octave
-
Posts
4,372 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
57
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Our Shop
Movies
Posts posted by octave
-
-
The PUSH to renewable energy is lost if thd people who want solar, are having their feed in tariff removed,
Let this government put solar on any house or business that says go for it.
It can only help, if it gets the greenies less vocal. LoL
spacesailor
The feed in tariff is still there. I am getting solar installed 2 weeks time. It may be less generous than it was however I will receive 13 cents per kWh Rooftop solar installations are increasing dramatically. We have had to wait for several months because our installer is flat out. Regardless of how generous or not the the feed in tariff is, it still makes economic sense.
-
We have advantages for renewables. Wall to wall sunlight!
We cannot really be affected by trade embargoes as we don’t produce anything except coal and iron ore. We will be left on the sideline if our government does not change it’s ways.
This is why I remain with a mild tendency towards optimism.
Whilst politicians are waving around lumps of coal in parliament businesses are moving forward.
-
Australian government report:
Fossil fuel sources contributed 212,066 GWh (81%) of total electricity generation in 2018, a decrease of 3% compared with 2017.
Coal accounted for the majority of electricity generation, at 60% of total generation in 2018.
Renewable sources contributed 49,339 GWh (19%) of total electricity generation in 2018, an increase of 25% compared with 2017.
The largest source of renewable generation was hydro (7% of total generation) followed by wind (6%) and solar (5%).
What would the alarmists have us do differently, how would we make the changes they want faster than at present? Who would pay for that? What would the consequences be? There is no magic wand.
What may be more interesting than what I thinks would be what people running large companies think. Once we move past the science of climate change it also becomes a political and economic problem.
"Chief executives from across the economy have issued a plea for the next federal government to get to grips with energy and climate policy and end the paralysis that is hindering investment, pushing up prices and dividing communities."
"Certainty around carbon policy was named top of the policy wish-list of many business leaders this reporting season, in sectors as diverse as consumer retail, securities trading and manufacturing, as well as those more directly affected such as energy producers and transporters."
"
Wesfarmers chief executive Rob Scott called for the debate to move on from the question of whether a carbon tax was imposed or not.
"We need to move on that, and accept that there is a cost of carbon, it is a cost we're all going to pay over time and in fact our children will pay the heaviest price and we need to start creating the price signals and the policy settings to enable us to start making a transition," Mr Scott said."
"Woodside Petroleum's Peter Coleman also said "carbon needs to have a price", with several mechanisms possible, not just a tax.
"By 2050 there will be 1 billion more people on this planet," he said. "As their economic prosperity increases you want them going to lower carbon products and the only way to do that is to make sure carbon is appropriately priced."
"Viva Energy wants more clarity around emissions and energy policies, not just so the refiner can manage risks but also to identify new opportunities for investment, chief executive Scott Wyatt said."
All that was needed was the target set from the top to guide the rate of transition to cleaner energy, which was happening anyway, Spark Infrastructure's Rick Francis said. "A clear policy target at the top is probably what's needed, then let the industry get on and move forward with a sound set of principles that we can rely on for the longer term," he said."
A coherent coherent energy policy seems to be what people and indeed business (including fossil fuel and resource companies want)
one of my concerns is that Australia may be left behind technologically speaking. I am still holidaying in NZ 86% renewable energy, yes it does have natural advantages but it manages to exploit those advantages. many more EVs on the road and the infrastructure to support them. I fear are style is more fatalistically wave lumps of coal in parliament.
I accept that these problems are not easy to fix in the short term but first it the problem must be acknowledged and quantified. I also believe that it is too late to avoid negative consequences so it would be nice to see more government action on adaption.
I actually have more faith in private enterprise than government. Say what you want about capitalism but if you define the problem and set parameters business will find a way.
-
Pretty much a load of sh|t, eh?
The problem with these predictions is that
The meteorologists can't even get the next day's forecast right. They said yesterday that a strong southerly change would pass through southeast Australia with embedded thunderstorms and rain. The change came through and blew for a while. Not a drop of rain, and today we are back to last week's smokey and still air.
It's all well and good to enter meteorological data into simulation programs and let the software churn to numbers, but the results are still only conjecture. It's the law that insurance companies provide customers with Product Disclosure Statements. Climatologists should do the same.
