Leaderboard

Yes I was aware of this. My son has a computer games development company. Their flagship games is based on an idea my son had when he was 10. His company now based in NZ employs around 7 people. We are now the poor relatives https://share.google/7DKAr1mzPdrUUSidR

I watched a documentary about the Webb telescope last Night . It enables us to look way back in time, All that Info was made available to the entire world. One of the Most important Scientific achievements EVER. Nev

I am not a huge gamer myself although I use flight sim. Once a week I connect with my brother in law who lives interstate and we fly our world trip together. We have flown all the way around Australia and NZ. Over the last few weeks we have island hopped to New Guinea where we will attempt some of those insane remote mountain top strips. We usually plan a one hour hop so it is a project that will last for years. We try to use current weather conditions and correct flight planning procedures. There are many games that are a workout for the brain.

He's been kicked out of every job he's had for Improper behaviour. No good will come out of this venture. Nev

Did you know that Arnotts Tim Tam biscuits are named after a racehorse? Tim Tam was a champion American Thoroughbred racehorse foaled in 1955 and owned by Calumet Farm. Sired by Hall of Famer Tom Fool out of Two Lea, he was trained by Horace A. Jones and ridden by Bill Hartack. In 1958, Tim Tam won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes, becoming a strong favorite for the Triple Crown. However, his bid ended in the Belmont Stakes when he fractured a sesamoid bone during the race, finishing second and ending his racing career. Tim Tam died of a heart attack in 1982 and was buried at Calumet Farm. The Australian chocolate biscuit Tim Tam is named after the horse.

The risk posed by relatively slight increases in atmospheric temperature, is high. A wet-bulb temperature (WBT) of 35°C is the theoretical human survivability limit. This recently occured for six consecutive hours in July. Such conditions prevent evaporative cooling, rendering outdoor exposure potentially fatal without artificial cooling. Above 35 wbt, even lying down in the shade is fatal. All biological systems have a range, and beyond that range the chemistry of life ceases. A body designed to operate with a core temp of 37C, can briefly sacrifice optimal performance to inhibit pathogen replication at 40c (fever), but will start failing, including seizures, at core temp of 41 or 42 c. If we get prolonged wbt over 35deg, the only humans that survive, will be those in A/C or underground.

Twenty seven years old. At least he got the long yard and not the glue factory.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/scott-morrison-joins-indiabased-visa-firm-as-liberals-crackdown-on-immigration/news-story/e9b2c3a3a633ceb80aa427a3efc32414?utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=EditorialSB&utm_content=SocialBakers

Even the OIL companies KNOW it's happening.. Plenty of deniers do so because it's in the Financial interests BHP lost a lot of face Recently and were caught out breaking a promise.. Trump and Hanson are Notable deniers but Hanson is a Trump Worshipper (and Farage and Victor Auban) Trump has also Handicapped the EPA. Nev

