green power solar is

[Bruce]

wow pmc, you join some good mates of mine in being a global warming skeptic.

 

But I bet you won't agree to my deal. If the climate was not warming at all then you would win big on my deal.

 

Bet you don't want to even hear it.

 

 

[octave]

CO2 makes plants grow,

I suppose what you are getting at is that extra tree growth will counteract rising levels of co2. My question to you is this. Since co2 has been rising rapidly, is this being matched by increased plant or forests growing bigger (some facts and figures might be helpful)

 

source NASA

 

[ATTACH]49803._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Why is this mechanism failing to arrest the rise in carbon? When will it?

 

Planting trees can't counter carbon emissions: Bob McDonald | CBC News

 

When you say a scam perhaps you could add weight to your argument by letting us in on who is involved in this scam and where and when did it begin. just pronouncing something a scam is frankly ridiculous without providing any evidence or even any background.

 

[pmccarthy]

Global warming and cooling are driven by the sun, which regulates incoming cosmic rays, which in turn govern cloudiness and thus global temperature.

 

Global temperature oscillations lag 25 years behind the sun’s variations. This 25-year lag is due to ocean thermal inertia.

 

The idea that CO2 is the main climate driver makes no sense given that it is 400 parts per million now but was 1000 to 4,000 ppm for most of the last 600 million years when plants and animals were thriving.

 

Ice cores show that CO2 levels lag global temperature, They are a result of warming and cooling, they don’t cause it. From AD500 to 1200, CO2 levels were anti-correlated with Earth’s temperature.

 

Of course, people on both sides of the global warming argument produce figures to support their views. Globally billions of dollars are being spent on research that pre-supposes CO2 is the driver. There is a social and political history to how this came about. It has created a positive-feedback loop for the warmists.

 

I am a retired geoscientist but am no climate expert. I have formed my own views after extensive reading.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

For anyone who is interested, between 2016 and 2018 there were about 1,500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published that support a skeptical position on climate alarm. Below are the three links to the list of scientific papers for 2018.

 

Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)

 

Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)

 

Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)

 

 

[Bruce]

Gosh pmc, you are not stupid or uneducated, and you are in some good company including guys like Rutan.

 

But, looking at the first paper in your link, the data there is completely different from what I've been seeing.

 

Take the Argo sea temperature system for example. 4,000 automatic sinking/rising senders reporting via satellite every day.

 

You just have to google up " latest ocean temperature news" to get the Argo results and they are completely different from the paper in your link.

 

Now add to that other evidence of coral bleaching and glacier retreat , both of which I have seen with my own eyes, and the case for the standard argument is even stronger in my mind.

 

But like I said, why not have a bet ?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I agree with taking all action we reasonably can, or taking a bet as you say. Pollution by plastics etc is horrendous. But the anti-coal lobby wants to condemn developing countries including India to a permanently diminished standard of living. It will not happen, and our politicians mostly understand that, but it is a tremendous distraction from the really important issues.

 

Deforestation to plant “renewable” energy sources and the burning of wood for power are outcomes of the twisted warmist philosophy.

 

Regarding the data, it is all subject to interpretation and I have not been able to find any data that might not have been manipulated. For example the satellite temperature measurements are not temperature measurements at all, they are the output of models which take multi- spectral data and transform it to infer temperature. If the models are wrong, the output data is wrong.

 

 

[Bruce]

I would just love it for you to be right, pmc.

 

On the opposite side of the argument is that professor who says the human race has ten years to go, because release of methane from melting premafrost has such a high feedback that it will do us all in. I sure hope he is wrong.

 

On measurements, I would place more credence in the latest stuff compared to what we had before.

 

As I write, the forecast for Adelaide is to equal or exceed the all-time record high temperature. I'm hoping to fly the glider .

 

 

[nomadpete]

PM, I looked through the links you posted. Interesting. But i didn't cross check the it referenced data.

 

The general gist seems to be that global temperature rise is a result of increased solar activity outside the infra red spectrum (normal heat).

 

So I to the historic records of sunspot cycles - dating from the mid 1700's to now. Aurora is a result of sun's extra emissions and people have been losing a lot of sleep to record Aurora events. records are unlikely to be flavoured by politics, which all climate change debate seems to suffer. The sun's spurious emissions have followed the standard 11year cycles without much change in frequency. If the sun was having more corona emissions, for instance, it would have shown up in these records.

 

This does not seem to support the view that the observed changes in climate are a direct result of sun radiation.

 

Refer to the linked graph.

