clean-up the CO2 than is produced by the hydrocarbons in the first place.

    We might as well not burn the hydrocarbons in the first place as it will take more energy to 'clean it up' than is produced! This is essentially a foundation of the "greenie" view of the world - i.e. we should use renewable energy instead.
    What renewable energy do you think will run all our cars trucks busses etc?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  13. #2763
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    At present, the temperature rise due to the existing level (rate) of CO2 emissions hasn't yet stabilised (analogy: the water level in the leaking bucket is still increasing).
    If they have not established it by now with all the $$ thrust at it, why not?

    The prediction is a 1.2 degree rise of which we have so far experienced a 0.7 degree rise with another 0.5 degrees required for the temperature to reach equilibrium.
    Here is the quandry, they PREDICT a 1.2 degree rise yet above we say that we have not been able to establish how much the temperature will rise due to CO2. The .7 degree rise is subject to a lot of debate due to the measuring methods and urban heat island effect pluss many more concerns about the accuracy.


    However, we are actually increasing the rate of CO2 emission at the moment so even a higher temperature rise is anticipated.
    Another quandry!! CO2 has continued to rise yet temperatures for the past 10 years or so have not and no one can explain why?

    CO2 is predicted to keep rising but the predictions are that temperatures will actually fall over the next 20 years or so.






    Clear as mud! [/quote]
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  14. #2764
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    What renewable energy do you think will run all our cars trucks busses etc?
    This might help.


    http://windfarmperformance.info/
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  15. #2765
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    In recent years they have been taking chemicals out of our vehicles fuel to reduce pollution, so is there a chemical that can be added to cancel this pollution?

    Now I know I will become a laughing stock for this example, but if for example citric acid was to counteract the pollution caused by fuels, if we planted Orange trees they could supply food, consume some of the CO2 in the process, and negate the affects of the vehicle emissions if mixed with their fuels. Surely there must be some chemical that could assist.
    Laughing stock? There's no such thing as a dumb question so who is going to laugh at you? That said....citric acid doesn't comes from citrus but that's no matter either.

    There's nothing out there that will consume the CO2 resulting from a hydrocarbon combustion simply because energy that resulted from the reaction that released the CO2. The energy required to fix it quickly at the source is greater than the energy released....

    That said...in some Euro vehicles we've started adding urea to diesel fuel to help reduce the production of particulates. And there's plenty more greenhouse gases than just CO2...so you never know what the boffins might come up with.

    Longer term....there are a few labs around the world that have figured out some of the concepts around artificial trees that can fix CO2. So the boffins are fighting back...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  16. #2766
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    My my our climate scientist certainly are beyond reproach.

    Shock new evidence of a NASA scientist faking a fundamental greenhouse gas equation shames beleaguered space administration in new global warming fraud scandal.

    Caught in the heat are NASA's Dr. Judith Curry and a junk science equation by the space agency’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt creating disarray over a contentious Earth energy graph.

    The internal row was ignited by the release of a sensational new research paper discrediting calculations crucial to the greenhouse gas theory.
    Link NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  17. #2767
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    What renewable energy do you think will run all our cars trucks busses etc?
    A mixture of hydrocarbons (sourced from biomass and natural gas reserves) and electricity (sourced from mixture of locally and grid sourced feeds based on hydro, solar, wind, tide, geothermal, biomass, coal, natural gas...) dependent on need and operating circumstances.

    It's not rocket science.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  18. #2768
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    A mixture of hydrocarbons (sourced from biomass and natural gas reserves) and electricity (sourced from mixture of locally and grid sourced feeds based on hydro, solar, wind, tide, geothermal, biomass, coal, natural gas...) dependent on need and operating circumstances.

    It's not rocket science.

    You missed nuclear.

    BTW what % of our needs do you think each one will provide, considering of coarse the amount of electicity that will be required to charge our electric cars.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  19. #2769
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    My my our climate scientist certainly are beyond reproach.



    Link NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists

    Sorry Rod but a paper written by three dudes (science adviser, retired radiochemist and retired analytical chemist) and simply published online at a so-very-sceptic website does not meet my sniff test....no matter how flash it might look. Or even right it might prove to be in the unlikely event of it being submitted to a scientific journal http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/...n_the_Moon.pdf

    As for some of the other stuff raised in that weird little pdf your link then links to..(it is a bit hard to track)...my feeling is that you correspondent is over-reaching. For example, the weakness of many climate and energy balance models with respect to the Southern Ocean (much of the southern hemisphere in fact) has been recognised for some time - mainly because only there's only a handful of 1st World countries down here and the monitoring effort down here until recent times has been a shadow of what has happened to our north...of course the models aren't going to be that flash at the detail. At no point in that abstract AMS Journals Online - Simulation of Present-Day and Twenty-First-Century Energy Budgets of the Southern Oceans does it say....global warming ain't happening - it just says we can't model clouds very well in the Southern Ocean - no biggy - we couldn't model clouds anywhere realistically only five years back.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  20. #2770
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    You missed nuclear.

    BTW what % of our needs do you think each one will provide, considering of coarse the amount of electicity that will be required to charge our electric cars.
    No I didn't. I omitted it on purpose. Because it's a form of electricity generation we don't have in Australia. All the others we already have in one form or another - only tidal remains in the commercial prototype stage.