My understanding is that most of these models have been quite accurate. The Hanson model provides 3 scenarios one of which is quite dramatic however it is based on no mitigation of greenhouse gases.
Many people parrot the "climate change models have proved to be inaccurate" but seldom present evidence. If you cant name the prominent models or if you font know what they actually predict then maybe all you can provide is your opinion.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
My question to you is what do the models predict (not you have heard they predict, but the actual predictions) and how do they match the evidence.
-
Yenn thst reminds me of the peppered moth. During the industrial revolution these light coloured moths started to stand out on the coal blackened trees. The lighter coloured variants became easy prey but the ones that were darker gained a survival advantage thus newer generations became dark coloured.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
-
And if the warming is a natural occurance, will mans puny attempt make any difference in the long term?.
spacesailor
When considering whether has the ability yo alter the atmosphere we have to consider that in 2017 there were 7.53 billion of us and this figure is predicted to slow and stabilize at 22 billion. There is hardlg a place on earth thst we have not altered. Pesticude residues are found in the shells of birds eggs in polar regions. The oil and coal that we burn formed over millions if years. Consider spacey how many tonnes of coal and litres have been burned in your and my lifetime. There are no free lunches in this universe every thing we do gas benefits and cost.
-
Have any of the CC scientists worked out this calculation?
One of the original climate models by Hanson from NASA produced a graph with 3 scenarios from memory there was the A scenario which assumed a large increase in co2 and methane etc. A B scenario which assumed midest cuts and a C scenario with aggressive cuts. One of the tricks climate contrarians use is to criticize only the A scenario which makes assumptions about emmusions that have not occured. Here is an article that includes 3 scenarios. Also a search for scientific papers that address the question you pose are not hard to find.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/?q=book/export/html/141
-
We have the choice of controlled but aggressive technological innovation or as some want to do we could just run the experiment an accept what the world that we get for our grandchildren. It is interesting to ponder that in the future our descendants when studying family history will no doubt search the net for our postings in the way that we search for letters written by past family members. I hope my descendants will see that I read the science and took the descion to make modest changes to my life and pressed my politicians and busines leaders to move towards the technology that is coming sooner or later. Governments championed the car and built highways because they knew that using horses was a big problem.
Onetrack for me to believe nothing needed to be done I would need be 100% sure. If even 1 aircraft mechanic out of 10 expressed doubt about the airworthyness of an aircraft I certainly would not be flyng my family in it.
You talk about th IPCC as if it is the sole body that accepts climate change but it is not.
Nobody is seriously talking about closing every coal fired power station or mine but rather as these power stations become old and financially unsustainable replacing them with newer cleaner technology. Most people in the developed world do seem to want change but almost none of us wants to live without modern conveniences. The "renewables alarmist" seem to think that decarbonisation means destroying our modern way of life. At the moment I am visting my son in NZ, the electricity here is generated 86% by renewables hydro,wind solar. As I look out the window I see his Tesla which is also charged by these renewables at a cost of, depending on the time of day 90 cents per 100km. I dont see our decarbonised future as being dismal. Regsrdless of what the deniers think these changes are going ahead. The debate is pretty much over even amongst compannies that deal in fossil fuels as well as companies such as BHP. The Saudi's are building yhe worlds biggest solar PV annd solar thermal plant not because they are idiots or tree huggers.
-
Yes, once you have initiated the formation of a huge UN bureaucracy, as in the IPCC, you have to keep generating things for it to do.
Meetings must be held, reports produced - and nowhere must it be mentioned, that the reason/s for the panels existence, have now been attended to and fixed.
I'll wager if the climate cooled dramatically for the next 20 years, the IPCC would still exist, and be larger than what it is now, and continue to warn us of the likelihood of the near-term death of Planet Earth.
You do know the Shell and Exxon were involved in early studies regarding climate change?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html
I wonder what was the motivation of the early scientist who studied this phenomena long before the IPCC, Fourier,Tyndall Arhenius etc back in the 1800s.
Most fossil fuel companies now publicly admit the problem and to be fair most are trying to mitigate the problem.
onetrack Shell, Exxon and BHP now acknowledge the problem. I am wondering what gives you so much confidence that it is all a lie created in the early 1800s and propagated through to the present.
-
The reason so many climate scientists believe global warming is a fact, is that they are “climate scientists “
If they don’t promote climate change, they will be out of work.
