The climate change debate continues.

[pmccarthy]

CASA Avmed does not accept the advice of my cardiologist, he has to provide the raw test results to them. (Wrong forum I know, but I couldn't help it). BTW they renewed my medical - yippee.

[nomadpete]

It's ok, PMcC.

We speak the same language over here.

[Bruce Tuncks]

There are people who are smart and scientific and I will continue to be impressed with their stuff, and PMC is one of them. Also, I hope that they are correct and climate change is not going to be a big problem.

Alas, I fear that the weight of evidence is on the side of the "climate change is real and bad news" lot.

 

[spacesailor]

BUT

It is the SUN expanding, thats is the problem !.

The best we can do is to block the Sunrays from cooking us, untill we can .

MIGRATE

MARS is No good as it,s going to cook, just as we need refuge .

spacesailor

.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

That's a long time away tho spacey. 50 million years I think.

This climate change stuff is going to hit in about 50 years....  big difference.

Well some people would say its already hit. To them I say to put a glass with ice and water out in the sun. You will see the temperature do NOTHING until all the ice has melted.

[octave]

‘Green steel’: Swedish company ships first batch made without using coal

[Dax]

28 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

That's a long time away tho spacey. 50 million years I think.

This climate change stuff is going to hit in about 50 years....  big difference.

Think it may be  7-8 billion years before the sun envelopes the earth, remember reading a couple of scientists did the calculations back around 2008.

 

I'm not a believer in anything really, other than the unfolding future, but think I can say climate change is with us now. The only thing to work out now, is how fast will climate change and from how it's looking, each year from now may well see a doubling of the effects, hopefully I'm wrong. But the last two years has made me sit up where I live and go through my decades of weather taking stats in the last week of so to see what changes there has been, our weather and seasons are certainly changing, getting hotter and rainfall changes.

 

It's the middle of winter here, there is a bit of snow on the mountains, a southerly blowing and it's 17deg. Our mountain gums are dying, the last coupe of summers have sen them drop most of their leaves because of the constant heat and our day time temps, have not reached below 9deg or zero for the 3rd year in a row. Before that, we got many days below zero and most winter days were around 4-9 deg and wet, or snowy.

[pmccarthy]

Do you not think people have sat where you are in the last two hundred years and said the climate is changing?  It is a well-worn theme.  It is recorded in newspaper articles that are easy to access. We just don't think across a time longer than our own experience.

[nomadpete]

That's a very good point P McC.

You have identified a major problem for the climate change argument.

Human perception can only reflect on experience over a very brief geological time. And unfortunately it can only be anecdotal because it cannot accrately indicate a global trend.

As you say, our recent history (say a couple of hundred years) is littered with NEWSPAPER reports of 'unprecedented' storm, floods, heatwaves, etc.

I generally don't take such reports seriously when it comes to thinking about long term climate change.

So I tend to believe the large consensus of subject matter experts when it comes to big timescales. So far although there are some minor variations, the majority of climate experts agree that climate is changing at a very short geological timeframe. And that humans are contributing to it. Since the change is likely to result in some kind of unpleasantness for large numbers if humans, shouldn't we do everything possible to stop adding to the problem? Besides anything else, I'm hoping it'll make us reduce the catastrophic damage we are doing to our world in terms of pollution in general. And to me, that will unarguably improve the world in terms of long term livability for humans.

[Dax]

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Do you not think people have sat where you are in the last two hundred years and said the climate is changing?

There are weather and tide records in my area going back to 1812 that I have seen and the climate was reasonably stable until the late 1970's. From that time temps have increased, rainfall has dropped and tide heights increased.  Friends of mine, a fishing family have records going back well over 100 years and sea temps have dramatically increased over the last decade, as catches and especially varieties have diminished. When you add the native animal and bird populations are disappearing, to claim there is no detrimental change in climate and weather, is very hard to understand, or even comprehend rationally.