    As for their percentage contribution.....I've no idea. And nor do I really care. But I look forward to finding out one day.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  21. #2771
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    No I didn't. I omitted it on purpose. Because it's a form of electricity generation we don't have in Australia. All the others we already have in one form or another - only tidal remains in the commercial prototype stage.

    As for their percentage contribution.....I've no idea. And nor do I really care. But I look forward to finding out one day.

    Be prepared for blackouts LOL

    If you want to power our country with increased population without co2 then you had better conceed to nuclear power or you will be severely dissapointed.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  22. #2772
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Prime Muppet.

    “Another chapter will document the government's politically motivated dumping of what it claimed as "the great moral issue of our time". While Rudd ministers point the finger of blame at the opposition and the Greens for opposing the emissions trading system, the Prime Minister could take the same policy to the coming election for voter approval. He won't. Rudd's rhetoric, this time about climate change, has been defeated by more reality. This year, fewer and fewer Australians - especially the working families that Rudd won over in 2007 - believe his hype.

    So rework this for the first page: someone close to me liked to say the difference between monkeys and men is men learn from their mistakes. The Rudd government was led by a barrel of interlinking monkeys.”

    Full sordid story here:

    When vanity hits political reality | The Australian

    Rudd entered under the fanfare of saying sorry to some Australians. Will he say sorry to all Australian’s for what he's stolen from us?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    But in a nutshell:



    You're damn right I ordered the code RUDD!

  23. #2773
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Plenty in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Q1 - Are you suggesting (surreptitiously) this bias and pressure has been "equally weighted" throughout this debate?

    A1 - No. But then I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other.

    Q2 - do you concede that this bias and pressure has been weighted more to "one side", particularly so prior to Climategate?

    A2 - No. Of course not. But then like I said before "I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other". And the so called 'Climategate' changed nothing as far as I can tell.

    In the end, I prefer to assume that the peer review process is applied and delivered as objectively as possible by each and every journal in accordance with their editorial criteria so that all the submissions to that journal are dealt with equitably based on the quality of the content rather than the opinions of the authors. But there are tens of thousands of scientific journals being published out there....it is fair to assume that there are a few that aren't as rigorous and fair-minded as they should be. Buggered if I know which ones though...

    But then I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other.
    But then like I said before "I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other".
    I prefer to assume that the peer review process is applied and delivered as objectively as possible
    ...it is fair to assume that there are a few that aren't as rigorous and fair-minded as they should be. Buggered if I know which ones though...
    It is unfortunate that you have not yet acquired enough information on this subject to form even a cursory opinion. I can highly recommend this thread if you want to gain more knowledge. It presents a lot of information from many viewpoints in regards to AGW Theory, and its various tangential issues. This may assist in transforming some of your assumptions into more (even slightly) informed opinions. But hey, if you're happy working with assumptions, there's nothing wrong with this. At least you've clearly explained them, unlike the IPCC when delivering their model output, without clear explanation of the underlying assumptions.

  24. #2774
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default At last, back to the science.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I thought it was a question directed to the "other side" so I passed on it.

    Here is my take:

    1. We are talking about "flow systems" here. The analogy isn't 'filling a bucket with water' (which is an accumulation system), but rather 'filling a leaking bucket with water'.
    2. What we have is a CO2 flow system where there are processes that generate CO2 ('sources') and processes that consume CO2 ('sinks'). To use the above analogy, the water filling the bucket is the 'source' and the water leaking out of it is the 'sink'.
    3. Assuming it is a stable system, the level of CO2 (or water) will reach and stabilise at a particular level (aka 'equilibrium' level).
    4. If the 'source' is increased by pumping in more CO2 (or water) at an increased rate, the CO2 (or water) level will rise, but this will also increase the pressure at the 'sink' too so the sink rate will also increase (i.e. using the leaking bucket analogy, the water level will rise and increase the 'head' pressure driving water through the leak). Overall there is an increase in the CO2 (water) level as the increased 'head' is required to increase the 'sink' rate. The CO2 (water) level will eventually reach a new, higher, equilibrium level.

    The short answer to Dazzler's question, is there is an 'opposite' reaction to CO2 - but 'equal' will depend upon your definition of 'equal'. Eventually, the CO2 'sink' rate will catch up with the increased CO2 'source' rate, but the atmospheric CO2 level will increase as a result.

    To complicate things further, the climate system is a number of coupled flow systems: there is the CO2 level as one system, and there is the CO2 level to temperature system.

    At present, the temperature rise due to the existing level (rate) of CO2 emissions hasn't yet stabilised (analogy: the water level in the leaking bucket is still increasing). The prediction is a 1.2 degree rise of which we have so far experienced a 0.7 degree rise with another 0.5 degrees required for the temperature to reach equilibrium. However, we are actually increasing the rate of CO2 emission at the moment so even a higher temperature rise is anticipated.

    Clear as mud!
    It is good to finally get back to the scientific debate rather than the he said/she said stuff. (Oops, sorry I forgot the scientific debate was over ).

    the temperature rise due to the existing level (rate) of CO2 emissions
    So if the temperature rise (spurious anyway) is due to the CO2, then it is the effect of CO2, which becomes the cause, hence a "causal relationship". Surely the hundreds of billions of dollars pumped into this area of science being worked on by the most passionate environmental scientists on the planet have uncovered this causal relationship by now?

