octave
-
Posts
4,221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Our Shop
Movies
Posts posted by octave
-
-
The debate remains political rather than scientific, wherever you try to debate.
I dont think I have ever raised it as a political issue, in fact I suspect that the only mention of politics has come from the denier side. If you look at Goddards twitter account it is full of political statements. I dont find this occurs at all on CSIRO sites or NASA sites.
I am at a disadvantage at the moment because I am interstate and only have my phone which makes it hard to read long articles or watch videos. I am working my way through a site that critiques Heller/Goddard's assertions and as soon as I have thoroughly read it I will post a link.
It is somewhat frustrating that dealing with denier assertions is like playing whack a mole, critique one assertion and it is not mentioned again but another one is raised.
Heller/Goddard asserts that the global average temp is getting lower.
I think this is at odds with Bom records. The legth of the fire season at least in this country starts earlier.
I note that many deniers are geologists. It must be difficult to critisize an industry from which you earn your living.
-
-
As to the first graph heatwaves, what we are talking about is the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature. Here is is average number of extreme heat days going back to the 20s in Australia.
[ATTACH]50344._xfImport[/ATTACH]
Hellard/Goddard talks about data that is hidden and whilst the full data might not have been present in that particular presentation it is not hidden and is freely available. it would be monumentally foolish believe that no one would investigate to data more closely.
I do intend to revisit this particular graph but my point is that it would be as unscientific to draw conclusions from the Australian graph alone as it is to draw conclusions from the US graph.
By the way for a deep dive into the report that Heller? Goddard cherry picks from here is the link. Long but I am reading it. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf
-
Please don’t bother attacking the speaker, that is the first defence of the alarmists.
Establishing the credentials of the author is absolutely required. If we were discussing cancer treatments we would want to know the expertise behind that advice wouldn't we?
I will not bother with a detailed critique of Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard (what's with the pseudonym?) Other readers can do their own research on the expertise of Heller/Goddard.
The first graph I am looking at is the acres burned graph. The complaint is that the graph starts from 1980 and that if it went back to 1925 it would show much greater areas burnt than today. The explanation is that this data has only been seriously and accurately collected since 1980 and between 1960 and 1980 only partial data was collected.
The suggestion is that fires were reported more than once and that intentional scrub clearing has been included. Whilst reasons could be dismissed it is an interesting question as to whether in the 1930s there were a couple of years where over 50 million hectares were burnt.
If 50m acres had actually burned in the early 20th century, it would amount to an area of land equal to the entire state of Nebraska going up in flames every year.
Eardley suggests that earlier records were inflated by including areas where fires were purposefully set to clear forests for agriculture, or where rangelands were torched to get rid of sagebrush to improve grazing conditions. Other federal reports suggest that most of the area burned between 1930 and 1950 was in southeastern US and were primarily intentionally set fires for clearing land.
While the early 20th century data is not reliable and likely double or even triple-counted actual fires, Eardley says that it is possible that fire extents were higher back then for a simple reason: there was no large-scale firefighting organisation in the first half of the 20th century. Therefore, fires would burn through larger areas before being extinguished or burning themselves out, particularly when they were not close to towns or settlements.
Today, the US has larger and more organised firefighting operations in place. Therefore, recent increases are not due to any change in firefighting approach. If anything, many more resources have been devoted to fighting fires in the past few decades than in any prior period.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has-increased-us-wildfires
If the graph is accurate back to 1930 then in the 1960s there was a sudden and huge decrease, coincidentally this was also when data collection methods were improved and standardized.
An interesting question would be to look at what the situation in Australia. Has the frequency of fires increased? Has the severity of fires increased? Has the length of the fire season changed. I pose these questions without having looked at the data.
-
This is Tony Heller's latest video. Please take the time to watch it. I would appreciate comments on his analysis of the data. Please don’t bother attacking the speaker, that is the first defence of the alarmists.
More than happy to go through these assertions in detail, the research will of course take time.
Just a few general observations. We had an exchange earlier in which I used the word conspiracy, you took exception to this and said you had never used that word. The video clearly asserts fraud between different organisations, universities and countries. My question Peter is this, do you assert that our CSIRO is commiting fraud and is part of a conspiracy to bring down capitalism?
