octave

I believe the science does not even agree with the climater change groups.

That may be what you believe so perhaps provide some evidence.

Which Science does not agree, where do I I find this science? NASA? provide me with links to solid evidence? British Academy of science? Or any one of hundreds of organisations.

You may think it is bollocks and that is fine you are in a minority. I have no wish to change your mind but to suggest that it is made by some none scientist groups is clearly not the case. You should just come out and say you don't trust science.

A question for you, when were the first calculations of the effect of CO2 on the climate made?

If I can't trust any of these organisations who do you suggest is a reliable source?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

First it was the ozone layer, p[roven not a problem

We actually did something about that didn't we, we banned CFCs You will probably dismiss the link below but it does rather contradict the notion that these things are made up by non-scientists and are not supported by science.

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

You talk about it not being scientific and then say

Any major drive to fix the CO2 levels would be instantly undone by bush fires and volcanoes

That is interesting perhaps you could share your calculations with us.

For a deep dive into the history Basic Radiation Calculations

There are countries, as shown on the map, that are still planning lots of new coal fired power stations. They must think the return on investment is OK. They don't have the protesters that we have.

China and India are also leading investors in renewables

Renewable energy in China - Wikipedia

India is now a world leader in renewable energy

Clearly, they see some use in renewables.

Nuclear, I think at this stage has to be considered since the waste problem whilst still, a troubling issue will probably be less dangerous than the alternative. It is insanely costly and probably can only be done huge corporations Have a look at Hinkley point C Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Wikipedia I know Bill Gates puts money into research with the aim of developing small scale cheaper and safer nuclear power.

Do you think that in 15 years time coal will still be economically viable given the advance in other technologies?

I am still interested in knowing at which point in anthropomorphic climate change theory you believe the theory brakes down? Do you believe that CO2 does not play a role in the temperature of the earth or do you believe it does but it takes a larger concentration. I just want to understand why you think the theory is a dud.

Crikey PM, just when Octave was talking up our future. I doubt that too many of those planned coal-burners will be built, but I find it depressing that anyone could want them.

Agreed, the thing with a coal plant is it must have a long viable life. Whatever people think about renewables now they surely must admit that the price and efficiency of renewables have dropped just like technology does. To dig up coal in one country and truck it to the docks where it will be loaded into coal carrying ships sent halfway around the world (at considerable energy cost) to be trucked to a power plant where it will be burnt to make steam will soon seem ridiculous.

Regardless of climate change issues, we will cease burning things to produce energy. There is absolutely no shortage of energy in the world, I won't bore everyone with links to calculations regarding the solar energy that falls ob 1 square metre every hour. The technology to harness this energy has improved rapidly and will continue to. Yes, I know the sun doesn't shine at night but there are many successful solar thermal plants operating around the world. Energy storage is also improving. To say that we will never develop storage technology is a little short-sighted. computers, mobile phones, aviation. I can see no evidence to suggest that we have reached the peak of what renewables can generate and what can be stored.

[ATTACH=full]4064[/ATTACH]

Those numbers are disputed Deconstructing the case for coal however I neither have the time or interest any comprehensive fact checking so let's say that those figures are accurate and all of those power stations will be completed and no power stations will be scrapped then coal is indeed in its ascendancy and perhaps a lucrative investment and the whole climate change thing is a mere inconvenience to the growth of the coal industry. If so are argument is rather trivial. The coal supporters would seem to be winning.

Since you posted this without comment I can only guess what message you wish to convey. Perhaps it is that it doesn't matter what we do the ppm of carbon is going to rise.

I am interested in where you and I disagree, do you believe carbon in the atmosphere has any bearing on how much heat is trapped in the atmosphere? I guess I am not sure at what point you depart from the accepted theory.

If the shade sail absorbs the heat it will just melt or destroy itself. In a vacuum it can't cool. If it reflects the light energy it will be propelled somewhere. Energy can't just disappear.. Nev

It doesn't absorb (perhaps some), it reflects, a black object would absorb large amounts of energy but a reflective surface would reflect it. Remember when Skylab was overheating and they installed a reflective shade? I think the figure required is to reduce solar radiation by 2%.