    The prediction is a 1.2 degree rise of which we have so far experienced a 0.7 degree rise with another 0.5 degrees required for the temperature to reach equilibrium.
    Aside from the previous point, let's assume the 0.7 degree celsius rise is accurate (and in any way meaningful). Then let's assume the whole 0.7 degrees was directly caused by ONLY anthropogenic CO2 emissions (which you did). Are you therefore trying to say that every single other known influence on temperature, and the interaction between all of these variables, has magically been frozen against the laws of physics since we invented thermometers and started growing cities around them? Just wondering? Or do we just assume their net influence is magically 0.00 degrees?

    Oh yeh, thanks for also pointing out the error margin in the models, nearly 100%.


    The analogy isn't 'filling a bucket with water' (which is an accumulation system), but rather 'filling a leaking bucket with water'.
    Forgive me for quibbling on the details of this analogy (as many of mine are disastrous ), but I assume this is a purely theoretical analogy not designed to reflect the real world. It seems to ignore the fact that CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere and "greenhouse effect". As this theory is titled AGW Theory, the warming of the entire globe is intrinsic to the theory, and by direct implication, all factors potentially influencing this warming. While this analogy is quite good for describing the CO2 flow system in isolation, is it not a little spurious just cutting straight to the temperature discussion while ignoring all the other stuff in the AGW Theory "bucket"?

  25. #2775
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Seriously, we don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    In the interests of continuing this discussion,


    I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage?

    If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Don't know do you?
    We'll know when this question is answered because then this thread will end.

    As has been posted previously, all we have is dodgy (proxy) records for what has happened over the last few hundred million years (and no, the Planet didn't end ). Woodbe laughed at that one last time.

    All we have now are current measurements, which are somewhere between boring and monotonous on a geological scale.

    As for predictions, consult your nearest computer model, tarot card reader, or psychic. They are all comparable in their statistical accuracy.

    I prefer to lean towards Lorenz's Chaos Theory, which so far has been supported by every prediction ever made.

  26. #2776
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Technicallly they are, but greenies don't agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    What renewable energy do you think will run all our cars trucks busses etc?
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    A mixture of hydrocarbons (sourced from biomass and natural gas reserves) and electricity (sourced from mixture of locally and grid sourced feeds based on hydro, solar, wind, tide, geothermal, biomass, coal, natural gas...) dependent on need and operating circumstances.

    It's not rocket science.
    Technically, on a geological time scale, natural gas and coal are renewable. Once we all return to the Earth (I kinda like the idea of being future sequestered carbon ) along with other carbon, time will see us potentially topping up oil, gas and coal reserves. Technically, biomass is also renewable, but not logistically viable on a future planet of 9 billion humans all aspiring to live above the poverty line.

    But in environmental usage, I think greenies would balk at your suggestion that gas and coal can be classed as renewable. Rudd would love you though, as his RET legislation would be very easily achieved.

    So we are left with: hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal.

    Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.

    Is it currently economically viable to develop these technologies to a commercially scalable level to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.

    Will jeopardising the economic prosperity of the non-renewable energy sector by heavier taxation regimes leaving them financially worse off, enable them to increase business investment in the renewable sector? No.

    Should we have taken the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce and instead invested in R&D into viable commercially scalable renewable energy? Hell yes.

    Abso-bloody-lutely.

  27. #2777
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    It is unfortunate that you have not yet acquired enough information on this subject to form even a cursory opinion. I can highly recommend this thread if you want to gain more knowledge. It presents a lot of information from many viewpoints in regards to AGW Theory, and its various tangential issues. This may assist in transforming some of your assumptions into more (even slightly) informed opinions. But hey, if you're happy working with assumptions, there's nothing wrong with this. At least you've clearly explained them, unlike the IPCC when delivering their model output, without clear explanation of the underlying assumptions.
    And here's silly old me thinking we were talking about the publication of scientific analysis in general....whereas The Doc seems to think I have no opinion on the science itself. Which is not true.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  28. #2778
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Technically, on a geological time scale, natural gas and coal are renewable. Once we all return to the Earth (I kinda like the idea of being future sequestered carbon ) along with other carbon, time will see us potentially topping up oil, gas and coal reserves. Technically, biomass is also renewable, but not logistically viable on a future planet of 9 billion humans all aspiring to live above the poverty line.

    But in environmental usage, I think greenies would balk at your suggestion that gas and coal can be classed as renewable. Rudd would love you though, as his RET legislation would be very easily achieved.

    So we are left with: hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal.

    Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.

    Is it currently economically viable to develop these technologies to a commercially scalable level to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.

    Will jeopardising the economic prosperity of the non-renewable energy sector by heavier taxation regimes leaving them financially worse off, enable them to increase business investment in the renewable sector? No.

    Should we have taken the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce and instead invested in R&D into viable commercially scalable renewable energy? Hell yes.

    Abso-bloody-lutely.
    Why limit ourselves to renewables only? There's plenty of fossil energy sources out there (especially natural gas) that can be exploited with a far smaller carbon footprint especially during the long social adjustment period. The greenies are as bad with respect to their opinions on fossil fuels as those brownies & glow sticks who say that renewables will never work - narrow minded negative thinking.