My initial skimming through this video suggest that it is asserting that the world is cooling, do you agree?
It seeks to point out cherry picking data by itself cherry picking data. At the end it really gets into conspiracy theory. I have asked you many times the put forward a logical argument as to why these organisations NASA CSIRO etc whish to bring down capitalism and what benefit was would afford them.
Any over the next few weeks I will look at every graph at it's source.
-
In depth comparison of the Tesla semi and the Nikola hydrogen fuel cell semi.
https://insideevs.com/reviews/347431/tesla-semi-vs-nikola-two/
-
TRAMS & TRAINS.
Just put the wires back up for the TROLLEYbuses, Sydney has been Crippled by the road to rail upgrade.
If the trams were such a good thing, Why did they get the boot, in most large cities.
spacesailor
Demise and closure[edit]
Last day of trams, covered in graffiti, Rural Bank tram stop, corner Martin Place and Elizabeth Street, 25 February 1961
By the 1920s, the system had reached its maximum extent. In many ways, the Sydney tram system was a victim of its own success. The overcrowded and heaving trams running at a high frequency, in competition with growing private motor car and bus use, ended up being blamed for the congestion caused by the latter.
Competition from the private car and unregulated private bus operators created the perception of traffic congestion which begun the gradual closure of lines from the late 1930s.
Material shortages and lack of funding caused by the Second World War had caused the system to become rundown from poor maintenance. The perception of the government was that the financial cost of upgrading infrastructure and purchasing new trams would bankrupt the state.
This led to the government calling on overseas transport experts to advise the city on its post-war transport issues, and this led to the recommendation that closure of the system was the best option for the state of NSW.
Closure was supported by the NRMA [11](who stood to gain from increased membership) but generally went against public opinion as most of the patronage were those who could not afford to purchase private transportation.
Nevertheless, closure became government policy in the early 1950s and the system was wound down in stages, with withdrawal of the services completed on 25 February 1961 when R1 class tram 1995 returned from La Perouse to Randwick Workshops just before 4:40pm on 25 February 1961, which was driven by Jerry Valek, a Czechoslovakian man from Annandale.[12][13][14][15][16]
It was alleged after the tramways were closed that were many other influences on the government to close down the system. These allegedly came from the rubber and petrol industries, motor vehicle (bus) manufacturers and those opposed to increased public expenditure. The allegations had some elements based on the General Motors streetcar conspiracy that occurred in the USA due to the use of "overseas experts".
-
A big challenge will be electric trucks. Until that happens they'll still have to drill for oil to move the world's freight. I think there might have been an electric powered semi-trailer recently that did a considerable mileage between charges. Don't know if it was loaded or not.
There are certainly challenges for long range trucking although there is a hydrogen fuel cell semi that can do 1200k (Nikola One) I think most truck companies have something in the works.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/tesla-nikola-electric-trucks-changing-industry
I don't think it will be very long before we see these vehicles on the road certainly ver the next decade. Smaller trucks are already on the road.
https://techau.com.au/australias-sea-electric-has-taken-multiple-orders-for-its-2500nm-ev-truck/
-
That's an awful lot!
Do you think they could make THAT many so quick.
spacesailor
Does sound huge but then at the moment tesla has made 86555 in the last 3 months (one of which is my sons, it has arrived in the country -New Zealand, and should be ready to pickup within the next few days) and best of all I get to borrow it when I visit at the end of the year.
Amazon is also a major investor in Rivian and Ford is planning on building a pickup truck on Rivians "skateboard platform" Plenty of money sloshing around. Since this Amazon van is scheduled to be rolled out between 2021 and 2014 I guess we will see.
-
Amazon places order for 100 000 delivery vans from Rivian
https://electrek.co/2019/09/19/rivian-electric-delivery-vans-amazon/
https://electrek.co/2019/09/19/rivian-electric-van-picture/
-
SHANGHAI (REUTERS) - China's total planned coal-fired power projects now stand at 226.2 gigawatts (GW), the highest in the world and more than twice the amount of new capacity on the books in India, according to data published by environmental groups on Thursday (Sept 19).