 

Understand those with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry/mining, would be desperate to deny the reality our planet faces, no different to god nutters at the moment hell bent on denying the reality of their insanity. They continue killing and destroying the planet as fast as they can in the vain empty hope, they may be right and reality wrong.

 

Luckily there has never been an ideology which has got it right and that's painfully obvious when you look at our leaders and political system throughout history, all ideologues who are the most fervent deniers of climate change and believers in the god of war and destruction.

 

Thousands of year ago, the planet had reasonably stable climate, massive planetary tree cover helped keep it stable. Now humans have stripped the protective covering, pumping thousand of tonnes of destabilising gases daily into the atmosphere and laid the planet bare to the sun and warming. To say that has no detrimental effect, is bizarre.

[pmccarthy]

Conversion of our power sources to solar wind and battery will require a massive increase in mining to produce the raw materials. The mining companies are salivating at the prospect. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[pmccarthy]

IEA (2021), The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions
 

This is a long article and is suggested reading for those interested in the supply of minerals to support clean energy.

[Bruce Tuncks]

My take on the transition problem is to point out that we simply have far too high a population and that reducing this will be a good start. Luckily, populations have a way of reducing themselves if left alone enough. Look at Japan.

[pmccarthy]

I know I am labouring the point, but I suspect most people will not follow the link posted above, so here is the first paragraph of the summary:

 

An energy system powered by clean energy technologies differs profoundly from one fuelled by traditional hydrocarbon resources. Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric vehicles (EVs) generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables in new investment has risen.

[Old Koreelah]

2 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

…Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric vehicles (EVs) generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant…

Thanks for the summary, PM. I must read the full article to see his reasoning, but I very much doubt these claims. An electric car should have massively fewer parts than a traditional IC car; why would it need six times the mineral input? Different minerals for sure, but remember that while we’ll need many new mines and processing plants, most of the planet’s oil production facilities and coal mines will be closed down.

[pmccarthy]

The latest IPCC report relies on a record of global temperature which reflects adjustments made by organisations like the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, in a process known as homogenisation of raw temperature data. This article by Dr Marohasy concludes:

 

“The IPCC is wrong to label the recent temperature changes ‘unprecedented’. They are not unusual in magnitude, direction or rate of change, which should diminish fears that the effects will somehow be catastrophic.”

 

See https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/2021/08/12/fussing-over-one-degree-of-simulation/

 

Dr Marohasy also wrote “‘Rewriting Australia’s Temperature History”’ in Climate Change: The Facts 2020, which explains what the Bureau of Meteorology does to raw temperature data.

https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/2021/08/09/rewriting-australias-temperature-history/

[pmccarthy]

20 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

Thanks for the summary, PM. I must read the full article to see his reasoning, but I very much doubt these claims. An electric car should have massively fewer parts than a traditional IC car; why would it need six times the mineral input? Different minerals for sure, but remember that while we’ll need many new mines and processing plants, most of the planet’s oil production facilities and coal mines will be closed down.

Steel and aluminium are not included, assumed similar for both structures. The values for vehicles are for the entire vehicle including batteries, motors and glider. The intensities for an electric car are based on a 75 kWh NMC (nickel manganese cobalt) 622 cathode and graphite-based anode. The breakdown of mninerals by type is shown in the report.

[nomadpete]

It is my innermost cynical belief that the whole climate change debate is just a media beatup created by the mining industries, chemical giants and the politicians.

 

I do believe that human activities are adversely affecting climate, but.....

 

As long as the alleged debate continues, nobody is cleaning up the environmental damage caused by general pollution, mining, or plastic pollution, or health hazards caused by trucking, training and burning coal and oil, or toxic waste, or overfishing, or agricultural runoff, or overpopulation... The list is long. But the problems are as important as climate change.

 

"Climate change" has become the smokescreen to end all smokescreens, allowing our politicians to avoid making other painful decisions that should be made.