    Biomass is looking to be extremely promising viability wise especially with new developments around algae that are being tweaked to provide large quantities of hydrocarbons and other feedstocks. Biomass also a broad church when it comes to the definition of the source - it isn't always about corn and land area. Think more broadly and ambitiously than that, Freud-y.

    Frued said:
    "So we are left with: hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal.

    Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources? No. "

    A very large chunk of the East Coast of Australia is already supplied with electricity sourced in a large part from hydro power. Why do you think they built the Snowy Scheme fifty years ago - for bigger fish ponds?

    Both solar and wind have been demonstrated as commercially viable and whilst only wind is in the large scale as yet...the solar stations are coming. In the meantime, decentralised solar based supplies are not uncommon. Baseload management is now essentially solved through a range of storage options (both thermal (salt water ponds, heat exchangers and steam) and battery based - check out King Island Power Station's liquid battery for instance) so there's no longer a significant hurdle there. Tide has a few demo plants on the east and west coats and a geothermal plant is powering Innamincka in SA with a grid connection expected in the next five years.

    Combine that with the natural gas power stations in WA, SA and QLD with potential for more in Vic (recently announced) & QLD; the increasingly common decentralised systems that are popping up in homes, businesses and government buildings; and the ever growing push for improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses; there should be plenty of power in the grid for some time yet.

    So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has.

    Freud said:
    "Will jeopardising the economic prosperity of the non-renewable energy sector by heavier taxation regimes leaving them financially worse off, enable them to increase business investment in the renewable sector? No.

    Should we have taken the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce and instead invested in R&D into viable commercially scalable renewable energy? Hell yes."

    Who is going to pay for increasing taxation on the non-renewable energy sector? The consumer, of course. So how will the sector be any worse off? And why would they be the only companies that invest in renewables?

    As for Para 2...."the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce"....what hundreds of billions and to which particular farce are we refering? Annual climate science budgets from around the world combined would be lucky to reach more than 10 billion US (yes that's a guess) whereas there are plenty of other farces around the world that are better funded than that - defence, marketing of TVs, public relations, reality television, sporting events etc etc. Spending on the environment in this country alone amounts only a few hundred million per annum or less than 1% of GDP (I can't remember which)....we spend more than that on the AFL.

    Whichever farce you happen to prefer...yes...we should have spent the last decade investing more into "viable commercially scalable renewable energy". No argument from me there.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  29. #2779
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    A very large chunk of the East Coast of Australia is already supplied with electricity sourced in a large part from hydro power. Why do you think they built the Snowy Scheme fifty years ago - for bigger fish ponds?
    LOL try building a new dam in Australia!!

    See how far the greens will let you get.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #2780
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Here is an article on Islands in the pacific and how they are actually growing and not sinking. While the article itself does not really pove anything, it is interesting to read the comments.

    If you were in any doubt that AGW has lost traction in the public's eye, this shoud dispell any doubts. I will make a prediction that polls on the public view of climate change will never ever reach the previous high points in favor of AGW.

    Here is the link. Climate change 'increases island size' | News.com.au

    Just ask around people you know and you will find that the wind has been sucked out on the AGW bandwagon sails.

    My next prediction is that the scientists have fired all the bullets they have on AGW, there is nothing new left for them to come up with to convince the public to change back to support them. Science by skeptical scientists will not be able to deliver a decisive blow either. Yet at the same time the empircal evidence will continue to work against the theory. This will be the critical difference.

    Scientists can no longer get away with fudging numbers the spot light will be squarely on them as it should be. We have climate gate to thank for that. It is going to be a slow gind that will pick up pace as doomsday predictions fail to materialize. The ice free ice caps will be the first prediction that will leave egg on the face of alarmists. The next will be prolonged drought in Australia.

    I would like to hear how you guys think the AGW theory will play out. What will be the turning points in you mind that will win the day for your side? Will it be ice free polar caps? Al gore has only a few years to go to start wiping egg off his face
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  31. #2781
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    For the love of Huey....read the article that News Ltd has quoted Shape-shifting islands defy sea-level rise - environment - 02 June 2010 - New Scientist and the abstract & outline paper upon which it was based (published wayyyyyyyback in May 2008 but available online since November 2007) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...9daf109ec7d105 and tell me please where the various authors and opinionists say that this discredits the science and various proofs offered for a warming climate....

    Yes....islands can adapt...who knew? I didn't! Glad no grateful that they can. Question is....can they continue to do so in the face of warmer and more acidic oceans?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  32. #2782
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I would like to hear how you guys think the AGW theory will play out.
    The 'theory' will play out just fine....the mechanism has already been demonstrated. The reaction to the mechanism is where the action is....the "what's gonna happen".

    And I've no idea what is going to happen...few if any really do (but that doesn't stop the guessing game)...it has already been demonstrated that some things are definitely going to change...but how those changes will interact? No idea. Worse still...I'm deeply suspicious of how the human species will react to that change. Because human beings are collectively stupid and will always strive for the individual at the cost of the many. But that last bit is just an opinion....still.....prove me wrong.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  33. #2783
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    For the love of Huey....read the article that News Ltd has quoted Shape-shifting islands defy sea-level rise - environment - 02 June 2010 - New Scientist and the abstract & outline paper upon which it was based (published wayyyyyyyback in May 2008 but available online since November 2007) ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Reef-island topography and the vulnerability of atolls to sea-level rise and tell me please where the various authors and opinionists say that this discredits the science and various proofs offered for a warming climate....

