The climate change debate continues.

[kgwilson]

I believe that SA is now 100% renewable self sufficient and is a net exporter of renewable energy to NSW.

[spacesailor]

Do those ' reflective ' panels ,

have any effective atmospheric cooling.  

I know they get fairly hot .

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

They are not the "reflective" ones and they TAKE energy  from the sun and PRODUCE energy FROM that source which would be coming here anyhow.  Nev

[octave]

Good to see powerful people working to improve things. 

 

 

 

[onetrack]

It seems like Andrew is a bit confused about the difference between Global Warming, and simply what appears to be a hot day in Dubbo?? ("You can feel the heat!" - at 3:30 in the video.)

[Jerry_Atrick]

Hah! I loved the dig at Clive Palmer from around 4:25...

[old man emu]

What tha????

 

What is the link between a wind farm and the NBN (at 2:50)? The only possible link I can see is that the computer control of the operation of the generators would be enhanced by the improvement in the speed of data transfer by optical cable over copper wire. 

 

As for the heat in Dubbo, and the Inland for that matter, it is normal for air temperature to range between the mid-30s and low 40s over summer. The long time climate is one of wet and dry on a cycle of roughly eleven years, which corresponds to the Sun's solar magnetic activity. That solar cycle is called the  Schwabe cycle. A 2021 paper published in the journal "Nature Geoscience" reported a continuous, annually resolved atmospheric 14C concentration (fractionation-corrected ratio of 14CO2 to CO2) record reconstructed from absolutely dated tree rings covering nearly all of the last millennium (AD 969–1933). The high-resolution and precision 14C record reveals the presence of the Schwabe cycle over the entire time range. This would suggest that even the Sun is affecting the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

 

The highest temperature ever recorded in Australia is 50.7 °C (123.3 °F), which was recorded on 2 January 1960 at Oodnadatta, South Australia, and 13 January 2022 at Onslow, Western Australia. That's 42 years between those two events. Onslow 21°38′S 115°07′E is just off the Tropic of Capricorn 23 degrees 27 minutes south. Onslow has a hot desert climate, having low year round rainfall with most of it falling in the first half of the year. Only a few months, May to September, have average highs below 27 °C. Oodnadatta is as equally close to the Tropic of Capricorn with a corresponding climate. 

[kgwilson]

Extremes of temperature, wet and dry have always been there from the start of our recorded history mostly less than 100 years ago. It is the long term trends and by that I mean in the last century that are the most worrying aspect and the steadily increasing temperature medians are triggering extremes of heat, cold and wild weather rarely seen before, again in our very short term recorded history

[old man emu]

While we can lament the effects of human activity on adding to the temperature rise of the atmosphere and oceans, I wonder what percentage it forms of that rise. I wonder if volcanic activity which moves heat from the Earth's core to the surface, and variation in solar radiation do not contribute equally or more to the change.

[nomadpete]

59 minutes ago, old man emu said:

While we can lament the effects of human activity on adding to the temperature rise of the atmosphere and oceans, I wonder what percentage it forms of that rise. I wonder if volcanic activity which moves heat from the Earth's core to the surface, and variation in solar radiation do not contribute equally or more to the change.

There is no debate about the range of natural events that have historically influenced long term climate changes.

 

As you hint, OME. We really cannot accurately quantify the true amount of added co2 that human activity is causing, except to say that we humans ARE adding to it.

Well, we could prove it by totally ceasing our co2 producing activities, and monitoring atmospheric reaction over say the next century. That would be the only undisputable scientific proof of anthropogenic causes of global warming. I doubt this would win many votes though.

 

My belief is that there is enough proof to cause alarm. No matter to me that the world MIGHT be naturally changing climate. We do have proof that with the exception of major meteorites, past natural climate changes have taken millennia to occur.

 

But now we find that we are in a period of unusually rapid warming, and we know we are adding to it. Wouldn't it be prudent to make what changes we can to stop adding to halt this climate change?

 

Besides, EV's are cool.

 

And it's about time we stopped using antiquated steam engines and reciprocating machines to make our electricity and to move people around?

 

 

 

Edited January 19 by nomadpete
MANUALLY spellcheck - only had to fix one word!

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

We really cannot quantify the true amount of added co2 that human activity is causing,

Actually, there is a way to get an indication, albeit a bit rough how much Australians on this continent add.

 

Next time a High Pressure system develops in the Bight, take air samples from about 100 kms out from shore. Then, after the system passes into the Tasman, take further samples 100 kms off the east coast. Analyse the samples and note any differences. You have to use a High pressure system because you don't want rain washing gasses from the air that provided the first sample.

[octave]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

I wonder if volcanic activity which moves heat from the Earth's core to the surface, and variation in solar radiation do not contribute equally or more to the change.