A deeper analysis The paper, "Historical CO₂ levels in periods of global greening" by Frans J. Schrijver, was published in the journal Science of Climate Change. The author is an independent researcher, and the journal is not widely regarded as a leading journal in paleoclimate or atmospheric science. The paper contains no new measurements—it is a modelling exercise based on previously published datasets. (Science of climate change) That doesn't automatically make it wrong, but extraordinary claims require strong evidence. What is the paper actually arguing? The argument goes something like this: Earth today is greener than it used to be because higher CO₂ stimulates plant growth. There have supposedly been periods in the past with similar or greater greening. Therefore CO₂ must also have been much higher in those periods. Since Antarctic ice cores don't show these higher CO₂ levels, the ice cores must be wrong. Notice that this is not direct evidence that the ice cores are inaccurate. It is an indirect inference: "My model predicts higher CO₂, therefore the measurements must be wrong." That is a much weaker form of evidence. The biggest flaw: greenness does not uniquely determine CO₂ The paper effectively assumes more vegetation = higher atmospheric CO₂. But ecologists have known for decades that plant productivity depends on many variables: rainfall temperature sunlight soil nutrients nitrogen phosphorus disturbance (fire) land use length of growing season species composition CO₂ is only one factor. The paper acknowledges diminishing returns from CO₂ fertilisation, but still treats CO₂ as the dominant explanation for high global primary productivity. That assumption is not demonstrated. (Science of climate change) It ignores multiple independent CO₂ records This is probably the strongest criticism. Ice cores are not the only evidence for past CO₂. Scientists also use: marine sediments boron isotopes stomatal density in fossil leaves paleosols alkenones isotopic carbon chemistry These completely independent methods broadly agree with the Antarctic ice-core record over overlapping time periods. A recent Nature study extending atmospheric CO₂ measurements back to about 3 million years found broadly stable CO₂ levels consistent with existing paleoclimate understanding rather than the large fluctuations proposed by ice-core critics. (Nature) If the ice cores were fundamentally wrong, we'd expect these independent methods to disagree. They generally don't. The paper revives criticisms that have already been examined The paper relies heavily on arguments from: Zbigniew Jaworowski Ernst-Georg Beck Hermann Harde These authors have argued for years that: CO₂ diffuses through ice meltwater alters trapped air ice cores smooth or destroy past CO₂ peaks These criticisms have been investigated extensively. Scientists agree on one point: Ice cores smooth rapid year-to-year fluctuations. They do not preserve every individual year's atmospheric CO₂ exactly. That is well understood. But smoothing is very different from inventing a completely false average. The gas age distribution in Antarctic ice is modelled and measured. Researchers know approximately how much smoothing occurs. It does not produce errors of 50–100 ppm. The paper never explains modern observations Suppose the paper were correct. Then we'd have to explain why: modern atmospheric CO₂ matches fossil-fuel emissions carbon isotopes identify fossil fuels as the source atmospheric oxygen is declining exactly as expected from combustion oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb emitted CO₂ satellites observe increasing infrared absorption by CO₂ Those independent observations all point to the same conclusion. The paper does not address these lines of evidence. The logic is backwards Scientific reasoning normally works like this: Measure CO₂. Explain vegetation. This paper instead says: Estimate vegetation. Infer CO₂. Reject measurements if they disagree. That's considerably weaker. The references are selective The bibliography relies heavily on a relatively small group of authors who frequently challenge mainstream climate science, while giving much less weight to the much larger body of paleoclimate research that supports the reliability of Antarctic ice cores. (ResearchGate) That doesn't automatically invalidate the paper, but it should make readers cautious. Does this disprove ice cores? No. To overturn decades of paleoclimate research, the paper would need to show that: Antarctic ice physically cannot preserve atmospheric CO₂, independent proxy records also fail, laboratory measurements of gas trapping are incorrect, and modern understanding of firn diffusion is wrong. It does not do that. Instead, it presents a model whose assumptions lead to a conflict with ice-core measurements and concludes the measurements must therefore be wrong. This paper doesn't present new measurements showing the ice cores are wrong. It starts with a model relating plant productivity to CO₂, assumes that similar greening in the past required much higher CO₂, and then concludes the ice cores must be inaccurate because they don't match the model. That's an indirect argument, not direct evidence. It also doesn't address the fact that multiple independent CO₂ proxies and modern atmospheric observations broadly agree with the ice-core record. Scientific evidence is strongest when independent methods converge on the same answer, and in this case they largely do.