The James Webb Space Telescope has a sunshade to keep it cool enough (when it finally gets launched) Also probes near the sun such as the Parker Solar Probe (6.9 million kms from the sun).

Also, consider solar thermal power plants which have banks of mirrors which reflect solar energy on to a central tower, the tower gets extremely hot but the mirrors do not.

However, for the record, it is not an idea that I can get enthused by.

Optimism may be a more comforting condition than realism...Reality has to be faced if something effective is to be done. Nev

Nev the problem is that people tend toward the negative as does the media. The statistics show that the world in most respects is improving. Health, longevity, poverty etc have all increased rapidly but most people instinctively believe these things are getting worse.

I do actually believe my view is based on realism. I don't think we can mitigate all of the negative effects of climate change, the way we live will change. I post plenty on this thread about climate change, if I thought it was hopeless I would not bother.

I am optimistic for several reasons. Humans do have the intelligence and ingenuity to solve very big problems once they make a decision to do so. During two world wars, it must have seemed like it would never end.

I am a follower of news on new technologies especially renewable technology and it is great to see just how many businesses are out there doing research. There are dozens of companies developing new cheaper lighter and more efficient battery storage. Ultimately most of these will lead to a dead end although learning how not to do something is also important. I suspect that at this point governments will not provide the solutions.

EVs I believe have reached a tipping point and are now inevitable. By the way, EVs will not be our saviour, they will be a huge help but not the whole answer. Renewable energy continues to become cheaper and more efficient. Investors are wary of investing in coal-fired power plants from a financial perspective. A coal-fired plant is a very long term investment and it is hard to see that it would not be obsolete before it has made a profit. Shell is moving into renewables because they can see the writing on the wall.

I think optimism is crucial if we are to beat this problem. A smoker has to believe that giving up even after many years is worth it and also that all of those failed attempts in the past do not mean it is not possible in the future.

I actually think that in most respects the society is in the best shape it has ever been in. I know this may seem controversial but statistically, in terms of health, longevity, human rights and even poverty things are better than they have ever been.

Optimism also means I get to live a happy life, I may be wrong but I would rather be happy than right.

Lots of people Want to stop Global Warming, but other than stopping using certain products (In this country ). Not many positive solutions.How about a few suggestions for our scientist to decry !.

 

First off the post, shade cloth is cheap as chips to manufacture.

 

Take a couple of rolls out into space & deploy between Earth & it's Sun.

 

rotating the object will keep the "Shade Sail" out-stretched.

 

spacesailor

Not necessarily as daft as it might initially sound:

Here is an interesting talk on mega projects. Most of these projects require investments and leaps in technology which may be better-used to move us into the post-fossil fuel era however if the worst case scenario occurs it may be mega projects or lay down and die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfRo8_RfefA:677

I think it discusses what you are suggesting at around the 12-minute mark but IMHO well worth watching the whole thing

There is an American professor who reckons Methusela's tipping point has already been passed. He says that 6 degrees of warming is already unavoidable and people will go extinct in ten years. He says it is too late to stop it and agrees that it is not fair on the kids.The mechanism is permafrost methane release. He says that this has happened more than once before in geological time.

 

Gosh I hope he is wrong and I reckon NASA thinks he is wrong too. They put the methane release at a much lower contribution to heating.

As I have said before I am an optimist, I think that intelligent humans can solve or probably, in this case, mitigate the worst effects. That does not mean that there will be massive upheavals and there will be winners and losers. For me, it is more a matter of whether we want to be in the driver's seat and have some control or whether we want just continue along the easy path until it is no longer easy.

I just read an article that put the proposition that the issue is not how much climate change action will cost but how what is the price of doing nothing?

The bottom line is if we take the 2 extremes, that is certain climate catastrophe and we need to move away from fossil fuels or it is just a made up thing and we can continue on burning the remaining fossil fuels, The fact is going down one of those roads means we may switch to technologies that are INEVITABLE anyway before fossil fuels run out with the downside that we may pay a little more for our electricity and personal transport versus a world in which living will become more difficult.