    Yes....islands can adapt...who knew? I didn't! Glad no grateful that they can. Question is....can they continue to do so in the face of warmer and more acidic oceans?
    Did you read what I said about the article?

    While the article itself does not really pove anything, it is interesting to read the comments.
    I was simply pointing out the tone of the comments to the article at least 5 to 1 against AGW in general!!

    Just pointing out what the alarmist are up against as far as public opinion goes. Ignore public opinion at your peril.

    You see too many alarmist outlandish predictions are failing to materialize and many others totally debunked. People fell for it for a while but have woken up to the fact that they have been hoodwinked into accepting that AGW was going to destroy us by activists blowing scare campaigns out of all proportion.

    So now we are getting back to scientific facts rather than scare mongering. Scare mongering has back fired on the AGW alarmists and the science is not strong enough on its own, never has been, hence the scare mongering.

    So, where do we go from here?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  34. #2784
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    The 'theory' will play out just fine....the mechanism has already been demonstrated. The reaction to the mechanism is where the action is....the "what's gonna happen".

    And I've no idea what is going to happen...few if any really do (but that doesn't stop the guessing game)...it has already been demonstrated that some things are definitely going to change...but how those changes will interact? No idea. Worse still...I'm deeply suspicious of how the human species will react to that change. Because human beings are collectively stupid and will always strive for the individual at the cost of the many. But that last bit is just an opinion....still.....prove me wrong.
    It won't be up to me to prove you wrong, nothing I or anyone else can say could do that. Only time and the failure of many predictions can do that. We will see a steady watering down of the scares, as time goes on. Which will result in further weakening of the theory.

    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  35. #2785
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    The problem has been that methane concentrations have indeed plateaued for some time. However, at the time of the State of the Climate report being prepared there were one or two papers in press (awaiting peer review) that presented data that apparently shows that methane levels are again on the rise.
    Here is a bit of insight on the methane plateau, Winds of change

    It is a good article covering a few points that we haven't covered in this thread (yet).

    The short answer (for the reading challenged) is: It is/was the Russians - and their leaky natural gas plants.

  36. #2786
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I was simply pointing out the tone of the comments to the article at least 5 to 1 against AGW in general!!
    You and I either didn't read the same articles....or we have very very different ways of interpreting the written word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So, where do we go from here?
    Shamefully, we hang around here with all the other sheep and wait to be led.....
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  37. #2787
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Here is an article on Islands in the pacific and how they are actually growing and not sinking. While the article itself does not really pove anything, it is interesting to read the comments.
    It would seem to me that the reader comments are related to the 'summary' story on the link rather than the 'full story'. Also, I suspect 'News' has somewhat tainted the summary story as the impression I get from the 'summary' story is different to that I get from the 'Full' story.

    Let me provide a few quotes from the 'full' story:

    The study of 27 islands by the University of Auckland and the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji found that over the last 60 years only four of the islands had shrunk, with the others either remaining stable or growing.

    In the same period sea levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2 millimetres a year.

    The reason lies in the how the islands were formed over time, the study said, as weather patterns change the islands appeared to respond.

    Erosion of coral forms the foundation of Pacific islands and, as living coral provides a continuous supply of material, wind and wave action helps a constant build-up of debris to form on the islands.

    Major weather events like cyclones serve to further add to the islands foundations. When Hurricane Bebe swept past Tuvalu in 1972 debris washed up on the island caused a 10 per cent increase in the main islands size.
    However, the study warned that rising sea levels would still be a threat in many parts of the world, and that factors such as erosion could not be discounted as threats to the islands.
    Hardly what I'd call "debunking" stuff. On the contrary, it actually adds weight to climate change as the story confirms increasing sea levels and more adverse weather events.

    And a few of the comments:
    Mark of Sydney Posted at 12:40 PM June 03, 2010
    Aaah there are 20 odd thousand islands in the Pacific, 330 odd in Fiji so this could hardly be called an extensive study. The reasons behind the growth aren't discussed here either - land reclaimation ? natural growth of Volcanic islands ?
    Umm, yes they were - in the 'full story'

    Always right Posted at 12:44 PM June 03, 2010
    Is anyone reading the article before posting comments? Regardless of whether I personally believe in global warming or not, the article is stating despite rising sea levels, the islands are growing. There is not one comment in this article that states global warming/climate change/whatever else you want to call it does not exist. Read before jumping on your soapbox people! You just sound ignorant and foolish!
    Good to see someone actually read the full story.

    On the whole, Rod is quite correct that the comments running very heavily in favour of the anti-AGW view (even more than 5:1 if you ask me), however, it does appear that the comments are related to the distorted 'summary' story. Or maybe, people read in to it what they want to read?

  38. #2788
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,218

    Default

    I wonder if the tides were the same, i.e. in or out when these comparisons were made?