 

Yearly mean and monthly smoothed sunspot number | SILSO

 

 

[nomadpete]

Apart from the constant argument about anthropogenic climate change (which isn't about to kill me anytime soon), I'm more concerned that that 'debate' is drawing attention away from anthropogenic rape of spaceship Earth.

 

Mining and Burning coal causes lots of pollution - we've all forgotten about sulphur dioxide and acid rain killing fish in lakes.

 

Plastic waste and overfishing is destroying our oceans - risking destroying a major food source for the world.

 

Overpopulation is being ignored.

 

The myth of eternal economic growth leads to short lifespan products - public expect to buy new everything every couple of years - causing massive waste of resources.

 

Our governments spend on needless things just to line the pockets of lobbyists - eg, submarines and American fighter jets won't change our life but hospitals, schools and universities would.

 

"Just in time" economy exposes all of us to potential disaster - with only weeks of food and fuel reserves in our country, it wouldn't take much to go wrong for thousands to starve.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Here's one for you to attack and debunk.I was sent this by emai......our AUSTRALIAN politicians that are going to shut down our 6

 

remaining plants and save the planet !!

Red I must congatulate you for having an open mind about this issue; often throughout history it has been the lone voice of dissent that has been proved right.

 

However, in this case there are three points to consider:

 

1. Who sent the email you refer to? Was it a reliable, authoritative source, or did it originate from the well-funded climate skeptics camp? There is a whole industry (with fewer morals than arms dealers) which is paid lots of money to undermine the science that threatens lucrative but harmful industries. How the merchants of doubt undermine science | Drink Tank

 

2. Should Oz burn less coal when so many larger nations are still building coal burners?

 

Do you vote? How does your lone voice make a difference amoung the millions of voters?

 

3. The precautionary principle should be our guide. Australia has adjusted to the loss of many industries (timber, whaling, car building, shipping...). The business world is already gearing up for the industries that will replace coal; Australia has the potential to be a massive exporter of renewable energy.

 

By phasing out a dirty old industry, we are making a contribution to saving our civilisation.

 

The world knows that Australia is a major exporter of coal- a major cause of global climate change. They know that we are, per capita, one of the biggest consumers of fossil fuel. We have to be seen to be doing our bit, or the world will punish us and expect us to take millions of environmental refugees.

 

They perceive this country to be rich, empty and able to absorb massive numbers of immigrants... there are millions of people already on the move because of climate change, but that's only a trickle before the flood.

 

 

[hihosland]

Either human produced CO2 is either causing climate change or it is not

 

We can either do something about it or not.

 

Four possible outcomes

 

• Human produced CO2 causes climate change and noting is done will result in a dramatically and adversely changed earth with dire consequences for civilisation.
   
  
• Human produced CO2 causes climate change and all resources are mustered to address CO2 production allowing the world as we know it to continue
   
  
• Human produced CO2 is not causing climate change and nothing is done the world as we know it will continue.
   
  
• Human produced CO2 is not causing climate change and all resources are mustered to reduce CO2 production civilisation will continue OK
   
  

 

It seems to me that the risks of doing nothing are so dire that we cannot morally or ethically gamble our descendents future by not throwing all resources we can muster at reducing CO2 production.

 

Alternatively the downside of over reacting are so trivial that there is no way that I can see that we can justify not reducing CO2 production.

 

 

[octave]

the global warming scam is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on humans.

You have not yet explained your scam hypothesis. Let's just take one of the many respected science organisations NASA. Using the word scam suggests that you believe NASA is not so much guilty of poor science but actively producing false data and wrong conclusions. How does this work, who is the mastermind that distributes the data to other organisations making sure it all broadly agrees? To what end are they doing this?

 

he idea that CO2 is the main climate driver makes no sense given that it is 400 parts permillion now but was 1000 to 4,000 ppm for most of the last 600 million years when plants and animals were thriving.

I don't really understand the connection between the first part and the second. I can't see how the proposition that co2 is the main driver is disproved by the second part (it used to be higher and there were plants and animals). I have no doubt that life can thrive in all sorts of scenarios (think extremophiles). Whilst it is true that the world has been warmer in the past I believe there are 2 big problems. The first one is the possibility of setting events in motion that will vastly increase the warming such as the melting of vast quantities of permafrost that contains methane a more powerful greenhouse gas. Second is the problem of the rate of change. Sure we can gradually move our food production (farms etc) if the change is gradual enough.

 

Ice cores show that CO2 levels lag global temperature, They are a result of warming and cooling, they don’t cause it. From AD500 to 1200, CO2 levels were anti-correlated with Earth’s temperature.