The second option requires a greater level of certainty than the first option. I would be much more comfortable explaining to my grandchildren (should I ever have any) that I am sorry we cut down the annual rate of growth and that electricity prices were 10% higher than they could have been and that they had to drive a plug-in EV rather than a nice big V8. I feel this will make me look like someone who had their best interest at heart rather than "I want my electricity as cheap as can be and I want my V8, I want to use all those fossil fuels during my lifetime."

For those who think anthropomorphic climate change is made up I ask this question. What is it about our present response you find unacceptable and why?

If you were forced to drive an EV would your life be miserable?

Sorry a bit ranty but it is Shiraz afternoon.

Again I am an optimist. I think the younger generations will have the balls to do what is required.

.

For some years now, I have been looking for a climate change denier to take me up on the following bet:For every day COLDER than the long term average, I give $20 to him. For every day HOTTER than the long term average, he gives me $19. Yes, I am willing to take the risk of a hit, so sure am I that change is indeed occurring. We just need to agree on the place and the measuring setup.

 

So, if there is no change, he will get $182.5 per year, since half the days will be colder and half hotter.

 

Alas there turn out to be no deniers prepared to put their money up. They tend to say things like " the climate always changes for mysterious reasons ".

I am sometimes amused when deniers within the same argument will suggest there is no ice loss and no average temperature increase and no ocean acidification but will then suggest other reasons for warming, perhaps a natural cycle etc. Sometimes they will move to a position of it is warming but that is good. I usually like to pin down what they do believe is happening before moving on.

To sum their position can appear to me to be it's not warming but if it is then it is natural and good, They will also alternate between all of these positions. I suspect the goal is to create uncertainty much like the cigarette industry done and continues to do.

Deniers are usually more comfortable debating this topic as a political problem. The science should not be political, what we do about it, of course, has political and economic aspects.

The question I put to doubters is at what point in the theory do they find it hard to accept.

1 Fossil fuels contain large amounts of carbon

2 This carbon was absorbed from the atmosphere of millions of years

3 Carbon is released when this fuel is burnt.

4 Carbon allows visible light through but traps a large portion of infrared

5 Without any carbon in the atmosphere, the earth would be too cold to support life as we know it.

8 The composition of the atmosphere has a large effect on the temperature of Earth (or Venus)

7 The amount of carbon being released is large in terms of human history.

8 The increase in carbon is enough to change the temperature and this was first calculated and warned about in 1824 by Joseph Fourier

True expensive at the moment,But

 

It will change when the chopper falls on us,

 

I asked both Telstra & Optus for a NBN phone, both say "you will have to have a bundled NBN plan", just to have the landline phone.

 

spacesailor

It is a matter of personal choice but I am wondering why you need a landline phone? For me at least there is no reason to have a mobile and a landline phone.

I refuse to accept the $hundreds to replace my $60 for 120G's, that I have now.

That sounds expensive, at the moment I pay $60 for 500Gb with Internode or when NBN arrives shortly they are offering 500Gb for $64.99

Octave, without a landline & ADSL, do you connect to the net via your phone only?

What I meant was I have naked ADSL and I do not use a landline phone.

As more people just stop answering calls from unknown numbers surely the business model of cold calling will become less viable. Of course, for some people there are compelling reasons to answer all calls but I find I even with a business people with a genuine need to talk to me will leave a message.

It may seem like a long bow to draw but for me in order have a happy life I need to feel like I am in control and choosing not to answer is a power I have. Those who need to talk to me know how to get hold of me.

All energy (except geothermal tidal and nuclear) is solar energy. The sun drives the wind and bathes the planet in energy. Likewise, coal is solar energy in that the sun provides the energy for the ancient forest to grow which then after millions of years becomes coal.

The energy stored in fossil fuels is stored solar energy, in fact, you could say it is the energy we have in the bank and solar energy from the sun is more like daily income. Humans have benefited in their early history from drawing out energy from the energy bank (digging it up). This has allowed us to create our modern age. As with a business, it is probably necessary to start off with good savings to operate from but any business must transition from operating on savings to operating on income. Once operating on income those remaining savings are always there if needed in an emergency. If we move away from fossil fuels it is not a position from which we cannot return, in fact moving away from fossil fuels (at a sensible rate) is the option that provides the maximum number of options in the future.

