The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

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.

 

 

[robinsm]

Indoor wood fires, volcanoes, rotting vegetation, cow farts, all contribute to atmospheris CO2 levels. . Climate change is cyclic, not a current problem. Any major drive to fix the CO2 levels would be instantly undone by bush fires and volcanoes. First it was the ozone layer, p[roven not a problem, then methane from cows, now climate change that funnily enough involves money and investment into carbon credits etc. Sound like a whole money making exercvise to me. I believe the science does not even agree with the climater change groups.

 

 

[spacesailor]

". Whatever Australia does with coal stations, whether we close one or two or build one or two, will not make a jot of difference to global CO2 when compared to what they are doing"

 

One thing Australia CAN DO !.

 

Stop the sale of ALL coal.

 

Stop Adani's Carmichael coal mine.

 

Then we will see the end to NEW coal fired power-stations.

 

In this & other countries, that are hoping for Aussies cheap coal. (let them burn our garbage instead).

 

AND plant more "carbon eating Trees !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The other countries will still burn the same amount of coal. It will be dirtier coal than we produce, so more polluting. There is no shortage of coal globally.

 

 

[octave]

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

 

 

[pmccarthy]

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.

 

 

[octave]

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?

 

 

[Marty_d]

There's no reason for a "scam". What possible benefit would there be for anyone pushing a climate change agenda if it didn't exist? The joy of seeing protesters? Scaring kids?

 

People who run banks and car manufacturing plants would have to be some of the most hard-headed realists around. They're not going to fall for a "scam" without checking the hell out of it. Yet banks won't finance new coal power and every car manufacturer on the planet is scrambling to produce EV models.

 

If you want to take the line that "It doesn't exist, so I don't want to pay 10% more for my power by phasing out coal... and if it does exist, we can't solve it anyway", then that's your choice. However you've obviously got some interest in the subject because you're reading about it... just check into the backgrounds of the scientists who remain deniers. If they're being paid by companies who have a financial interest in maintaining the status quo then you could validly bring your skepticism to bear on them.

 

 

[octave]

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”

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... Whatever Australia does with coal stations, whether we close one or two or build one or two, will not make a jot of difference to global CO2 when compared to what they are doing. So we should do what is best for Australia to maintain adequate base load...

Wrong. We can make a difference. If we don't change our wasteful ways, the world will turn against us as happened to South Africa over Apartheid.

 

We in the rich countries are responsible for the explosion in CO2 and the knock on effects: acidification of oceans, bleaching of corals, etc. The final tipping point, which some believe has already been passed, is the release of arctic methane stores...

 

...and people still argue about local impacts on our economy?

 

Australia is a major contributor to the problem. We will be expected to be a major part of the solution.

 

If we don't work on that solution now, it will visit us in the form of many millions of boat people.

 

How global warming has made the rich richer

 

 

[facthunter]

How could you possibly think that the enormous amount of coal, gas, wood and oil we burn daily would have NO effect on the atmosphere let alone the heat energy we release?. The atmosphere is only a small amount acting as a reservoir as it rapidly thins out with about 1/2 the total molecules under 3 kms height. The Oceans have been absorbing the CO2 but now are becoming too acid for some of the creatures to survive. Just about every single day another Hotter than any since records started, event is announced. Farmer s records show change all in the one direction. Hotter and less reliable rainfall patterns.. They are rapidly becoming converts to the climate change evidence. and want o protect groundwater systems rather than allow CSG. Perth area now gets only 30% of the precipitation it did 50 years ago. It now relies on desal for water. So does Sydney and Melbourne. While this is due to growth in part with the last two there's no other source of water available to increase the supply. Arable soil and water are more important than profits for Coal miners. which is in real terms only for a short time. NEW Coal fired power stations are not suppliers of cheap energy. and are NOT flexible nor immune from failure on hot days.. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

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 normal.

 

[ATTACH]50056._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[pmccarthy]

And for Australia as a whole the BOM says:

 

2018 annual rainfall compared to historical rainfall observations. ... Nationally-averaged rainfall for 2018 was 412.8 mm, 11% below the 1961–1990 average of 465.2 mm, making it Australia's 39th-driest year in a record spanning 1900 to the present.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...catchments are being steadily degraded by scrub regrowth impairing runoff...

Are you fair dinkum, PM?

 

So those pesky trees and undergrowth are the problem? In my experience the clearing of vegetation has caused increased short-term runoff, leaving rainwater little time to soak in and replenish groundwater supplies.

 

The increased runoff has also caused catastrophic soil erosion across much of our continent.

 

The most reliable catchments are well-vegetated.

 

It's about time we gave a bit more attention to this topic.

 

Major parties accused of neglecting a 'broken' Landcare funding system

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Agreed OK. I was quoting the Hughes comments that were with the chart.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

No worries, PM. Thanks for the rainfall stats. Analysing statistics is never a finite science. I've done a lot of work on local rainfall figures, which go back to the 1880s. Several cycles are evident, but the long-term trend is a shift from winter to summer maximum. Those winter fronts that would cross the continent with the regularity of windscreen wipers have been shifting south - just like the global warming theory predicted. Big implications for local farmers, who must adapt to conditions common much further north.