Resolving the (human) problems of the world will require unpleasant lifestyle changes by the voters, and most likely an increase in the cost of living, therefore politicians will avoid taking meaningful action at all costs . Just look at the voter backlash we get over trying to make people follow a couple of simple new rules during a pandemic!

Edited August 19, 2021 by nomadpete
I did proof read. Then I saw more mistakes.

[Dax]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Conversion of our power sources to solar wind and battery will require a massive increase in mining to produce the raw materials. The mining companies are salivating at the prospect. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Everyone with a thinking mind realises mining will continue, it's the way it's done that's the problem, not mining itself. The problem we face is getting away from the current profit growth, rationalisation approach which cares nothing for the future or environment, just more money in less hands and stronger ideological controls over societies.

 

Already they are producing steel using non polluting methods, the growth is EV trucks and machinery in the mining industry, is also moving in the direction of improvement.

 

Our economy is dig up, manufacture, then throw away into land fill or the oceans. It will not be that long before the next generation will have virtually nothing of worth left to continue human societies at their current levels of sophistication. But our leaders and their ideological masters, couldn't care less, to them it's just  power for them today and bugger tomorrow.

 

There is no argument for carrying on our approach to the future as we are, just insanity. Denial of climate change seem to becoming from urban dwellers and rich vested interests in the farming industries, they can only see the mirror inside their heads, not reality.

 

We can continue technological, social and environmental advancement by simply changing our approach. The only things to really suffer would be the throw away junk society, fossil fuels and waste and all ale to be overcome simply and rapidly with the right approach by governments.

 

However, the elephant in the room as other have pointed out, is human population and its never ending growth. I'm pretty sure nature is well on the way to providing a remedy to remove the disease killing it, humans and sadly for many that can't come quick enough.

 

Many moons ago back in the last century, read an article by a climatologist, who said the biggest problem humans and other animal life faces, will be their ability to cope with the change psychologically and physically. He was of the opinion humans and most other life can only exist under certain climatic conditions, which have been established for hundreds of thousands of year. Now we have changed that and maybe our metabolism cant handle the changes we are creating, hence the rapid rise in mental health issues sweeping the globe.

 

We can make as many auguments as we want for and against climate change, but it's impossible for humanity to change the reality of the universe and our role in it. After all, our planet is minute compared to others, our solar system is also extremely small compared to universal averages and we are an extremely young star system stuck way out on the edge of our galaxy. Which by the way is not that big at all when you look at the universes size and galactic content.

 

 

[octave]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric vehicles (EVs) generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts.

Whilst it may be true that some technologies require more energy to manufacture what we really need to consider is the life time cost.   If we use the example of an EV compared to an IC vehicle it is quite clear that the EV requires more energy to manufacture than the IC vehicle.     For an accurate comparison we must also include the energy consumed during its lifetime.     For the IC we need to include all the fuel it will burn in its lifetime  and for the EV the electricity it uses.  This is difficult for the EV because it could be lots of coal at one extreme and at the other extreme I believe I could cover my yearly driving from the excess generation from my rooftop solar.    In actual fact most EVs energy use would be somewhere in between these 2 extremes.

 

I certainly understand that my rooftop solar panels output has to be weighed up against the energy required to build them. I am not sure how much energy is required to construct the panels on my roof but in 2020 they produced 5.4Mwh of which I use 4Mwh and someone else on the grid use my excess 1.4Mw   

 

When it comes to large scale power generation we also need to consider cost (money and energy) to build over its lifetime.

[nomadpete]

Quote..

"When it comes to large scale power generation we also need to consider cost (money and energy) to build over its lifetime. "

 

Agreed.

For instance, I seriously doubt that the fossil fuel industry use a genuine "whole of life" costing when comparing their electricity with other forms of generation.