Within science there are often a range of studies. Over time peer review and further studies make things clearer. As a layperson I go with the majority of science sources. Obviously I can't read and analyse this paper myself and I suspect you can't either. I did look at what other scientists say about this study Article: Historical CO₂ levels in periods of global greening Author: Frans J. Schrijver (2025) Main question The paper asks whether today's increase in plant growth ("global greening") caused by rising atmospheric CO₂ implies that past periods with equally lush or greener vegetation must also have had higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations than those shown in Antarctic ice-core records. SScience of climate change How the author approaches the problem The paper: Starts from evidence that global terrestrial plant productivity (Gross Primary Production, or GPP) has increased by roughly 30% since 1900, largely attributed to CO₂ fertilization. SScience of climate change+1 Uses Mitscherlich's Law (a mathematical model describing diminishing returns in plant growth with increasing nutrients) to estimate how GPP changes with atmospheric CO₂. Applies the model to historical periods believed to have been at least as green as today, including: the Holocene Climate Optimum the Eemian Interglacial the Miocene Compares the CO₂ concentrations that the model suggests would be required with CO₂ estimates from Antarctic ice cores. SScience of climate change Main conclusions The author concludes that: If modern greening is primarily driven by higher CO₂, and if earlier warm periods were similarly or more vegetated, then atmospheric CO₂ during those periods may have been substantially higher than the <300 ppm values indicated by Antarctic ice-core reconstructions. The paper therefore argues that the conventional interpretation of long-term ice-core CO₂ records may underestimate past atmospheric CO₂ during certain warm intervals. SScience of climate change Significance The paper suggests that if its analysis is correct: historical CO₂ variability may have been larger than generally accepted; climate sensitivity to CO₂ could differ from current mainstream estimates; additional evidence beyond Antarctic ice cores should be considered when reconstructing ancient atmospheric CO₂. SScience of climate change Important context This paper presents an argument that differs from the prevailing scientific consensus. The mainstream view, reflected in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and much of the paleoclimate literature, is that: Antarctic ice cores provide reliable atmospheric CO₂ records over the past ~800,000 years. Multiple independent proxies (marine sediments, fossil plant stomata, boron isotopes, and others) broadly support the conclusion that pre-industrial CO₂ remained around 180–300 ppm during that interval, despite uncertainties for much older periods. GGMD+2 The Schrijver paper challenges this interpretation by reasoning from vegetation productivity rather than by presenting new direct CO₂ measurements. As a result, its conclusions are not widely accepted and should be viewed as a hypothesis that would require corroboration from multiple independent lines of evidence.

I've never really understood why gaming is so popular. Maybe that's why I never advanced beyond Space Invaders and Solitaire.

Drilling ice cores. The deeper they drill the further back in time they go. The gas in these ice cores is a sample of the atmosphere at the time. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-much-co2-was-atmosphere-hundreds-years-ago

Other way around. 40C = 32Re. It's cooler!

Gaming is the biggest revenue earner in the entertainment industry with 3.3 billion active players worldwide. Revenue from gaming is higher than the film and music industries combined.

The highest atmospheric \(CO_{2}\) level during human habitation was recorded in May 2026, when peak daily readings at the Mauna Loa Observatory reached 433.95 parts per million (ppm). For historical context, \(CO_{2}\) levels were stable at around 280 ppm for 6,000 years of civilization and never exceeded 300 ppm during the last million years. [1, 2, 3]

Right there is the problem. As soon as you start measuring temperatures in Reaumurs, the climate goes to hell in a handbasket.

This is a bit of trivia that you might find interesting.