    "Paul Kench at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Arthur Webb at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji used historical aerial photos and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of 27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. During that time, local sea levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2 millimetres per year on average."

    Shape-shifting islands defy sea-level rise - environment - 02 June 2010 - New Scientist

    This is a scary bit,

    "The archive exists so that scientists have a store of the past to re-analyse as new techniques are developed and new gases discovered. The importance of this was underlined with the recent discovery of two new greenhouse gases - nitrogen trifluoride, which is produced during the manufacture of flat-screen televisions and is 17,000 times more potent a heat-trapper than carbon dioxide, and sulfuryl fluoride, a toxic chemical used in fumigation".
    Winds of change

    Two other things I wonder about,

    1) How much of the rising sea levels is caused by the increase in boats/ships displacing it?

    2) The amount of "stuff" that goes into the air in a short time of bushfires, I don't mean smoke from gumtrees so much as all the plastic, rubber from car tyres, paints, building materials and refrigerants etc.to name a few.
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  39. #2789
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    On the whole, Rod is quite correct that the comments running very heavily in favour of the anti-AGW view (even more than 5:1 if you ask me), however, it does appear that the comments are related to the distorted 'summary' story. Or maybe, people read in to it what they want to read?
    Whoops....my apologies to Rod. I didn't realise Rod was commenting on the comments of the commentariat at News.com.au. I thought he'd actually read the source material
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  40. #2790
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Two other things I wonder about,

    1) How much of the rising sea levels is caused by the increase in boats/ships displacing it?

    2) The amount of "stuff" that goes into the air in a short time of bushfires, I don't mean smoke from gumtrees so much as all the plastic, rubber from car tyres, paints, building materials and refrigerants etc.to name a few.
    1) Bugger all (but that's a guess). Wouldn't be too difficult to guesstimate - determine the total tonnage of registered commercial shipping and multiply by about 1.1 to determine volume of water displaced then divide that by the surface area of the world's oceans and you'll get a really really rough guesstimation of the depth of the water displaced by commercial shipping

    2) The thing to remember is that fire is the ultimate oxidiser so a large proportion of the human stuff that gets burned up is reduced to much the same thing that a gum tree is reduced....most of the smoke stays in the lower atmosphere where it settles out relatively quickly but some of it does get mixed up into the mid and upper atmosphere where it can hang about for some time....the result of that is mixed - soots and sulphur compounds tend to block infra red coming in while some other stuff (particularly the complicated fluorocarbons and the more ubiquitous green house gases) block the infra red getting out. There's a shed load more of the former though in bushfire smoke....and volcanos.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  41. #2791
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    It has probably been pointed out before in this mess but this Wikipedia page provides a reasonable summary of some of the critical science to date on attribution of recent climate change. Most importantly there is a strong set of references at the end which allow the individual to track the references down and create for themselves an informed opinion...on way or the other Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  42. #2792
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Whoops....my apologies to Rod. I didn't realise Rod was commenting on the comments of the commentariat at News.com.au. I thought he'd actually read the source material
    Surprise surprise surprise, did read the article. And did not make any comment on its validity or impact on the debate.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  43. #2793
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    It has probably been pointed out before in this mess but this Wikipedia page provides a reasonable summary of some of the critical science to date on attribution of recent climate change.
    Thanks SBD, lotta big words in that one!
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  44. #2794
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Reality bites.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Why limit ourselves to renewables only? There's plenty of fossil energy sources out there (especially natural gas) that can be exploited with a far smaller carbon footprint especially during the long social adjustment period. The greenies are as bad with respect to their opinions on fossil fuels as those brownies & glow sticks who say that renewables will never work - narrow minded negative thinking.

    Biomass is looking to be extremely promising viability wise especially with new developments around algae that are being tweaked to provide large quantities of hydrocarbons and other feedstocks. Biomass also a broad church when it comes to the definition of the source - it isn't always about corn and land area. Think more broadly and ambitiously than that, Freud-y.

    Frued said:
    "So we are left with: hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal.

    Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources? No. "

    A very large chunk of the East Coast of Australia is already supplied with electricity sourced in a large part from hydro power. Why do you think they built the Snowy Scheme fifty years ago - for bigger fish ponds?

    Both solar and wind have been demonstrated as commercially viable and whilst only wind is in the large scale as yet...the solar stations are coming. In the meantime, decentralised solar based supplies are not uncommon. Baseload management is now essentially solved through a range of storage options (both thermal (salt water ponds, heat exchangers and steam) and battery based - check out King Island Power Station's liquid battery for instance) so there's no longer a significant hurdle there. Tide has a few demo plants on the east and west coats and a geothermal plant is powering Innamincka in SA with a grid connection expected in the next five years.

    Combine that with the natural gas power stations in WA, SA and QLD with potential for more in Vic (recently announced) & QLD; the increasingly common decentralised systems that are popping up in homes, businesses and government buildings; and the ever growing push for improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses; there should be plenty of power in the grid for some time yet.

    So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has.

    Freud said:
    "Will jeopardising the economic prosperity of the non-renewable energy sector by heavier taxation regimes leaving them financially worse off, enable them to increase business investment in the renewable sector? No.

    Should we have taken the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce and instead invested in R&D into viable commercially scalable renewable energy? Hell yes."