So I guess what you are saying is that money is a motivator for scientists to commit fraud. I wonder if that same assertion could be leveled at other members of society perhaps those who receive financial gain from maintaining the status quo.
I am also wondering why one of these "disreputable" scientists doesn't approach a fossil fuel company or perhaps a conservative government and offer to produce the right kind of research, this would seem logical if they were so easily bought.
-
I haven’t answered your question, sorry. After serious background reading, I believe that support for anthropogenic global warming by “ climate scientists” is between 70% and 80%. However, support by all scientists is much lower, less than 50%. That includes geologists. The so called climate scientists include a high proportion of computer programmers and modellers, for whom I have little regard.
PM the problem is that if your side is wrong and we simply go on as we are the implications coul be dire. If we begin an agressive change to significantly reducing co2 and it turns out to be not required, this is a position we can backtrack on. Aggresivly but sensibly transitioning is the way that gives us the maximun number of options. To hold your view I would need to be 100% certain.
-
That is worthy of investigation. One possibility is that CO2 levels rose as a result of volcanic action, which was associated with extinction. The massive basalt flows of the Deccan Traps are a prime example. Wikipedia gives a discussion of that. Linkage to higher CO2 levels is an association, but not causation.
by the way, I have walked in the Deccan Traps, very impressive.
PM you seem to be open minded to different hypotheses and theories unless it implicates coal.
I acknowledge that although sound at the moment the theory of anthropogenic could be overturned. I would say my levell of confidence is around 90%. I will happily apologize to my grand or great grand children if I insisted that my government engineered an orderly move away from fossil fuels. I am wondering what level of confidence you hold that this theory is rubbish, is it 100%? If it is 90% and you are wrong how will you explain your stance to your grand children? If we move towards renewables and the theory is wrong the coal will still be there to be exploited by fhe generations go come.
-
PM this is from the study you quoted and is reason enough to be concered about co2 is it not?
Finally, I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators. This finding suggests an urgent need for research aimed at quantifying the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and past mass extinctions. I conclude that that limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity.
-
The 97% of scientists was a complete piece of fakery or fake news.
Wether it is 97% or 87% or 67% it is hard to deny that the theory is accepted by fhe majority of scientists. But putting that issue aside PM you posted a portion of a study a few posts back. I assume that since you posted it you accept its findings. I read the whole study. It suggest does unlike many other studies suggests that the further reduction of co2 will provide diminishing benefits. Most importantly it points out that sudden changes in levells of co2 are associated with mass extinctions.
It seems to me that an orderly transition away from burning things is required.
-
Someone put me on to videos of this guy. A little disturbing to watch if you are scared of heights. Whole series of absolutely fascinating videos about this amazing fellow, well worth watching
-
Not all older people are conservative, Octave. Nev
Absolutely FH , there is you and I and many others. I went on one of the cliate strike marches and what struck me was the number of older Australians who took part. Although I am not one of the older people clinging to the past I do understand the younger peoples cynicism towards us as a group. I think history will judge our peers harshly. I am always conscious when I post here that in the future my descendants may when investigating family history, may read these posts if they are still around on the net. I do hope that they will see that I did care for things other than my own income and comfort. I can't rule out that climate change will be found to be false but if I was about to fly a plane with a grandchild (of which I have none) and 1 aircraft mechanic out of 10 said it was unsafe, I think I would would heed that warning.
-
Follow WHAT money??
The money is on the other side, as Nev mentioned the Koch brothers, Minerals Council and its members. These are the vested interests that don't want any change to the status quo and will put out all sorts of propaganda to retain their profits.
I tend towards optimism because although governments are slow and vested interest are happy to fund misinformation more forward looking companies are getting on with the business of innovation. The old industries that do not adapt or change their business models will fail Even leaders in a particular industry are not immune to failure if they fear change. Think Nokia and of course Kodak. Kodak invented digital photography but was reluctant the change.
"Steve Sasson, the Kodak engineer who invented the first digital camera in 1975, characterized the initial corporate response to his invention this way:"
"But it was filmless photography, so management’s reaction was, ‘that’s cute—but don’t tell anyone about it.’"
"Kodak management’s inability to see digital photography as a disruptive technology, even as its researchers extended the boundaries of the technology, would continue for decades."