It is difficult to ascertain how old this picture is. Whilst it is true that traditionally some old turbine blades have gone to landfill, this is changing. Quote "Wind turbine blades can be recycled, but it is challenging and not yet universal. While 85-90% of a turbine (steel, copper, gearboxes) is easily recycled, blades are made of durable fibreglass/carbon fibre composites, often resulting in landfill disposal. However, new recycling technologies and repurposing methods are rapidly developing, with goals for 100% recyclability by 2030. [1, 2, 3] Current Recycling and Disposal Methods Cement Co-processing: The most common method, where shredded blades replace raw materials and fuel in cement production. Mechanical Crushing: Blades are ground into materials for filler, panels, or industrial products. Thermal/Chemical Recycling: Technologies like pyrolysis or chemical baths are emerging to separate resins from fibers for reuse, though many are still in pilot stages. Repurposing: Blades are increasingly used in civil engineering, such as bridges, playground equipment, and noise barriers. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Future Outlook and Innovation Recyclable Blades: Manufacturers are developing new resin technologies—such as Siemens Gamesa's RecyclableBlade and NREL's Pecan FRC—that allow materials to be easily separated and reused at end-of-life. Industry Commitment: Major firms aim for zero-waste turbines by 2030–2040. [1, 2, 3, 4] While landfilling is still a common, cost-effective method for older blades, the increasing number of decommissioned turbines is driving the economic viability of recycling. [1] What happens to wind farms in Victoria when turbines ... - ABC News In short: The Clean Energy Council says there are options for old wind farms as the originals approach the end of their life expec... Australian Broadcasting Corporation Recycling Wind Turbines, Solar Panels and Batteries: Fact Sheet Can wind turbine blades be recycled? Wind turbine blades are made of materials such as fibreglass or carbon fibre, as they are des... Clean Energy Council" End Quote Any newer technology creates problems that at first are challenging. We do tend to give a free pass to existing technologies. Consider the size of the pile of coal that would be required to generate the electricity that those blades generate in their operational life. Coal has end-of-life problems, also. Quote "Coal ash is managed through a combination of recycling and landfilling/storage. [1, 2, 3] 1. Recycling and Beneficial Use A significant portion of fly ash is reused, rather than disposed of. [1, 2, 3] Concrete Production: Fly ash is a high-performance substitute for Portland cement. It improves concrete durability and reduces the carbon footprint of construction. Structural Fill and Roads: Bottom ash and fly ash are used for road base, structural fill, embankments, and stabilizing soft soils. Brick and Block Making: Ash is used to make bricks, construction blocks, and lightweight aggregate. Other Uses: Boiler slag is used for roofing granules and blasting grit. [1, 2, 3, 4] 2. Disposal Methods Unused ash must be disposed of, often using "wet" or "dry" methods. [1] Ash Ponds/Dams (Wet Method): The ash is mixed with water to create a slurry and pumped into large holding ponds. This was traditionally the cheapest method, but it poses high risks for leaching toxic heavy metals into groundwater, particularly if the ponds are unlined. Dry Landfills (Dry Method): The ash is stored dry in landfills, which is considered safer as it reduces the potential for leaching, provided the landfill is properly lined. Mine Backfilling: Dry ash is sometimes placed back into old, abandoned coal mines. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Environmental and Safety Issues Leaching: Contaminants in ash ponds can seep into groundwater and surface water, creating toxic cocktail, according to reports in Australia. Dust Management: Dry ash, if not covered, can be blown from storage sites into surrounding communities, posing respiratory health risks. Spills: Large-scale failures of ash dams, such as the 2008 Kingston disaster in the US, have caused massive environmental damage. [1, 2, 3, 4] As coal-fired power plants age and close, the rehabilitation of these ash dams is a significant environmental concern. [1, 2]"

Geelong leads nation with first hydrogen fuel station Hydrogen from a 2.5-megawatt electrolizer powered by wind and solar. Just a small trial at the moment, but several buses and trucks are using hydrogen fuel cell tech on the streets of Geelong

Whilst it is true that green hydrogen is still in its infancy, it does not mean that it is a dead technology. Notable (and relatively successful) green hydrogen projects 🇸🇦 NEOM Green Hydrogen Project One of the world’s largest projects (over 2 GW electrolyser capacity) Backed by Air Products and ACWA Power ~90% constructed as of 2025–2026 Designed to produce hydrogen → ammonia for export 👉 Why it matters: This is one of the first projects moving from hype to bankable, near-operational scale. 🇨🇳 Chifeng Net Zero Hydrogen-Ammonia Project Developed by Envision Energy Produces ~320,000 tonnes of green ammonia per year (already operating) Powered by wind + solar 👉 Why it matters: This is one of the few large projects already running, not just planned. 🇩🇪 Bad Lauchstädt Energy Park ~30 MW electrolyser using wind power Supplies hydrogen to chemical industry (e.g. TotalEnergies) 👉 Why it matters: A good example of industrial integration, not just production. 🇮🇳 Kandla Green Hydrogen Plant Small (1–10 MW), but operational and locally used Powers buses and port infrastructure 👉 Why it matters: Shows hydrogen working in real transport and port use, not just theory. 🇨🇳 Large-scale wind-to-hydrogen hubs (Inner Mongolia) Multi-billion-dollar developments combining renewables + hydrogen China already exceeded ~220,000 tonnes/year capacity and scaling fast 👉 Why it matters: China is arguably the only place doing this at real industrial scale today. 🏭 Companies that are actually delivering projects These aren’t single projects but are consistently active (a good proxy for “success”): Fortescue Future Industries Adani Enterprises TotalEnergies Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners They’re leading global capacity build-out and investing across dozens of projects . ⚖️ Reality check (important) Even the “successful” ones share a few traits: 💸 Still expensive (often $3.5–6/kg vs cheaper fossil hydrogen) 🏗️ Heavy subsidies or government backing 📈 Success = scaling + proving viability, not big profits yet ⚡ Economics depend heavily on very cheap renewable electricity Globally, there are 500+ projects and $110B+ committed, but only a fraction are fully operational .