 

 

 

Firstly I personally am not anti-coal per se. If we can build coal-fired plants that do not emit large quantities of Co2, sulfur, lead arsenic etc. and if this can be done at a reasonable price then fine as long as we recognize that coal although still quite available will run out eventually. In my view, coal is an important substance not so much for its ability to produce heat from burning but because of all of its other uses. Future generations will wonder why we took this valuable substance that can be made into many chemicals drugs etc and just burnt it.

 

Whilst China might be building many coal fired power stations it is also investing huge amounts in renewables. $126 Biilion in 2017 For every $1 the US put into adding renewable energy last year, China put in $3

 

I don't believe they are doing it to because they are hippy greenies but as the climate implications, they know that they can't continue down the road of ever increasing emissions. Think about air quality in Beijing Air Quality at the 2008 Beijing Olympics | US-China Institute

 

QUOTE="pmccarthy, post: 46121, member: 130"]For example the satellite temperature measurements are not temperature measurements at all, they are the output of models which take multi- spectral data and transform it to infer temperature.

 

Yes, that is true so I guess you are saying that the inferences are incorrect but this is not the only way we measure global temperature. The satellite inferences are supported by data gathered in other ways. Are surface temperature records reliable?

 

Anyway, it makes little difference what you or I think. It could be that history may prove me to be on the wrong side however all it means is we are moving to the next phase of technology a little sooner Many of these new technologies are becoming the rational choice even when you disregard climate change.

 

 

[red750]

I'm not advocating that we do nothing, But closing down the few coal powered generators before we have our renewable sources in place is like selling the house before we have somewhere else to go. Get the renewables in place first.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I'm not advocating that we do nothing, But closing down the few coal powered generators before we have our renewable sources in place is like selling the house before we have somewhere else to go. Get the renewables in place first.

I totally agree, Red, but we're not closing them down before alternatives are ready.

 

I've been passionately promoting renewables for forty years. It hasn't been an easy fight and I've got plenty of scars to show. For all of that time, the fossil fuel industry has been actively working against the uptake of renewables, (and they've proven that Australia has some of the best politicians money can buy...).

 

Their favourite line has been that renewables are unproven, too expensive and unreliable.

 

Their slogan has been "today we burn, tomorrow we capture".

 

Well tomorrow has arrived. Renewables are now cheaper. Even the firms who own them want to phase out dirty coal burners.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have solar on my roof and enthusiastically supported solar on a business I am involved with. It’s great, so is wind, but let’s keep a balance. Germany is building new coal plants and depends on nuclear power from France. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with their wind turbines.

 

 

[kgwilson]

The human race is incredibly resourceful. Channelling that resourcefulness in the right direction is the eternal dilemma. On the one hand we have the money and power philosophy and those with it don't give a flying fuc! about climate change or what they are doing to the planet as they will have lived a very nice existence and will be dead before the sh!t hits the fan. On the other hand are those who fear for the future of their children and grandchildren and really want to move to a sustainable lifestyle but still buy consumer goods as never before, use fossil based energy without a great deal of concern other than supporting renewables and sticking solar panels on their roof and hope things will sort themselves out.

 

Then there are others at the extremes of both philosophies. The professor who says we have only 10 years to go may very well be right & if so why not do nothing as we are all fuc#ed anyway.

 

Personally I think it will take longer, maybe 50 or 100 years but we WILL cease to exist. Our resourcefulness is not as powerful as our greed and greed always wins.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

A bleak prospect, KG. People power may yet triumph. Meanwhile, some of the mega-rich have been buying up bolt holes in the safer parts of the planet, such as Patagonia and NZ.

 

Who knows what will happen? There are so many major changes that could hit us from left field, derailing what appears to be irreversible global warming.

 

The Atlantic Conveyor is already weakening; it could shut down and plunge Europe into a massive winter and famine.

 

Water, particularly groundwater is being deleted, threatening global food production.

 

Global fisheries are collapsing.

 

The planet's magnetic field is heaps overdue for a pole reversal; signs are its starting soon.

 

Massive numbers of species are nearing extinction, even before science has figured out their vital role in ecosystems.

 

Superbugs resistant to antibiotics are spreading.

 

Brazil has elected a Trump-style president who plans to bugger up the Amazon and wipe out the last of its indigenous peoples.

 

A massive supervolcanic eruption could plunge our planet back into an ice age.

 

They might stop making beer...

 

 

[nomadpete]

Beer.....

 

Really?

 

Now that 'll get the attention of the public!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Is CO2 really a pollutant? https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf

 

 

[Bruce]

Yesterday, record high temperatures occurred all over South Australia. It was a great gliding day, with strong lift to 14,000 ft. I couldn't help but notice that the hundreds of wind-turbines on ridge-tops north of Adelaide were all still. Power outages were only prevented by the use of emergency diesel generators installed by the previous labor government.

