The climate change debate continues.

[Siso]

They actually doctored the footage to mislead the public or do you believe it was a coincidence. This is one fight I hope trump wins and hopefully the public broadcasters learn from it.

[octave]

 

52 minutes ago, Siso said:

Actuators are used for the panels to follow the sun. Some of these have rods that control more than 1 panel.

There are many trials of agrivoltaics going on in Australia and overseas.   I

 

My assumption is that with all these trials going on and some already operating agrivolatic farms that things like the stock damaging the accuators or other parts is a known quantity.  I am sure it would not suit every farm type or location, but a search of the net does show sheep and cattle and crops (mainly veges and grape vines, etc where partial shade is preferable.

 

Edited December 9, 2025 by octave

[pmccarthy]

The greatest enemies of solar farms must be fire and hailstorms. In the USA I would add tornados, but not so much here. Presumably they are insurable events, and the premiums will just be built into the cost of power. They will be fairly rare, so not too expensive compared to distribution costs.

[red750]

This was kept quiet.

 

A massive new Tesla Megapack-powered battery energy storage system (BESS) is now officially online in Victoria, Australia, marking the largest completed battery project on the country’s main grid — and one of the biggest operational grid batteries in the world. 

 

Read more here.

[facthunter]

Thanks for Posting it.  Nev

[pmccarthy]

This thread has been idle too long. 7 minutes video.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Debates are Combative by nature and a winner is decided which has Litle to do with the subject chosen. Even the Insurance companies Militaries and Oil companies don't dispute the reality of  anthropomorphic Climate change. Farmers who keep records know it too. Sea level rises Ocean temps and acidity. More EXTREME Climate event . Ice Melting at the 3rd Pole. ( the Himalaya's) that threatens the future food security of Millions. CO2 records show what is  happening. The climate change deniers are Running out of ideas as more evidence emerges We CAN easily Make this Place Uninhabitable. We cannot burn much More of the Oil  Gas and Coal available and not make things rapidly worse. Energy from other sources must and can be used.  Nev

[pmccarthy]

The mass of trees, grass and other vegetation comes almost entirely from carbon dioxide. The carbon is turned into plant matter and the oxygen is expired for us to breathe. For example, a 50-tonne (dry weight) tree contains ~49+ tonnes of carbon from this source. Very little of a tree is minerals from the ground. These are scientific facts, indisputable.

 

The claim that we are all doomed for using fossil fuel or nuclear energy is a claim that is poorly based and deserves ongoing debate, as this video argues.

[facthunter]

That's the favourite tactic of the deniers . "The Science of Climate Change is not settled".  The carbon cycle in Nature won't handle the extra CO2 and deforestation is happening at an ever increasing rate and New deserts are forming and Permafros Melting and releasing Methane. ALL  well understood by people who do the checking. PMC you didn't address ANY of the Points I  made. Nev

[pmccarthy]

Well, the science is NOT settled. No one can make a case that it is! Science is about constantly challenging and defending theorems. There is no point in you spending one minute of your time to paste a scattergun of unsubstantiated statements and then expect me to address them point by point, an exercise that would take me hours to do properly. Which is exactly what the video is about. The difference between cult belief and science.

 

Farmer's records? Here are mine, since 1961. On such a short base you could argue that the world is ending, we have gone from 800mm to 600mm per year. But a longer chart, over two centuries, would pick up the big droughts including the worst, the Federation drought, and show quite a different story. People have small memories and smaller imaginations.

[facthunter]

  We are seeing higher and higher figures for temps and extreme weather events. The new Normal is a CHANGE. Cyclones further from the equator.. Talking about memories and imaginations has Little relevance to science. Areas where grapes went ok are Now too Hot. . Nev

[onetrack]

Climate change denier? We're developing a vaccine for that!  😄 

[Litespeed]

What someone who made money from mining is a climate denier?

 

Who would of thunk it.

 

If he'll exists there will be a special hot place for them all.

[facthunter]

What IS the Cost of doing NOTHING?. It's OK for Trump. He's not going to live that long and has Plenty of Airconditioning. . When Places become Unliveable  we'll have a real Immigrant Problem or maybe Here  won't be too good either. We are  a very dry continent and have some of the World's highest recorded temperatures. Shallow Dams are a compete waste of time and Money.  We've stuffed up a lot of the artesian water as well.. .Nev

[nomadpete]

Stop it Nev.

 

You are depressing me.

 

We all know that anthro-something climate change is just invented by the communist lefties for political purposes.

 

(Don't we have a special font for sarcasm?)

[facthunter]

I heard it's the lowest form of wit but at lest It's wit. Not a skill which I Particularly wish to develop. Aren't those things called Emoticoms? Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

This thread has been idle too long. 7 minutes video.

