octave

I'm also concerned about Millenials. I wonder how many of them, fed up with the shenanigans they have witnessed as they have grown up, will waste their voting opportunity by drawing dick and balls, or writing witty comments on their ballot papers. For all the time that these young people have sat through 'Stranger Danger' instruction and the like, virtually none have had any introduction to the machinery of government and elections. I'd wager, too, that if you asked them to have a go at reciting our Constitution they would start "We, the People ...."

Apparently a record number of young people have now registered to vote. A huge mistake the conservatives made was insisting on a plebiscite for same sex marriage rather than just voting in parliament. This meant that many young people enrolled to vote who perhaps otherwise would not have. I guess there are many young people who do not have much knowledge or interest in poitics however the young people I mix with are interested and knowlegable

High number of young voters create record enrolment rate of 96.8% for election

@octave - wasn't aimed at you personally - I have heard on Aus Radio that virtually no-one has a land line service anymore - I was taking this to mean they only have mobile. Over here, there are mobile providers that will do broadband, but the cost of the land line service is a miniscule add on to the fixed line rental. I have a deal where I get unlimited super fast broadband (Fibre - so not too fast, I guess); unlimited national an international calls to all but the most expensive countries to call, mobile unlimited calls to the EU, unlimited data, text and nternational roaming (didn't pay a penny more for the calls I made/took while in Aus) for £90/month. If I knocked off the land line service (including unlimited national/international calls), it would save me not quite £10/month...

I guess without a land line service, some in more remote areas would need to have their mobile phones use the wireless connection of home... How much more is the land line service?

We lived in the bush for 20 years and mobile was not an option. We had dial up then upgraded to ISDN and then finally satellite.

I thought I would clarify my first post because it may have caused confussion. I have a fixed line but no phone service.

[Q

The price of petrol is expensive in NZ but it costs just $80.00 a year to register a car and that includes CTP which is the ACC levy. (ACC is a government system to cover workers compensation & accidents etc. The right to sue has been removed by law.) Here the registration & CTP cost is $ 700.00 and up to several thousand depending on your age and the vehicle. You can buy a lot of fuel for the extra 65 cents a litre so for majority the overall cost is actually less to run a car in NZ than in Australia.

Yes quite true, this is one of th reasons my Australian son is now a Kiwi. His household has I think 5 cars, all suited to different purposes.

So I am staying with my son in NZ at the moment, and he has lent me his BMWI3 EV. I have been driving it long enough now to get comfortable with it, in fact the first trick is accepting how easy it is to drive. At first, it seems very strange, press a button and the screens come to life, toggle the switch in to drive and off you go.

The acceleration is rather impressive not only in terms of how quick it is off the mark but how the accelerator works smoothly throughout it's range. Lifting of the accelerator is like applying the brake so you dont coast up to an intersection but gradually lift off, in fact you can drive most of the time without even touching the brake, the regenerative braking does the work.

We have driven up some extremely steep hills and we found that it felt as if we were on the flat. In an ICE you are aware of the engine working hard. The other day there was an accident on our route home and the traffic was alternating between a crawl and a stand still. This is a good vehicle for this situation. I was aware of all the other vehicles around us idling away burning fuel.

This I3 is a 2014 model with a range extender. The range extenders is a petrol motor (2 cylinder, base on a BMW motor bike engine) This engine will automatically start when the batteries get to 7% I believe although we have not had this happen. You can also set the range extender to hold a set charge.

The new models no longer have the range extender but have a larger battery bank. When the vehicle returns home at night you just plug it in. It does not immediately charge (unless you instruct it to) but starts changing when the electric price drops and it is good to go in the morning.

My son has several cars and usually lends us a BMW 5 series which is very thirsty. We of course pay for our fuel and always return it full which in NZ is very costly (about $2.15 a litre at the moment) It was amusing offering to pay for the electricity we used as when charged off-peak it costs 90 cents per 100km ($2.70 during day rate). My son suggested I could buy him a cup of coffee every couple of days. The maintenance costs are very low, occasional servicing of the extender (which hardly ever gets used) Brakes last a long time since they are not used very much. Tyres are expensive though.

I would love a car like this but at this point it is not in my price but like other items such as mobile phones PCs etc it is only a matter of time.

But this is the well-established greenhouse effect, not anthropomorphic climate change. I dont know when that was first proposed, perhaps in the 1950s?

"Högbom found that estimated carbon production from industrial sources in the 1890s (mainly coal burning) was comparable with the natural sources.[24] Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO

production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity.[24][25] "

How can you not have a landline of you are getting NBN - don't they use the land line to deliver it?