 

I wonder if those who would have us do nothing about CO2 insure their houses? As hihosland says, the consequences of being wrong if we do nothing are huge. With your house burning down, the risk is small but the consequences of being burned and uninsured are huge.

 

Personally though I doubt that enough will ever be done, as it would take a big transfer of resources from our military to do enough. Fat chance of that, I reckon.

 

 

[Bruce]

Yes pmc, CO2 is a pollutant depending on the concentration. Try breathing 100% CO2 for awhile. It is not a pollutant at small levels in a greenhouse though.

 

On a dry planet, the temperature rise from a given CO2 change is a simple calculation, one that you could have given to year 12 physics students in my day.

 

The CO2 absorbs long-wave emitted radiation from the surface, thus changing the planet's albedo and hence the temperature.

 

It is the effect of clouds which makes the calculation a hard one, but the supercomputers are getting better at it.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Bruce.

 

We should all stop Worrying.

 

If the weather turns on us Big time, like the North sea warm current, it,s forcast that Europe will freeze and Starvation will occur.

 

Then of course the world will have a smaller population to pollute this Earth of our,s.

 

Can the pollies let us bring our extended families from around the word, instead of the unbridled catastrophe imigration policy we have imposed on us. (Just to help dig our gardens/tend our cattle even babysitter,s).

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

Is CO2 really a pollutant? https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf

Is this paper peer reviewed? Where can I read the peer reviews? The list of names on page 2 does not constitute peer review in the traditional sense. At the end of the document it says:

 

"The authors of this research are very much interested in knowing the names and credentials of individuals who would like to add their names to the list of scientists whose names may appear in the report under the following statement: “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report.” After reading and thinking about this research report, if you would like to have your name added to the list, please send your name and credentials in a fashion similar to those listed in the August 2016"

 

Inviting people to state qualifications and say "yeah I agree" does not constitute peer review, this does: Scrutinizing science: Peer review

 

FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?

 

Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

 

The bottom line for me is that whatever the percentage is, the majority of scientists and scientific organisations accept the theory. If it were more 50 50 my attitude would be "I don't know I await further evidence." My attitude at the moment is that I accept the view of the majority of the scientific community. This also means I don't fear GMO foods and I accept the value of vaccination because that is where the weight of evidence lies.

 

Let's say it turns out that we can over a couple of hundred years, release all of the carbon stored in coal and oil that has accumulated over millions of years with no ill effect. I believe it still makes sense to use other methods and to preserve the fossil fuels for use in the chemical industry etc or in case we need it for some other reason in the future.

 

The tipping point on power generation now favours wind and solar, it is now cheaper to build than coal. The problem, of course, is storage. This is not unsolvable and is not very far away. Whether it is advances in battery technology or gravity storage system the solution is close.

 

To build a coal-fired power station is very expensive with a long payback period for investors. Given the rapid development of renewables and storage, it would seem to me to be a risky investment to build an expensive coal power plant only to be undercut as renewables get cheaper and more efficient.

 

 

Gravitricity

 

 

[Yenn]

Bruce We keep hearing that temperature records are being broken, but I have also heard that the BOM was fudging the figures a while back.

 

Now we hear that the temperature is a new record high, exceeding the previous record by less than a full degree.

 

I just wonder how much of the higher temperature is due to constant monitoring nowadays, rather than the bloke looking at a thermometer every such and such time. I am sure in the old days there would have been higher temperatures between reading times and they would not have been recorded.

 

We are supposed to be having an unprecedented heat wave at this time, but to me it has been reasonable weather and the hottest period was at the end of November. Maybe I live in the best part of Australia climate wise.

 

There is a solar, hot salt power station in Nevada I think. I wonder how that is going.

 

 

[Bruce]

Yenn, I grew up in Alice Springs before air-conditioning was available for ordinary people, and yesterday at Gawler really was as hot as claimed.

 

And my car has a fairly accurate " outside air temperature " readout and it said 51 degrees yesterday. It had been in the sun a bit, but even on the long drive home it said 47.

 

Sorry but I have to cast doubt on your "missed maximum" theory, because there are old fashioned max/min thermometers, which push a pin up and then leave it stranded when the temp goes down. They sure used these in the 50's. I reckon they had them for about 100 years before that.

 

But there is a great story told by Burt Rutan, ( yep he is a climate-change denier as well as being a gifted designer ) and that is how in the old Soviet Union, a Siberian settlement got more heating oil if it reported colder temperatures. What an incentive to fiddle the record huh.