The projects approved by China amount to nearly 40 per cent of the world's total planned coal-fired power plants, according to the Global Coal Exit List database run by German environmental organisation Urgewald and 30 other partner organisations.
China has not stepped away from low carbon energy and continues to develop renewables. It will be interesting to see if all of the power stations go ahead. There are many reasons that the Chinese people may not accept more pollution than they already endure. These future power stations will have to stack up against increasingly efficient and clean technologies. In a purely economic sense, any investment power stations (of any kind) must be able to ensure a return for investors over its payback period.
“Beijing said on Tuesday, in a position paper ahead of the UN meeting, that it would remain on ‘the clean energy and low-carbon development path’, but stopped short of setting new targets,” Reuters says. “China has cut the share of coal in its total energy mix from more than 68% in 2012 to 59% by the end of last year, but overall consumption has continued to increase,” with 1,020 GW of installed capacity as of late July.
https://theenergymix.com/2019/09/22/china-plans-226-gw-of-new-coal-plants/
Compared to our 16% renewable power China has done quite well.
Power generation from renewable energy sources reached 1,870 TWh in 2018, an increase of 170 TWh and making up 26.7 percent of the country’s total. Hydro contributed 1,200 TWh (up 3.2 percent), wind – 366 TWh (up 20 percent), PV – 177.5 TWh (up 50 percent) and biomass – 90.6 TWh (up 14 percent).
Peter you started out by saying the science is rubbish then you questioned the motives of the scientists suggesting that it was some kind of plot to bring down capitalism (although it is never explained why) and now you have moved on to subtly suggest that what we do is irrelevant so lets just keep burning fossil fuels.
Because an extremely large country is only making slow progress but yet is still trying does not mean we should abandon the move away from the older methods of generating power.
-
The things that were being asked for were these
1. No new coal, oil and gas projects,
2. 100% renewable energy generation and exports by 2030.
3. Fund a just transition and job creation for all fossil-fuel workers and communities.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, I did not hear anything about to complete dismantling of the modern world as the "alarmists" claim.
-
-
No I don't Octave. I was commenting on the only options I could see possible if what the previous poster said about the capitalist/socialist thing was true. I don't personally believe it's true.
As you say " Equating emission controls with some sort of socialist plot seems pretty whacky to me. ". It seems pretty wacky to me as well. Is it possible you might have misinterpreted the context of my post?
Sorry quoted the wrong the post !
-
Has it not occurred to you that the Australian Youth Coal Coalition is a plant by the anti- coal movement? It seems obvious.
Really drifting into conspiracy territory there. Let's say that was true, it is just as disturbing how quickly this story was spread and how many people wanted to believe it was true.
No doubt there's politics involved. If it was primarily about capitalism versus socialism, I can only see two aspects to that. One is that emission control measures push us further toward a socialist economy and lifestyle.So do you really believe this?
Equating emission controls with some sort of socialist plot seems pretty whacky to me.
I live on part time work and my investments, I certainly have no wish to tear down the economy.
So was Joseph Fourier a rampant socialist? How about Tyndall or Arrhenius? Are CSIRO koolaide drinking socialists? How about the board of BHP? Bom secret plan to introduce socialism. Sorry that just sounds lame. Of course there are some who may have this goal but this does not change the physics.
If the weight of the evidence contradicts the theory then I will happily abandon it. The weight of the evidence supports the theory at this point in time. Sure, you can cherry pick articles graphs and study but you have to admit that the evidence against is sparse.
I am going with the consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change I believe this is rational.
I doesn't really matter what a few people believe, the changes are happening. I am not anti miner, in fact like any technological revolution we are going to need minerals such as cobalt, lithium, copper etc.