In rational decision making, we have to weigh up probabilities against possible outcomes. If I am heading out for the day I can gather information on the weather, I may decide that there is a 50% chance of rain, my gut feeling is that I think the rain will pass so I will not take an umbrella. This is fine since the maximum consequences are that I may get wet, this is acceptable. If I go to my flying club and there are three mechanics gathered around the plane and one of them says "I don't like the look of those wing attachment bolts" I will take a precautionary decision since the outcome could be catastrophic. To say that we should do nothing until the problem is obvious (or the wing falls off) is to effectively say "lets do nothing")

What are the negative consequences of a vigorous program (perhaps like Apollo) of developing the next technologies? Is there any benefit from Australia hanging back whilst other countries develop the technology for us to buy at a later date?

I usually don't bother arguing with climate contrarians as the odds of changing their mind is small and not that it is a competition but if it were they are on the losing side. The scientific consensus is only growing stronger, not weaker. All the time renewable energy is getting cheaper, storage continues to become more economically viable. No business that I know of wants to build a new coal-fired power station. Fossil fuel companies do know this and do acknowledge the science of climate change, even if contrarians don't. Fossil fuel companies know that they must change the nature of their business

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-new-energies-director-on-investing-in-clean-energy?

Whilst people are arguing about whether or not the science is settled or not others or doing things.

New Perth housing estate to be run entirely from renewable energy

I do not have a landline but when it comes to mobile I never answer it unless the number is in my phone or I am specifically expecting a call. If the call is important they will leave a message and I can call straight back. Given that there are situations where you can not answer your mobile such as driving or whilst working etc. I think people do not necessarily expect you to answer. Also, most of my communications especially for work are texts. My phone so seldom rings that I jump when it does, perhaps I am just deeply unpopular.

old man emu is right, Marty. The term donkey vote only refers to marking the ballot paper in order -eg: 1,2,3,4,5 in preference from the top down. That's why pollies are happy when they draw the top spot on the ballot paper, as they pick up the donkey vote as well. Some might go from the bottom up as o.m.e. suggested, but from the top down is most common. What you're talking about is an informal vote - any ballot paper not marked or not marked correctly. A donkey vote is marked correctly in that all boxes are filled in.

Yes, I was surprised to learn that but it does beg the question of how an individual ballot paper can be declared a donkey vote rather than a voter who genuinely wanted to vote for the candidates in the order that they happen to be printed.

Well, I voted today and if for nothing else I voted for democracy, the least worst system. I am not actually convinced the politicians are any worse than in the past.

BUTIn NSW even without power & water/sewerage to your property you still pay the rates to your council for NO water power OR rubbish collection.

 

Son-in-law's block doesn't get the road fixed, the owners hire contractors themselves.

 

Just paid my power-bill, they give us $50 discount for paying on time, BUT nothing for paying Before time. LoL

 

spacesailor

By all means make changes if they are good for the environment, but don’t make us freeze and starve in the dark.

I don't believe people would accept this anyway. I once heard a quote that was "environmental concerns are a mile wide but on a millimetre thick" I love my modern life and I do want it to continue and that is why I want the problem to be tackled early rather than waiting until the problem is crucial. I do not believe there are many people who want to deindustrialize society however I suspect that frustration at a perceived lack of action causes polarization and on ambit claims.

I am able to accommodate in my mind the possibility that further evidence will disprove the theory and imagine the consequences. The fossil fuel era could never continue forever. If we push the development of alternate technology at a vigorous but sensible pace we could end up with a better world climate change or not.

My problem with the opposite scenario is that if we believe that the evidence is not yet strong enough we do need to decide what evidence is strong enough and at what point we begin to look for alternatives. If the theory turns out to be true surely you would agree that starting the fix late would be much more difficult and would require more drastic action than an early response.

If in 10 years the evidence shows something different we can start fazing out wind farms and solar farms and other renewables and start replacing them with coal plants, the coal will still be there.