Not sure whether you are addressing this to me. To clarify, I mean there is a physical land line, I connect to ADSL but there is no phone service associated with it. The only cost is included in the monthly $69 internet fee. The performance is pretty unimpressive though.

not for the generations alive today, but for our future generations.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit

Havent had a chance to read this carefully yet but seems interesting.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Cost U.S. More than Defense Budget: IMF Report – Rolling Stone

We will all get beyond coal for electricity eventually, but managing the transition is a big challenge.

i would agree with that statement. Managing the transition is a big challenge therefore we need to actually attempt to manage the transition rather than just say it is all too hard and wave chunks of coal around in parliament. I disagree with the statement often made by conservatives "that coal is good for humanity" I also disagree with the other extreme. I would say coal has been good (and bad) for humanity but its time is ending, it can be a managed transition or we can wait until the last minute.

That Government should shut down the Coalburner's first, then the nuclear plants

I agree with that.

Enjoy New Zealand! I just got back from three weeks holiday including the Easter air show at Omaka.

I will try to answer the questions from Octave.

Just out of interest who is Warwick Hughes and what method did he use to compile that graph.?

 

Warwick Hughes

 

Refereed Published Papers:

 

1992 Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, and Warwick S. Hughes. “Long-Term and Recent Anomalous Temperature Changes in Australia.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 23, pp. 2317-2320.

1995 Robert C. Balling, Jr. and Warwick S. Hughes. “Comments on “Detecting Climate Change Concurrent with Deforestation in the Amazon Basin: Which Way Has It Gone ?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 4, 9. 559.

1995 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.

1996 Warwick S. Hughes and Robert C. Balling, Jr. “Urban Influences on South African Temperature Trends.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 935-940. Online at

[/url]www.john-daly.com/s-africa.htm

 

 

 

1997 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on, “Historical Thermometer Exposures in Australia.” by N. Nichols et al. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, pp. 197-199.

Why are climate contrarians just about always individuals? And nearly always not climate scientists?

 

The term climate scientist emerged recently when massive funds became available for climate science. Before that, past climates were studied and modelled by geologists and meteorologists.

 

I have been to a lecture by Plimer. What do geological organisations say on the subject?

 

The organisations globally have been muzzled by politics. There are "secret societies" of geologists communicating by email and trying to get the truth out in public statements, also lobbying to get the societies to do the same. The reason the societies cannot speak is that they would lose members and public credibility in the present environment. Also there are lots of geologists who believe the alarmists so politics plays a role internally. Another problem is that any attempt to organise scientific discussion rapidly attracts ratbags from the fringe that destroy the credibility of genuinely skeptical scientists.

 

You seem to indicate that you believe NASA are part of an international conspiracy along with JAXA and ESA is that correct? What is the motivation?

 

NASA is a victim of the funding trap and the need to maintain public support. There are plenty of credible studies that refute NASA interpretations of the data, but they are almost impossible to get published or peer reviewed. Also reputable popular science journals like New Scientist, for example, refuse to publish material that goes against the alarmist doctrine. Make no mistake, this is public hysteria on the scale of the Salem witch hunts. It isn't evil, just misguided.

 

I will bet you did not read the report compiled by Shell in 1986 in which there own experts discuss the problem.to what end?

 

If you are talking about the film "climate of concern"produced by Shell then it was an excellent example of hysterical alarmism that was not founded on fact or science. I havent seen a report.

 

Do you believe there is such a phenomena as greenhouse effect. At what point do you believe the theory breaks down?

 

Yes I believe that a greenhouse effect exists. Some warming will be due to it. Mostly it is caused by water vapour in the atmosphere. CO2 plays a negligible role. Any contribution from CO2 has already occurred.

 

Is there a a PPM at which you believe there would be a problem?

 

CO2 is plant food. Modern plants cannot live with CO2 below about 200 ppm. For most of the earth's history in the era when plants and animals existed, CO2 was higher than today. So no, I am not alarmed by CO2 at the trace levels forecast by alarmists.

 

What is the first mention of anthropomorphic climate change and when?

 

From the IPCC: The ability to generate an artificial warming of the Earth’s surface was demonstrated in simple greenhouse experiments such as Horace Benedict de Saussure’s experiments in the 1760s using a ‘heliothermometer’ (panes of glass covering a thermometer in a darkened box) to provide an early analogy to the greenhouse effect. It was a conceptual leap to recognise that the air itself could also trap thermal radiation. In 1824, Joseph Fourier, citing Saussure, argued ‘the temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat’.

 

But this is the well-established greenhouse effect, not anthropomorphic climate change. I dont know when that was first proposed, perhaps in the 1950s?