 

The thing is that your or my "wonderings" are merely thought bubbles.  I tackle this issue the way I tackle health issues.  I ask my doctor who hopefully is knowledgeable and is keeping up to date with the latest studies. I also want to corroborate their information.  These days we have the means to do this.  Whenever I am prescribed a new drug I try to read the studies on it.  

 

Does High LDL cholesterol make heart disease more likely?  What I wonder is immaterial because I can't do my own epidemiological studies.   Scientific understanding any any issue can change as more is learned.  Scientists are not bias-free, that would be impossible. This is why studies are peer-reviewed.  

 

Science is never totally right and that's why it changes.  I do think science is the "least worst" or best way of discerning questions such as how much volcanoes contribute or not and what effect solar cycles have on the average temperature.  

 

Wondering is fine if it leads to something more rigorous.

 

 

[facthunter]

You can measure CO2 in the air anywhere you choose to and polar Ice cores give you information over long periods. Where is Clacial activity increasing? Surface ocean temps produce more intense cyclones at greater frequencies.  Biggest "whatever" in 100years means little. IT's a TREND more than anything else, that you look for. Permafrost melt and Ice cover in the Himalayas are critical indicators. Sea ice reflects heat. When it becomes an ocean surface much MORE heat is absorbed .  The acidity of the Ocean can reduce Plankton and ice melts change currents.    Nev

Edited January 19 by facthunter
more content.

[nomadpete]

My point regarding The Climate Change Debate, is that the two sides of the debate both try too hard.

 

The anti anthropogenic side generally admit there are some indicators, but also say (rightly so) that there is no unequivocal proof. This encourages '

their 'converted'.

 

Often the pro anthropogenic folk over emphasise individual events which really do not prove long term climate change. This weakens their argument but encourages their 'converts'.

 

My preference is for applying conventional Risk Management strategy:-

 

1. The risk of anthropogenic  increasing greenhouse gasses causing accelerated climate change has been identified.

 

2. The probability has been identified.

 

3. The consequences have been identified.

 

4. Risk mitigation strategies have been identified.

 

All the above has already been  figured out with regard to a rapidly changing climate.

 

However,

5. Implementation of strategies has stalled.

 

In all other cases of risk management, if a factory or business fails to mitigate risks, they are heavily penalised. Yet in this case the whole world is pizzing in each other's pockets basically saying 'You go first' or 'I will if you will'.

 

Like a bunch of school kids squabbling.

[facthunter]

Mainly People making huge profits from the status quo who muddy the waters like the cigarette lobby did at every opportunity so they can continue doing things that  make THEM money. Lots of it. GREED.   Nev

[octave]

I think it is important not just to dwell on the negative. This is something that does annoy me about some campaigners.    The problem is that the  "doubters" have gone from saying it is not happening or that it is some kind of plot to bring down society, to  "well it might be happening but we are blameless" to it is happening and we are partially to blame but you can't change it, let's just leave it to the kids to sort out.

 

The predictions are that whatever we do we will have to deal with a warmer planet.   Mitigation is a no-brainer. Even those few who don't accept the anthropomorphic links but accept the increasing average temperature should be on board with making changes that will help us cope.

 

It is wise not to just "doom scroll" on the internet"   I try to post positive links about progress, however slow being made. This is why I posted the Andrew Forrest link.  We are past the stage when it is only hippies trying to get renewable projects up.  

 

The biggest risk is giving up.

 

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

 

[facthunter]

I've planted enough trees already. Now they are so big they are a risk and a nuisance.  Nev

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, octave said:

The thing is that your or my "wonderings" are merely thought bubbles.

No. I post them as a nucleus for discussion. This is what I offered up: I wonder if volcanic activity which moves heat from the Earth's core to the surface, and variation in solar radiation do not contribute equally or more to the change.

 

That left the gate wide open for people to say, "Gee! That's a possibility", or "Nah. Never gunna happen." I would expect you, Octave, to involve yourself in discussing the relative contributions of Earth, Sun and Man using your interpretations of the material you have read and contemplated. I would expect you to adjust the levels of contribution my wondering proposed. I'm happy to trust you enough when you speak from what you have read that what you say is not unfounded twaddle. At this level of discussion, I don't need to hear it from the mouth of Mohammed, just one of his imams.

[octave]

The thing is that my opinion is just that an opinion.  My understanding from things I have read is that volcanoes whilst putting co2 and other gasses into the atmosphere also has the effect of reflecting back some of the energy.

 

The thing is though for me to pontificate about numbers etc. I would want to be on firm ground I would go to reputable sources of information. You should not take my opinion as fact when there are better sources out there.

 

If I were to put my opinion out there I would probably read this article and others.   

 

https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate#:~:text=Injected ash falls rapidly from,potential to promote global warming.