-
So the first thing on my FB feed this morning was posted by a friend (now ex friend) of a park full of rubbish. The Title of this picture claimed it was the disgusting aftermath of the climate march in Sydney. The crusty old commenters were incandescent with rage. Look at these horrible young people who claim to be concerned about the environment trash Sydney's Hyde park. Immediately my BS sensor went off. For a start having lived in Sydney in the past (as the poster also does) this did not look like Hyde park Sydney. After quick search I found that this is an old picture from a different event in a different country and was first posted in april and not at all related to the climate event. It is not hard for an intelligent person to fact check. Pretty disgusting tactics Apparently propagated by the facebook group The Australian Youth Coal Coalition. Other versions of this tactic have appeared overseas also.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/protesters-hyde-park-rubbish/
-
I notice that kids are going to start protesting about climate change. Good on them, say I. If they are prepared to make some sacrifices to save the planet, we should support them.
Personally, I would do anything to save the planet as long as it didn't cost me money or stop me doing things I like. I hope the kids are better than me.
I attended the one in Geelong, it was well organised by these intelligent articulate young people. There were as many if not more older folks there.
[ATTACH]50327._xfImport[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]50328._xfImport[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]50329._xfImport[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]50330._xfImport[/ATTACH]
-
The information is coming from the North American Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. WTF? What is a Jet Propulsion laboratory doing in this business, they should be designing rocket motors. Do you believe a spokesman from the Russian space program? Or the Chinese? Why has NASA got this lavishly funded, beautifully presented propaganda site?
I am sure you are aware that NASA does more than build rockets. i am sure you are aware of it's Earth observation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Observing_System JPL is a facilty that mangaged for NASA by Caltec. So you believe NASAs site is a beautifully funded propagander site. I feel you need to expand and this. SoUS government (under Trump) is funding this "propaganda. I think it is fair to ask you to what end? Under Trump I imagine that the surest path to more funding would be to support Trump's position on climate change ie give us another few billion and we will produce propaganda that supports your case.
So Peter what other sites are propaganda? I am guessing CSIRO and Bom as well as Australian Institute of Physics the list is too long to reproduce here. I guess the geological world may provide you with some support because of course geologists are the natural experts when it comes to the physics of the atmosphere however it seems like most geological bodies accept the science.
I guess you believe BHP are drinkers of Koolaide? https://www.bhp.com/media-and-insights/reports-and-presentations/2019/07/evolving-our-approach-to-climate-change
Or perhaps Shell? Shell oil says it will quit a lobbying group that opposes global climate goals
As for Russia and China, I cannot comment on what an "unnamed spokesman" said without out knowing who they are and what exactly they said. I do note however that both Russia and China are signatories to the Kyoto agreement and the Paris agreement.
The term drinking the Koolaide infers that you think my positions is a little crazy. I would suggest that it is a lot more difficult to support your position. Your position is contrary to the majority of the scientific community.
I did go back a read this whole thread and in our interactions I did pose many questions which mostly you have not addressed. I have always posted detailed (I am sure many would say tedious) answers to your questions.
-
Seek the facts, don’t drink the Koolaid.
NASA coolaid?
-
Octave, unless the law has changed, it's a legal obligation under the Lands Act (in my State at least) for a landholder to control feral animals.
Yep that is my understanding
-
where I live we can raise grass fed beef using the water that falls on the land and what is collected in dams and creeks.
The grass requires water and the cattle require water as opposed to just a crop whether it be beans or wheat or barley or whatever. Your assertion is that do gooders make statements without knowing the facts so what I am asking you is what are the facts. Now is your chance to educate us. You say that you grow beef with water from dams and creeks on your property you are you saying that vegetable growers are unable to do this? Why?
I would also have much more carbon emissions from the tilling, harvesting and transportation of the crop, plus where would the labour come from.don't you transport your cattle to the saleyards and are they not then transported to the abattoir?
It may be a different matter on the Darling Downs, or down South, but land here is not suited to growing crops .Obviously certain areas are suited to different types of farming, if crops cant be grow ion the Darling Downs then fine, who is saying they should be?
If the tree huggers have their way cattle would be banned,I think there may be a little paranoia here, yes there are people who try to convince people to switch their diet to vege but this is surely no more annoying than the bloke on TV who tries to convince me to eat lamb on Australia day but I can deal with that.