 

 

 

I watched the vid, and I can honestly say that is almost 7.5 minutes of my life I won't get back. 

 

In a general sense, I don't disagree with what is said.. Pick any subject and there are those that wish to shut the other side down through deligitimising them rather than the argument. 

 

And this vid is no different. It assets a bunch of stuff, shows a snippett aof a headline or makes assertions without actually offering substantive evidence. It is also one of the oldest tricks in the book; deligitimse them by asserting they are deligitimising you. And that is what this vid is largely doinng. 

 

For example, the assertion the IPCC report is purely political because it was read out by a diplomat? Seriously? What other evidence does he proffer? Oh, he asserts the report is entirely based on the worst case scenario? Again, he offers no evidence, but a cursory glance at the report (all volumes and summaries here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/), it is at the upper range for forecasting. 

 

I do agree, there are actors on all sides that seek to shut down debate, silence the other side, deligitimse them, and not listen and argue on facts. They are the ideologists and fanatics. They may bet the most airtime, but they are, as far as I can tell, in the minority - at least when the facts are on their side.. that is becasuse when the facts are on your side, you don't have to resport to these other tactics to win the case - at least in theory. When the facts are against one side or one doesn't  know the facts to sup[port their agenda, they tend to use these other tactics. 

 

This video does exactly what it accuses the other side of doing. It is seeking to discredit the debate of the other side by asserting the other side is discrediting his side. It is quite the irony, to be sure; and offers some isolated instances of where it has happened, and drawn in othe organisations and instuttions without offering a shred of actual evidence. 

 

Pot calling the kettle black. 

 

6 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Well, the science is NOT settled.

You are quite right.. Very little of science is "settled", if by that you mean absolutely everything about something is known and there is no more to be learned. The basic equation of lift we all learned in PPL, CPL, and ATPL training was wrong. More accuratley, it did not account for all components of airflow and forces that generate lift. This was finally proven by an Oxford professor (from memory) who refined the equation. For pilots understanding of lift, it has had zero impact, because the theory as it was understood explianed flight, and it still a major component of the theory of lift. 

 

 

The same for atomic theory. When I did high school science, the only sub atomic particles were electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now, quantum physics takes it further. It does not change the core theory, but refines it. In other words, the existing understanding at the time was showing the right direction of tracel - but either refines the direction or the size/predictability of stayin on that direction.

 

Notice, the science world calls them theories and not absolute. But in may cases, the changes refine rather than debunk existing theories and science. 

 

It is, I regret to say, the same with climate. Those ideologically opposed to the the theory use "science is not settled" to debunk the whole science. The science is understood enough that, sadly, our behaviour is contrinuting materially to global warming. There seems to be very little scientific dispute to that. There is dispute - yes - and I agree with the video that the evidence should be challenged and that counter-evidence (for want of a better word) should be heard and also challenged. Where the science seems not to be settled is exactly how much and what the rate it is occuring before it causes catastrophic changes to the earth - this does not mean the earth withers and dies; but that the earth cannot sustain life on the planet to the same level and/or type as it currently does.

 

One of the key reasons for their not being such certainty is because we are talking a climate/meteoroligical science - one that, if we look at purely meterorlogical science, is setlled enough to be able to be reasonably accurate at predicting weather, but still enough unknown variables/factors that we cnanot possibly predicit with certaintly.

 

This is why pure and applied maths in VCE in Victoria was changed to change and approximation. (it is now a bunch of other things). 

 

[nomadpete]

There ya go, spoiling everything by spreading a confusing thick layer of logic over the issues.

 

That's not how the game is played.

[pmccarthy]

Thanks all for a surprisingly logical response! I agree with much of it except a couple of ad hominem bits. Can I ask for comment on the following? 

The climate models that have been developed to date are, to the extent they have been tested, wrong. Over the past thirty years every base case model and every public prediction has shown a greater temperature increase than was actually experienced. We cannot rule on the models from the past decade, because there hasn’t been time to find out how they perform. But we have no reason to expect they will be any better.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

Over the past thirty years every base case model and every public prediction has shown a greater temperature increase than was actually experienced.

Are you sure that is the case? https://theconversation.com/earth-is-trapping-much-more-heat-than-climate-models-forecast-and-the-rate-has-doubled-in-20-years-258822. I haven't done more than locate this, so it could all be bollocks.

 

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

The climate models that have been developed to date are, to the extent they have been tested, wrong.

 

Even if the models over-estimated warming, they are not wrong; they would have merely over-estimated the rate of change. However, if the article above is correct, it appears they have underestimated the rate of temperatur change.

 

Again, and either wasy, it does not mean they are wrong, but need further calibration and research to what other factors are at play.