Taking vigorous but sensible action now gives us the maximum range of choices in the future.

I don't actually see governments taking anything more than mild action anyway. I think business is more likely to come up with solutions. Fusion research continues with some breakthroughs recently (but still some time away) There is an arms race in battery research as well as other mass energy storage systems. Yes, many (or even most) of these will fail, this is the nature of progress.

Humans with all their faults do have the capacity to achieve difficult things if the will is there. When Kennedy made his famous "by the end of the decade ....moon speech) NASA was apparently unaware of this pledge and apparently were sceptical about whether that could be achieved. Wright brothers to Armstrong 66 years.

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I am curious about your bar graph. It is always good to go back to the source. The Danish Meteorological Institute had this to say with regard to Arctic Sea Ice minimums

"Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable."

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Also regarding your graph, I am open-minded about it but it does raise a few questions. The graph does not discuss how this data was collected and from where. This graph must have been accompanied by an explanation of methods. Not doubting it but I am sure you would agree that by itself it does not mean much.

I repeat- many geologists all around the world, who have a deep understanding of the history of climate, do not accept that CO2 drives climate in any significant way.

Whilst some individual geologist may not accept the evidence I did find it difficult to find any geological organisations who do not accept it.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

With all due respect to geologists, if I get cancer I want to see an oncologist

How much information is needed before the general public will consider that we are victims of a political movement?

What do you consider the "political" purpose behind NASAs representation of the evidence? or perhaps CSIRO or the British Academy of science? Do you think I accept the evidence for political reasons? Was Fourier a political player in 1824? How about when Arrhenius published his calculations for the effect on the climate of co2 emissions in 1896?

Whilst it might be true that some loser hippy types may see a bigger agenda this does not mean that the evidence is not solid. I for one do not want to live under a tree with no electricity. I want to live in a technological society that is smart enough to provide the things we enjoy but smart enough to measure the cost and to plan for the future not cling to the past.

The bottom line is for me that any source that traditionally has a fair track record for science and has built-in peer reviews and gives access to the raw data is more convincing than individuals especially when they are consultants for industry. If all these organisations are conspiring to present a false case then perhaps the way to overcome them is to provide evidence of collusion. For example, does NASA tell the Japanese space agency what to say its satellite surface temperature measurements should be so as not contradict theirs?

How does this conspiracy work?

Funnily enough, I am pretty happy with life, I am an optimist, I think the problem can be solved but like rust in a car, always cheaper to begin tackling it early rather than late. I do not think the answer is to go back to the pre fossil fuel era.

I saw an interview with Bill Gates who thinks the situation is becoming critical and although he is supportive of renewables thinks that they can not alone solve the problem. He has put loads of money into developing smaller safer and more economically viable nuclear power plants. There have also been recent breakthroughs in fusion reactors although I would suggest still a little while away.

Anyway bottom line is we can hurl graphs at each other but neither of us can change the situation. I will go out on a limb and say that there are very few scientific organisations who don't accept the evidence. I believe that most politicians also to varying degrees accept the evidence but they are interested in the next 4 years not the next 40 years.

speaking of space junk here is an interesting episode of Real Engineering.

Here is a link.https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/blog/f/statement-to-the-pa-environmental-resources-energy-committee

 

It contains much of the data in graphical form. The author gave evidence to a state committee, he is well qualified to do so. He has been attacked and vilified for his analysis. As have many well-qualified geologists around the world.

I do read every link people post if I am going to comment, I am just on my way out to work but I will definitely read and comment on this. Do you read or view what I post?

Why do you trust this geologist rather than NASA?

The question no one ever answers is this, is NASA and the other organizations guilty of bad science or conspiracy of if the latter to what end?

EV are a great thing and will be fantastic ...in the future when the tech can catch up but as I said drag this thread back out in 10 years or even 20 and lets see where we actually are.

Yes let's see how adoption goes over the next 10 years, Australia is starting from a low base. China is aggressively pursuing EV and Norway is already at 50% of new cars being EV. The targets we are talking about are pretty modest and the timescale long. I see EV adoption only increasing. But as you say we shall see.