So far, I've seen many open cut coal mines. New ones and Old. I've seen some attempts at revegetation but although the best of these resulted in greenery appearing on the old mollock heaps, there was never the ecological diversity that existed before the mine, and never the equivalent topsoil, either. Not to mention the release of gasses and other undesirable chemicals during the mining. Very often the end result is hundreds of acres of destroyed landscape. Where underground coal mines have intruded under towns, there has often been subsidence of houses. Sometimes making homes unlivable. Sometimes even creating sinkholes.  The mines go to great lengths to minimise payouts (I have been through this). In short it's in the Mine's interest to avoid responsibility. The true cost to the public doesn't get into the equation. These things result in an artificially lowered cost of coal fired power because the hidden costs are left for others to deal with. So, the true cost of mining and post mining restoration is seldom included in the whole of life costing of coal (or gas) burning power stations.

 

I hear people excitedly taking issue with the amount of electricity it takes to manufacture a solar panel (between a fifth and a tenth of what it generates in its service life), but the same people don't enquire about how much electricity is used to make the enormous castings that house a steam turbine, or its turbine blades.

Edited August 20, 2021 by nomadpete

[octave]

On 20/07/2021 at 9:55 AM, pmccarthy said:

The paper below is a challenging read but well worth it. I accept 100% the science that it presents. Finally, a research report that does not deal with "models" but with real world observations. 

 

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/05/State-of-the-Climate-2020.pdf

 

Octave, your response to this will be of interest. It is hard to see how anyone could take issue with the balanced contents of the report. However, I expect the alarmists (not Octave!) will try to attack the credibility of the authors as they usually do. I invite comments...

 

 

OK I have started reading through this,  I am going to keep it brief in order to get through it.  I am going to try not to post graphs and data etc. I am not a scientist like the majority of the population.  There are many areas in life where we are called upon to decide on something that we don't necessarily have the access to the data or the training to interpret the data.   So I intend to approach this as someone with no preconceived opinion.

 

Starting at the  beginning this document 1. General overview 2020.  The last paragraph says

 

 

Ole Humlum

Since 1979, lower troposphere temperatures have increased over both land and oceans,
but most clearly over land areas. The most
straightforward explanation for this phenomenon is that much of the warming is caused
by solar insolation, but there may well be several supplementary reasons, such as changes in
cloud cover and land use.

 

So my interpretation is that the temperature has risen but the author attributes it (mostly) to "solar insolation"     NASA disagrees.     In simple terms it comes down to Ole Vs NASA.      NASA could be wrong of course so my next step would be to look at what other scientists report (on both sides)  and then weigh up the evidence to the best of my ability.     

 

 

NASA   Is the Sun causing global warming?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dax]

7 minutes ago, octave said:

NASA   Is the Sun causing global warming?

I agree with their claims, it's much more logical and understandable than the claims of deniers.

[Dax]

3 hours ago, octave said:

This is difficult for the EV because it could be lots of coal at one extreme and at the other extreme I believe I could cover my yearly driving from the excess generation from my rooftop solar.    In actual fact most EVs energy use would be somewhere in between these 2 extremes.

Have a friend who has a Kona Ev and another who has a leaf, both and a couple of other EV owners I talked to at the last EV show, all said the only time they use charge stations is on long trips. They all charge their cars at home from their solar and a couple have added more solar just to charge their cars. One who must have a lot of money, has a battery bank for his Tesla to it top up every night, said he will get his money back within 5 years for the battery.

[octave]

40 minutes ago, Dax said:

Have a friend who has a Kona Ev and another who has a leaf, both and a couple of other EV owners I talked to at the last EV show, all said the only time they use charge stations is on long trips. They all charge their cars at home from their solar and a couple have added more solar just to charge their cars. One who must have a lot of money, has a battery bank for his Tesla to it top up every night, said he will get his money back within 5 years for the battery.

 

I have looked at a battery for my rooftop solar.  At this point it is a difficult decision when taking everything.    What is appealing to me at the moment is an EV that could act as transport and a house battery.