At the moment we have companies like BP who whilst downplaying climate change are none the less getting into the renewable energy area. We have Shell and BP, companies that sell petroleum products building an running EV charging networks, why? They can see the writing on the wall, in fact Shell in particular did some of the earliest research on climate change.
We have Saudi Arabia a country with no shortage of energy building enormous photo voltaic and thermal solar power plants.
What I believe will happen is that hard core deniers will not change their opinion but as technology improves at the rapid pace it has been the cleaner technologies will be the cheaper option. Whilst I am here on my holidays I have had the pleasure of driving my sons Tesla. As a vehicle even discounting it's environmental cleanness it is just simply a more advanced and better piece of technology.
In 2 weeks time I am having a solar power system installed. This system is predicted to produce 6200 Kwh per year. I use about 4000Kwh a year. Of course there is the matter of when I need power and when it is available. I have looked at battery storage and it is almost economically viable but not quite yet, I am expecting it to become viable in the next few years. It is interesting to ponder how the electricity generation companies and retailers will have to adapt in order to stay in business. History would suggest that some will embrace change and adapt and flourish and others will fail.
The world mostly run by conservative older people but of course the younger generations will bring their new ideas and ways of doing things.
-
For CO2 to be considered a driver of Earth’s temperatures, changes in CO2 that uni-directionally correlate with temperatures should not be an exceptional occurrence. Yet a causal link from CO2 radiative forcing to temperature changes could hypothetically be inferred for just 2.6% of the last 425 million years.
A detailed analysis (Davis, 2017) of temperature and CO2 proxies over the Phanerozoic Eon by environmenalist Dr. W. Jackson Davis finds that for 77.9% of the record there was a non-discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature.
On the occasion there was a correlation between CO2 and temperature, most (60%) of the correlation instances were negative. In other words, when a correlation could be discerned, temperatures fell as CO2 rose or CO2 fell as temperatures rose more often than CO2 and temperature rose and fell with a semblence of synchronicity.
If we assume temperature changes are radiatively forced or amplified by CO2, this cause-effect link could be correlationally established for just 2.6% of the 4.25 million-year record.
As Dr. Davis concludes, “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
Good to see you are posting real peer reviewed papers rather than the Heller rubbish. This is of course but one of many papers. There are in most areas papers produced that vary in the results they produce and I could post numerous papers that come to different conclusions however let me assure you that I accept this paper as being rigorous and most importantly peer reviewed. The author seems to be open to further accepting further data. I have read the whole study and a few points stand out here is just one of them
I have made the most interesting part bold
I report here that proxies for temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration are generally uncorrelated across the Phanerozoic climate, showing that atmospheric CO2 did not drive the ancient climate. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a less-direct measure of its effect on global temperature than marginal radiative forcing, however, which is nonetheless also generally uncorrelated with temperature across the Phanerozoic. The present findings from the Phanerozoic climate provide possible insights into the role of atmospheric CO2 in more recent glacial cycling and for contemporary climate science and carbon policies. Finally, I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators. This finding suggests an urgent need for research aimed at quantifying the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and past mass extinctions. I conclude that that limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity.
So lets say that this study is correct (although we have to consider this against many other studies) doesn't it still suggest a pressing need to sensibly carbonize our society, achieving this in a staged way whilst considering the economic effects. Of course there will be some disruption as there was during the industrial revolution but this will pass.
Again thanks for posting actual science (although one paper among many) By contrast the Heller videos among other thing suggest that Bill Gates, Andrew Forrest et al oh and me are mentally deranged people who are trying to destroy the economy which I suspect is not what you think.
-
Octave, how would the acceleration compare to something like the old E types or a GTHO.
Tesla3p 0 to 100kph 3.3 seconds not sure about e type but I think around 6
-
I am staying with my son at the moment, he is very into competing in motor sport and has a quite fast IC race car but his car of choice is his new Tesla model 3P which is his daily drive and also has been used on the track, although the motor sport body is drawing up new rules because although he usually does alright he came second to the 200k custom built car.
I had a long drive of it today and I was extremely impressed, It was very easy to drive and makes IC car seem primitive. I of course drove it quite sedately although tomorrow we are going a day trip.
Here is some video of an aggressive launch, I was sitting in the back at this point, my wifes reaction say it all.