 

I am in NZ at ths moment so a lytle hard to do the usual quote and reply.

How does NASA making up false data to support climate change help their funding under a Trump presedency?

I posted a link l twice which was a document produced by Shell in 1986 where they discuss the problem of climate change.

PM I read every li k that others post and when a graph is presented I go to the source although sometimes this leads to a dead end.

The first calculations of co2 emmisions and tje effect on climate were done in the 1890s. This does not stop people from asserting that it is somethinhg made up recently.

What are Warwick Hughs' qualifications other than publishing.

The amount of greenhouse heating calculations are quite interesting, as in the video I posted, did you nit accept the calcs or the underlying physics?

So just to be clear you believe there is a conspiracy between NASA JAXA and ESA?

His heart in the right place, he fleeced millions off ordinary wage earners who seem to think his message was the only oneirs almost like a religion to some. Ocrave wgere did i deny NASA on its findings i read as much of climate deniers as well as the"facts" yes there has been to much pollution since the start of the industrial revolution but please do not skip over the main problem To Many people in this world and australia cannot afford to have many more

So you don't mind paying a failed pollitician obscene amounts of money to relay a message to the masses do you think he isnt a big polluter ,private jets ,huge house with a big carbon footprint big gas guzzling cars he has played everyone for fools to make himself richer, and no i am not a climate denier just read more than than doomsday report's

Lots of bald statements are made but every time I follow them up then the statistics dont support them. As a test I chose Facthunter's statement about Perth rainfall. Here is the data.

Warwick Hughes says this data demonstrates clearly that there has been no decline in rainfall. 2001 was only the 15th dryest year since records began in 1876. What has happened to cause our water shortage is that consumption is ever rising, catchments are being steadily degraded by scrub regrowth impairing runoff and we have been less than prudent over a decade or more in putting off projects that could have brought on new supplies from dams.

 

Any other statement about wildfires, tornadoes, dust storms and so on can be checked and the answer is that we are in situation

Just out of interes who is Warwick Hughs and what method did he use to compile that graph.

I should add to the above that Morner, like all climate skeptics, has had his reputation attacked by the alarmists. Geologists are also known as Earth scientists or geoscientists, and it is their profession that has unravelled the history of the earth and its past climate. Ian Plimer, who was the senior lecturer when I studied geology nearly 50 years ago, is the leading skeptic in Australia and he has been attacked repeatedly for drawing attention to facts that don’t fit alarmist prognostications. I just hope we can shake some sense into the global community before they drink the Kool-Aid.

I have posed many questions which you have not addressed.

You seem to indicate that you believe NASA are part of an international conspiracy along with JAXA and ESA is that correct? What is the motivation?

I will bet you did not read the report compiled by Shell in 1986 in which there own experts discuss the problem.to what end?

Do you believe there is such a phenomena as greenhouse effect. At what point do you believe the theory breaks down?

Is there a a PPM ar which you believe there would be a problem?

What is the first mention of anthropomorphic climate change and when?

Dilute the Carbon !by Plant more trees.

 

spacesailot

Planting more trees is of some help but there is a basic problem.

Other than micronutrients plants need water and nitrogen in the correct ratio as well as many other things and of course water. The point is you cant massively increase only one of those nutrients (Carbon) People are quick to point out that plants love carbon but they will only thrive if there is also an increase in nitrogen and other nutrients. To put it more simply if you put a plant in a greenhouse and give it huge amounts of carbon it will also require much more water and much more of the other nutrients required for plant growth.

Planting trees is still good but in itself cannot fix the problem.

Is Shell making stuff up?

Here is a link to their own paper on the greenhouse effect from 1986. I suspect those think it is all a hoax would not read this paper. My question is what is in it for Shell. I would like to know how this conspiracy works Does NASA tell JAXA to adjust its temperature records to match its own?

1988 Shell Confidential Report “The Greenhouse Effect”

In reply to Octave, I don’t believe that such minor variations in a trace gas can affect global temperatures. I am not naive about it, I have read a lot about it, and the science is far from convincing. We have had much higher levels of CO2 in the past than now, we are close to a historic low. Temperatures go up and down for reasons that are poorly understood but are driven by the earth and the sun. Computer models are nonsense, their proponents are scamming us. Climate science is actually climate politics.

This is always the defence that comes out, it is political but nobody is willing to explain the motives of I would say pretty much any reputable scientific organisation, including geological organizations. So is in it for NASA? some might say to get funds out of the government. Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to say to Trump give us more money and we will support your view of climate science?.

Are these calculations incorrect and how so?

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.