    Who is going to pay for increasing taxation on the non-renewable energy sector? The consumer, of course. So how will the sector be any worse off? And why would they be the only companies that invest in renewables?

    As for Para 2...."the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce"....what hundreds of billions and to which particular farce are we refering? Annual climate science budgets from around the world combined would be lucky to reach more than 10 billion US (yes that's a guess) whereas there are plenty of other farces around the world that are better funded than that - defence, marketing of TVs, public relations, reality television, sporting events etc etc. Spending on the environment in this country alone amounts only a few hundred million per annum or less than 1% of GDP (I can't remember which)....we spend more than that on the AFL.

    Whichever farce you happen to prefer...yes...we should have spent the last decade investing more into "viable commercially scalable renewable energy". No argument from me there.
    This is a lovely story, much like Buck Rogers (apologies to Gen Y, Google it). A little bit of science is projected into a science fiction future. I have had this argument many times with various people and it it used to go round in circles while they told me what was "possible". I do not argue that these things are "impossible". My question was:


    Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources?


    My answer was:

    No.

    Your answer was:

    So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has.
    As AGW Theory is purported to be a global phenomena, logic dictates that a global solution is required (Unless you are SUPERKEV, and can save the world all on your own).

    Using your "imagination", can you please outline the realistic (flexible) manner in which you will get all nation states to replace their non-renewable energy sectors with hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal? I am particularly interested in your persuasive skills with China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, United States of America, Brazil, and Somalia? Perhaps you could start with the bipartisan support for shutting down the coal, oil and gas sector in Australia. Oh yeh, please also include your global replacement for cement in this? It would be pointless having all these nations on board, but still engaging in increasing global cement production levels.

    (This is the part where the greenies faces go red! Some would facetiously argue they are showing their true colours. )

    Annual climate science budgets from around the world combined would be lucky to reach more than 10 billion US
    My friend, this farce consists of more than just a science budget. Here's some info to digest just for a start:

    Ghana To Access Global Fund On Climate Change| News | Graphicghana.com

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...mate_money.pdf

    One day, somebody will add all this up, and the opportunity cost will stop all this current merriment in its tracks.

    As for the "what about" arguments above, we have gone down many rabbit holes in this thread. I personally would cancel all Arts funding, but that has as much relevance to AGW Theory as the misnomer of "reality tv".

    But I loved the movie "The Right Stuff". Once again Gen Y, well worth watching.

    The question was asked "What makes rocket ships go up".

    The answer"Funding. Funding makes rocket ships go up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers!"

    Just like AGW Theory I guess.

  45. #2795
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    The 'theory' will play out just fine....the mechanism has already been demonstrated. The reaction to the mechanism is where the action is....the "what's gonna happen".

    And I've no idea what is going to happen...few if any really do (but that doesn't stop the guessing game)...it has already been demonstrated that some things are definitely going to change...but how those changes will interact? No idea. Worse still...I'm deeply suspicious of how the human species will react to that change. Because human beings are collectively stupid and will always strive for the individual at the cost of the many. But that last bit is just an opinion....still.....prove me wrong.
    Please forgive my ignorance. Exactly what is this "mechanism" you speak of, and exactly how was it "demonstrated"?

  46. #2796
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Ground zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    It has probably been pointed out before in this mess but this Wikipedia page provides a reasonable summary of some of the critical science to date on attribution of recent climate change. Most importantly there is a strong set of references at the end which allow the individual to track the references down and create for themselves an informed opinion...on way or the other Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    These simplistic and biased explanations that take assumptions as reality are very poor examples for people to learn more on this subject. I was going to tear it apart point by point, but have to go to IKEA for some stuff.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Thanks SBD, lotta big words in that one!
    Yeh, but to get the good oil, you should really read this link below. It is the scientific culmination of all IPCC information that they claim blames this farce on us humans. It is a little heavy (as computerised predictions of the future based on lots of assumptions tends to be).

    But in a nutshell, some scientific dudes make assumptions, then program a computer to look for these assumptions in various data. They themselves pick which data goes in and which doesn't. Then they tweak the computer assumptions some more because they don't get the answers they want. Then, hey presto, the computer output matches thier original assumptions. AGW Theory is believed.

    Talk about "Weird Science". I prefer the "Kelly Le Brock" computer output. Gen Y should definitely check this one out. This is computer output that was really hot!



    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Rather than post other people's opinions, why not read the source of all these opinions yourself, and make up your own minds on what you read. There are hundreds of real scientific articles referenced to validate any claims you want to make.

    You hold up working group 1 as your holy grail of science underwriting this theory, and chapter 9 is where they pin this on us pesky humans. This chapter is where it all starts folks. Count the number of models used, then present your science? Show us all that science that supports this theoretical idea.


  47. #2797
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Islands in the (AGW) dream.

    Land masses have changed before you know.

    Anybody want to bet they are going to stay the same as they are now, forever?






    It's lucky there were no SUV's back then. I guess that's why the ocean level has never changed???? before we started driving cars!

  48. #2798
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    My question was:


    Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources?


    My answer was:

    No.

    Your answer was:
    "So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has."