 

The above sight is from the United States Geological Survey organization. I guess a lot depends on how reliable we believe this source to be.

 

Perhaps this source https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/42/what-do-volcanoes-have-to-do-with-climate-change/ 

 

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/effect-of-volcanic-eruptions-significantly-underestimated-in-climate-projections

 

So my much less than expert  "opinion" is that the C02 contributed by volcanos is many many times less than humans have produced. It also looks like volcanos have a cooling effect at least until the particulates settle.

[onetrack]

My take on the climate is this (and I've stated this before) - the climate is millions of years old. It's gone through hot periods, cold periods, flood extremes, and disasters that apparently wiped out vast amounts of entire species.

Even in our measurable "civilisation" human time span, the researchers have identified "mega-droughts" in approximately 1000 year cycles. Those mega-droughts were obviously very hot and very dry periods - but the world went on, and many civilisations apparently survived the mega-droughts.

No doubt some civilisations didn't survive the mega-droughts, and that would have been because of their primitive knowledge and lack of technological advancement.

 

But here we are today, using a baseline measurement period of approximately a little over a hundred years - with many of the climate measurements up until the 1940's and 1950's being pretty dodgy, with a total lack of quality control, a lack of error finding, and even dubious instrumentation and measuring methods.

 

So then, the GW experts then produce a graph showing the major increase in global temperatures - over the last 100 years. In terms of climate and climate cycles, 100 years is merely the blink of an eye.

My argument then is, why aren't the researchers doing more to identify climate cycles and long term variations in temperature, instead of concentrating virtually 100% on measuring how much our climate has warmed, over such a short period in "climate time"?

[old man emu]

23 minutes ago, octave said:

The thing is that my opinion is just that an opinion.

But you have indicated that you have formed your opinion from reading and contemplating the words of others. Your opinion is based on something not of yourself. For the purpose of debate/discussion on these lowly pages, your considered opinion passes muster. 

[facthunter]

Most of the carbon we have been using/Burning/ making plastic from, was not in the environment to any degree until about 200 years ago and the changes since then are very measurable. The rate we use crude oil  and coal is gobsmashing as well as reducing trees, Sea  weed and increasing desertification and ocean acidity and plastics and chemical contamination as well( Glyphosate.. It's clear we as humans CAN affect our word and HAVE already done so and the recent 150 years of population increase has been exponential   How can that be ignored? The Greenhouse effect is known and not disputed by anyone who has researched it. In the 50', I don't believe we took if seriously.. The "Carbon cycle in Nature" was considered in balance, and the end of the Matter.   Oil and coal were considered finite but not a problem for 100's of years.  Nev

Edited January 20 by facthunter

[octave]

21 minutes ago, onetrack said:

My argument then is, why aren't the researchers doing more to identify climate cycles and long term variations in temperature, instead of concentrating virtually 100% on measuring how much our climate has warmed, over such a short period in "climate time"?

 Are you sure they are not?  You would have to look at a lot of research to know that.

 

The thing is that laypersons such as us would have a hard time reading and understanding or even being aware of the body of work on a given subject.

 

Of course, it is not possible to compare satellite measurements with measurements from before satellites existed. But this does not mean the longer-term history is ignored.

 

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/past-climate

 

We may have to agree to disagree.  I am not a scientist or a medical doctor> I can only inform my opinions and choices by attempting to assess all of the information out there and evaluate its quality and rigor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Ocean temps drive seasonal weather. There is a strong school of thought that ocean temps derive from undersea volcanic activity. That makes sense to me, as nothing else I know of could change ocean temps on such a time scale. And we know that undersea volcanism is huge and variable. But if I say so I am rubbished and accused of being a denier. I can only conclude that climate alarmism is a religion, not subject to scientific analysis.

[octave]

22 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I can only conclude that climate alarmism is a religion, not subject to scientific analysis.

PM you know me I am happy to look at new information.  As a non-scientist, I can only go to trusted sources. I am assuming that you believe CSIRO to be guilty or worse poor science or worse being deliberately misleading.

 

There is little point in going over this yet again. I do not want to use the word denier but the people who do not accept conventional science are in the minority and becoming more irrelevant each day.  The information I rely on to form my opinion does not come from fringe sources but in fact quite conservative sources.  I have been re-reading Shell's internal climate report from 1988 and identified the problem. Shell acknowledged it back then and they still acknowledge it now although they seem to be dragging the chain just like tobacco companies have done.  

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3#document/p4/a415539

 

This is quite a long document but some salient points have been highlighted if you scroll through.

 

Anyway, I am sticking with the majority of the research and am more than happy to change my mind if evidence to the contrary comes along and convinces the majority of scientists in this field. This is no different from how I decided on medical treatment. I think this seems reasonable,

Edited January 20 by octave