The tree huggers wouldn't even let us shoot the wild pigs.For twenty years I owned and lived on 44 acres on the southern tableands and during that time no one stopped me from arranging for feral pigs to be culled. I am not even sure what mechanism they would use to prevent me from doing that, in fact I had it done because I was compelled to by the Rural Land Protection Board. Someone may express displeasure because they don't believe in culling pigs but so what? It is you right and at least when I lived on the land it was my obligation.
Notice do gooders have been elevated to tree huggers.As soon as name calling is used instead of evidence I usually assume that the evidence may be difficult to come by. Tree hugger or redneck are just stupid stereotypes people use.
-
Where would the money come from? The government is funded by taxes, they take money from us, not the other way around.
Firstly I don't know enough about this to form an opinion but I understand there are places where this is up and running, Alaska, Finland etc. Not sure whether these systems work or not. In terms of the tax take, most people would still work and pay income tax. I think most universal income schemes are a pretty basic amount and I would imagine the majority would still rather earn enough to buy a house and travel etc. Also income tax is just one source of taxation, even people who only receive the aged pension ( a form of social wage in that you get it whether you have paid tax or not) are still tax payers by virtue of the fact that they pay gst and sales tax etc. As I say I am not too knowledgeable about this idea but I have seen it supported by serious economisits so I think it is fair to assume that the question of taxation is not just a whoops forgot to consider that scenario.
-
Here's a debating point in the climate change discussion...
Climate-change opposer are doing more harm to the future lives of our kids than the jailed pedophiles ever did. Therefore climate-change opposition is worse than pedophilia and should be punished accordingly.
One of these things is caused by unawareness and or wanting to cling to the past (in my view) and the other is caused the direct exploitation of another human whilst knowing the harm caused.
By way of an example buying a consumer product that is made with child labour is bad if you are aware of the origin and method of production. Most people are unaware or at least try not to think about it. Yes it has a levell of wrongness about it but human nature being what it is we are able to ignore wrongness that is not right in front of us. In terms of climate change I do not think shaming or name calling ever works. I am a strong believer in information and data. I think people find it hard to accept that anything they do (or I) could be anything less than wonderful.
Personally I try to do the right things but I am self aware to understand that I still drive my car, fly a plane and travel overseas. For this reason I think we need to tackle these problems at a society level so that we can maintain a modern comfortable life.
-
By do gooders I was meaning those who push a barrow without knowing what is in it. For example there are a load of people saying we should eat beans rather than beef. I just wonder how eating beans will reduce the methane or other greenhouse gases. To grow beans you have to plant, them water them, harvest and then transport and mill them. To eat beef, you put cattle out on the dry country where I live, they water themselves in water holes or dams, eat the dry cellulose that grows, then you ship them off to an abbatoir. Much less use of fossil fuels and fertilisers, but I suppoe the downside is that it is less labour intensive.
Basicly they are people who believe any sort of bullshit poked out by greenies.
Nev. I never read the Courier Mail, otherwise I agree with you wholeheartedly. Hazlewood always appalled me with its pollution, but so did most other power stations. I did spend over a decade working on those places, building chimneys designed to spread the pollution further away, so that it wasn't so obvious.
I was talking to someone the other day who reckoned Calcap power station, built in the sixties was a very low producer of carbon dioxide, he installed the gear to collect it. Now of courst it is closed and Callide has taken over the pollution.
I am not convinced that is correct re beans and cattle but of course the only rational way to know is to examine the hard evidence. I am wondering what information you used to come to these conclusions? By the way I dont give a toss what others eat. I am not in a position until later today to check the facts and figures but I would be willing bet a reasonable sum of money that it takes more water to produce kg of beef compared to a kg of vegetables. But again evidence and data is the only way to know.
.jpg)
Electric Cars - the discussion continues.
in Science and Technology
Posted
My son picked up his new Tesla yesterday. He lives in Wellington and picked it up from Auckland. He took this great picture on the drive home. Alas nothing ever goes totally smoothly, he got a stone chip in the windscreen.[ATTACH]50350._xfImport[/ATTACH][ATTACH]50351._xfImport[/ATTACH]