    Using your "imagination", can you please outline the realistic (flexible) manner in which you will get all nation states to replace their non-renewable energy sectors with hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal? I am particularly interested in your persuasive skills with China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, United States of America, Brazil, and Somalia? Perhaps you could start with the bipartisan support for shutting down the coal, oil and gas sector in Australia. Oh yeh, please also include your global replacement for cement in this? It would be pointless having all these nations on board, but still engaging in increasing global cement production levels.
    How did you manage to confuse 'commercially viable' and 'diplomacy'? As I've said....the former has been demonstrated. The latter will always be a work in progress - since people are mostly sheep then it could take some time.

    Oh and the cement? That's easy. Use different chemistry - magnesium and aluminium instead of calcium. There are a few commercial alternatives already on the market in Australia...mostly based on fly ash from coal fired power stations or slag from steel production. But there's a bunch of other formulations around the planet at varying levels of development and commercialisation. Some even absorb CO2 as they cure..
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  49. #2799
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Land masses have changed before you know.

    Anybody want to bet they are going to stay the same as they are now, forever?

    It's lucky there were no SUV's back then. I guess that's why the ocean level has never changed???? before we started driving cars!
    No they won't stay the same....so? There's been some recent research and modelling that suggests that one day they'll all fuse up but no time soon. I recall a New Scientist article relatively recently about it.

    As for sea level change....


    Data from here Climate Change: Key Indicators and (more specifically) from here Ocean Surface Topography from Space and this is how they do it Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Overview

    Of course....these are merely observations...not analysis. However, my simple analysis, Freud, is that your statement is incorrect.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  50. #2800
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Just to clarify.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    How did you manage to confuse 'commercially viable' and 'diplomacy'? As I've said....the former has been demonstrated. The latter will always be a work in progress - since people are mostly sheep then it could take some time.

    Oh and the cement? That's easy. Use different chemistry - magnesium and aluminium instead of calcium. There are a few commercial alternatives already on the market in Australia...mostly based on fly ash from coal fired power stations or slag from steel production. But there's a bunch of other formulations around the planet at varying levels of development and commercialisation. Some even absorb CO2 as they cure..
    Apologies for the lack of clarity. Allow me to explain it more clearly. You see, when I asked the "imagination" questions, I was playing along with your claim that "commercial viability" was true. This means that these technologies would actually make money, not cost money.

    You see, all current renewable energy sources are either increasing energy prices (ie. are not commercially viable) or are being foisted upon us by legislation (RET) and propped up by subsidies (ie. are not commercially viable). But I am willing to play along, cos that's the kinda guy I am.

    This would include any infrastructure developments required, hence the "commercially scalable" concept. So governments wouldn't need much "diplomacy" to convince them to make money (especially our muppets). Even if they were too inept to run it, they could let business run it profitably, and tax these profits (hopefully not a super tax though).

    So please, read this again under this assumption that you have these commercially scalable (money making) technologies that can replace current non-renewable energy sources. By the way, to make these currently commercially viable, they would have to be cheaper than existing sources, because government subsidies are not "commercially viable".

    I'd be interested in hearing why businesses and governments globally are not taking up your money making energy sources that are renewable and would end many global economic, security, poverty, and social issues?

    Shall we try again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    This is a lovely story, much like Buck Rogers (apologies to Gen Y, Google it). A little bit of science is projected into a science fiction future. I have had this argument many times with various people and it it used to go round in circles while they told me what was "possible". I do not argue that these things are "impossible". My question was:


    Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources?


    My answer was:

    No.

    Your answer was:

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post

    So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has.

    As AGW Theory is purported to be a global phenomena, logic dictates that a global solution is required (Unless you are SUPERKEV, and can save the world all on your own).

    Using your "imagination", can you please outline the realistic (flexible) manner in which you will get all nation states to replace their non-renewable energy sectors with hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal? I am particularly interested in your persuasive skills with China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, United States of America, Brazil, and Somalia? Perhaps you could start with the bipartisan support for shutting down the coal, oil and gas sector in Australia. Oh yeh, please also include your global replacement for cement in this? It would be pointless having all these nations on board, but still engaging in increasing global cement production levels.

    (This is the part where the greenies faces go red! Some would facetiously argue they are showing their true colours. )
    Oh, I almost forgot. You're not going to have any fly ash, because you've just shut down all the coal plants. As the wind and the waves will be generating the massive energy amounts needed for steel production, you will still have slag production, but based on global increases in concrete production, you are coming up way short. Some interesting reading here to help you along. It's old, but some good stuff in there.

    http://ies.lbl.gov/iespubs/47205.pdf

    For example:

    "Steel-related carbon dioxide emissions closely mirror primary energy use, with China clearly dominating, followed by India, Brazil, and Mexico. Carbon dioxide emissions from steel production are responsible for 13% of total emissions in Brazil, 12% of total emissions in South Africa and in China, 8% of total emissions in India, and 6% of total emissions in Mexico.

    If best practice technology had been used to produce the same amount and types of steel in China in 1995, energy savings and carbon dioxide emissions reductions of 45% could have been achieved."

    I am curious as to how using your "imagination", you will convince China to replace their entire energy system, when they can't even be convinced to use best practice steel production to reduce CO2 emissions. But hey, seeing as they stand to make money out of this change, I guess the argument shouldn't be too hard to make?

Page 56 of 377 FirstFirst ... 6 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 106 156 ... 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
  •