 

 

[facthunter]

So the temperatures are faked also? Average rainfall over ALL of Australia is not much of a gauge. The north Leichardt River area had far more ( severe flooding) than normal which will eventually get to Lake Eyre but the surrounding area William Creek etc is in prolonged drought.. Doesn't make up for all of southern and central NSW... that is drier than I ever recall.. Nev

 

 

[gareth lacey]

You don't think we have been scammed? who was that ex vice president of usa who went around the world goofing off about climate change AL GOre who made millions from naïve people ,come on it is making some people very rich and who pays in the end Us the poor buggers who have no real say in it

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

You don't think we have been scammed? who was that ex vice president of usa who went around the world goofing off about climate change AL GOre who made millions from naïve people ,come on it is making some people very rich and who pays in the end Us the poor buggers who have no real say in it

Gareth where do you get this stuff from?

 

Who pays in the end? We're all paying for the damage done by over use of fossil fuels. The people who got very rich by selling fossil fuels have long since recognised that the way forward is renewables.

 

Why Solar and Wind Are Thriving Despite Cheap Fossil Fuels

 

 

[spacesailor]

"The people who got very rich by selling fossil fuels have long since recognised that the way forward is renewables."

 

Same people who made fortunes then, Are going to make more fortune's on the renewable revolution.

 

They have the resources now to bankroll their idea's.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kgwilson]

I don't think we have reached the tipping point or are that close to it yet but I believe it may happen in my lifetime. I don't think I am as optimistic as Octave but I am hopeful that the slow destruction of our ability to maintain our presence here can be arrested. Businesses and corporations are flat out moving towards environmental responsibility however it is the political will that is still not there even after the climate accords of Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris with the biggest polluter of all pulling away.

 

The difference today is that man made climate change (though the man made bit is left out) is becoming front and centre of discussions and debate that only a couple of years ago was ignored by large portions of the worlds population. Last election only the Greens were talking about it, now it is the most important issue identified by the majority of voters that are not die hard LNP supporters. That's why I am still hopeful.

 

 

[gareth lacey]

AL GORE politician turned save the planet guru made millions out of gullible people who listened to his rubbish 10 years or more ago, it was so dire then but here we are all these years later and the world still keeps turning,oceans have not flooded low lying areas, ozone layer still there ,the world still doesn't get it the biggest threat is PEOPLE to many of us mostly in third world countries who still dump their rubbish in the streets and sxxt and pxxs in them and we in the west according to the leftards are the problem, my kids,my grandchildren and their kids will still be using oil in the future

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The world expert on the Maldives is Niklas Nils-Axel Morner:

 

He wrote the official report on sea level (which was unsurprisingly

 

suppressed):

 

This is a brief summary he wrote:

 

The Maldives

 

The Maldives in the Indian Ocean consists of some 1200 islands

 

grouped in 20 large atolls. All of the islands are low in

 

elevation, not exceeding 2.5 m. The Maldives are often taken as

 

an example of a nation that is seriously threatened by a sea

 

level rise. They are said to be generally doomed to become

 

flooded in the near future.

 

We have undertaken a detailed sea level research project in the

 

Maldives. The group was composed of true sea level specialists.

 

I have visited the area six times personally. This includes

 

three one month-long expeditions. We were able to reconstruct

 

past sea level changes in great detail. In the last 4000 years,

 

we record seven sea level oscillations in the order of 0.6-1.0

 

m, a 20 cm fall in the 1970s and a quite stable sea level for

 

the last 30 years.

 

Therefore, we can free the Maldives from the condemnation to

 

become flooded. By year 2100, sea level may, at the most, return

 

to the pre-1970s‘ conditions which implies no problems

 

whatsoever. As coastal areas, they are, of course, vulnerable to

 

extreme storms and tsunamis.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

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.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

AL GORE politician turned save the planet guru made millions out of gullible people who listened to his rubbish 10 years or more ago, it was so dire then but here we are all these years later and the world still keeps turning...

Gareth if more people had listened to him then, we'd have acted sooner, reducing the scale of the coming disaster.

 

...oceans have not flooded low lying areas...

They have, and it's growing. Lots of sources show that low lying land is already being lost.

 

Sea level rise - Wikipedia

 

Counting the Costs: Climate Change and Coastal Flooding - Climate Council

 

...ozone layer still there...

Thousands of Australians with melanoma might disagree with you, Gareth. Humans quickly woke up to the damage we'd done to the ozone layer and did something about it, but it may take decades to recover.

 

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

 

...The world still doesn't get it the biggest threat is PEOPLE to many of us mostly in third world countries who still dump their rubbish in the streets and sxxt and pxxs in them and we in the west according to the leftards are the problem...

I share your disgust about the atrocious amounts of pollution coming from developing countries, but the rich west is still the worst polluter; we have exported most of our dirty industries to poor countries.

 

...my kids,my grandchildren and their kids will still be using oil in the future...

Gareth you sound like those people who blindly thought they could go on clubbing dodos forever. That finite resource was very quickly exhausted. Same with oil, except that long before this resource runs out, the effects of over using it will bugger us up. It's time we woke up to how much damage we're doing to our childrens' planet. Big oil companies have long ago decided to phase out their dependence of fossil fuels.

 

Why haven't you seen the light?