-
So you are getting high for Christmas?
32979 ft to be precise ? 40 minutes NZ
-
-
Not a cop out at all. The world is warming at present. It goes through warming and cooling cycles. It always has. The sea is rising. It has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The rate of rise has not changed in the last 150 years. These are facts, easily checked. That is what science is about.
The dispute is about models, made on computers, that cannot be tested because they are predicting the future. To the extent we can check their predictions, over only the last twenty or thirty years, they have failed.
The alarmist predictions are predicated on the more extreme results from the unreliable models.
-
This is where Iam posting from at the moment, 35000ft A321Neo[ATTACH]50494._xfImport[/ATTACH]
The climate change debate continues.
in Science and Technology
Posted
From a study by CSIRO 2007
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.115.9902
As I read this study and look at it's predictions I do not see the hysterical rubbish that some of you portray when discussing scientific predictions. Are fire seasons starting earlier, yes they are. Is this study hysterical nonsense, it doesn't appear to be, well not at least to me.
"Concluding Remarks In this study, Simulations from two CSIRO climate models using two greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions scenarios are combined with historical weather observations to assess the changes to fire weather expected by 2020 and 2050. In general, fire weather conditions are expected to worsen. By 2020, the increase in ΣFFDI is generally 0-4% in the low scenarios and 0-10% in the high scenarios. By 2050, the increase in generally 0-8% (low) and 10-30% (high). The largest changes are expected in northern New South Wales. Little change is expected in Tasmania. With this increase in ΣFFDI, a larger number of days with a Fire Danger Rating of ‘very high’ or ‘extreme’ are also expected. The number of ‘extreme’ fire danger days generally increases 5-25% for the low scenarios and 15-65% for the high scenarios. By 2050, the increases are generally 10-50% in the low scenarios and100 300% for the high scenarios. The seasons are likely to become longer, starting earlier in the year. These results are placed in the context of the current climate and its tendencies. During the last several years in southeast Australia, including the 2006-07 season, particularly severe fire weather conditions have been observed. In many cases, the conditions far exceed the projections in the high scenarios of 2050. Are the models (or our methodology) too conservative or is some other factor at work? Examining longer-term observations at eight stations, back to the early 1940s in many cases, reveals considerable inter-decadal variability. Periods of increasing and decreasing fire weather danger are apparent in the record. The peaks of these ‘cycles’ occur roughly every 20 years and the time series might suggest that we are at (or near) a peak, although there is no physical basis on which to estimate when or to what extent a decrease might occur. There is also evidence for anthropogenic climate change being a driver of this upswing. The current peaks in ΣFFDI are much higher than observed in past instances. There are also a greater number of VHE days at many locales. There is also the suggestion that the fire season is starting earlier. Finally, the severity and length of the recent drought [e.g. Nicholls 2006] and the associated fire danger has not been seen in the available records. The hypothesis posited in this study is that the naturally occurring peak in fire danger due to interdecadal variability may have been exacerbated by climate change. The test of this hypothesis comes over the next few years to decades. If correct, then it might be expected that fire weather conditions will return to levels something more along the lines of those suggested in the 2020 scenarios. If fire danger conditions stay this high, then the conclusion must be that the models used to make these projections are too conservative. Whatever the case, continued observation, as well as improved modelling are required to resolve this question."
Here is the afternoon sun in Wellington NZ where I am holidaying. No that is not sunset it is Aussie smoke and it is much worse on the South Island
[ATTACH]50536._xfImport[/ATTACH]
Here is the house I built and lived in from 1990 to 2011 and only recently sold. This video was taken yesterday apparently the house was saved.
[ATTACH]50537._xfImport[/ATTACH]
The house I lived in prior to that although it is 360 km away is also threatened by fire.
My sister lives in Quaamo near Cobargo on a property and we cant get in contact with her. My parents are frantic.
Now I am not drawing a direct line and suggesting that these fires are caused by climate change but the science back in 2007 did predict earlier starts to the fire season and more intense fires. Has this happened, it seems so to me.
I just humbly ask one thing of people who think it is all nonsense and that is this, could you possibly be wrong. I run through my mind the possibility that I am wrong and what the implications of that might be. Please just consider the possibility.
Anyway probably not much more to say about this subject.
KGn4MiLee2MTmHAZ.mp4