The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

This talk in London is already sold out....

 

When: Monday 4th November 2019, 6.00pm - 7.30pm

 

Where: Committee Room 4, House of Lords, London SW1

Many of the threats to the Great Barrier Reef, such as from sediments and nutrients from agricultural runoff, and from climate change (either natural or manmade), have been greatly exaggerated. Far from being in very poor condition, the GBR is actually one of the most pristine and unspoiled ecosystems on earth. The manifest discrepancy between alarmist claims and observational evidence is due to a systemic failure of Quality Assurance systems used for science and relied upon for public policy decisions. 

 

About Peter Ridd

 

Peter Ridd is a geophysicist with over 100 publications in international journals and 35 years working on the Great Barrier Reef. He has interests in coastal oceanography, the effects of sediments on coral reefs, instrument development, geophysical sensing of the earth, and mangrove swamp hydrodynamics. Until being unlawfully fired by James Cook University he worked as an academic and also led its very successful consulting group called the Marine Geophysics Laboratory that works on the development of instruments including sediment deposition sensors, tilt current meters, and mine paste pipe monitors.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you believe that Peter Ridd (not a marine biologist) is more knowledgeable about the stat of the reef than just about all the other scientists in this field? 

 

I am not a scientist so when I see a claim I must try to understand it and see if those claims are corroborated by other scientists.  I have no direct knowledge of whether vaccinations cause autism but I will take the evidence of the many experts in the relevant area rather than the few often but not always unqualified contrarians.

 

The suggestion is often made that people like me are socialists trying to bring down the capitalist system. Whilst I can't speak for others I personally thrive in the capitalist system.  I believe it is the cause of our problems but more importantly will also be the solution.

 

If we are discussing motives, Peter Ridd's speaking tour is sponsored by the right wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs and the Australian Environment Foundation which to spites it's name is also known to be on the right.

 

I would suggest that these groups are not so concerned with the reef itself or the accuracy of the scientific evidence but rather with removing impediments to building mines in that area.  Indeed Peter is your interest in climate science about accuracy in science or is it more related to you work as a mining consultant?    That may seem a little rude of me to suggest self interest but you are free to ascribe motive to my acceptance of mainstream science.  

 

 

[octave]

Getting back to climate change.

 

Exxon is being taken to court for knowing about climate change in the 1980s from its own scientist but suppressing it's own studies and actively misleading the public and politicians.  This is not unlike the tobacco industry and like the tobacco industry  cannot get away with this forever.

 

Some time ago I posted  documents from Shell detailing the evidence of it's own experts.

 

http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/

 

Dr. Martin Hoffert did work for Exxon in the 1980s and this is what he has to say now.

 

 

And for more context a slightly longer version. (but with irritating background music)

 

 

It should be interesting to follow the court case.

 

 

[facthunter]

Exxon have known about the likelihood of this happening for quite sometime and are reputedly crapping them selves. Lots of things come out in the wash these days. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

You can see coral bleach areas on satellite imagery these days.

 

So what is more likely? 

 

1. That one scientist has sold out and is presenting distorted stuff...

 

2. That a world-wide conspiracy involving hundreds of people, including satellite imagers, is presenting a false picture of the reef.

 

I reckon a bookie would put the odds in favor of the first one by hundreds to one.

 

Mind you, these guys can be quite convincing on account of having worked on their presentations lots. I remember Billy Graham being convincing to quite a few listeners. He was a great salesman.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Latest data on who is using coal

 

 

[ATTACH]3341[/ATTACH]

 

Shock, Horror, "Gasp" said the masses .....

 

Now put it into it's proper Global context, thanks.

 

 

[Bruce]

A person who I know very well and who is an intelligent climate-change denier ( goes to meetings and stuff ) lives at Noosa. I have this fantasy in my head that a meeting was cancelled because of the fires.

 

Actually its a bit unfair to use such an episode to "prove" climate change, any more than the November snow in the high country proves the opposite.

 

 

[Yenn]

How does November snow prove that climate change isn't happening.

 

One of the theories says that warming the climate will cause the Arctic snow and ice to melt, which will stop the gulf stream running, resulting in the British Isles and Eire having a colder climate.

 

But that is just a theory among many, if we have enough theories some of them may be provable.

 

 

[Yenn]

I have long been of the opinion that climate change is happening, whether or bot it is caused by man.

 

The bush fires are now getting into Qld and we never lost houses until just recently.

 

I reckoned we should ensure we had a fire break to protect our homes, but talking to a friend who was nearly burnt out on Sunday he came up with a ew idea.

 

He hasn't cleared the scrub and wattle on his property, but most of his neighbours have, What he notices is that the neighbours have a lot of dead high timber, where the trees are dying back. His trees are healthy. He considers that getting rid of the understorey also gets rid of predatory animals, such as possums that eat the insects that attack the bigger trees. I wonder if he could be onto something. His theory of the cause of global warming is, too many people. I know he is correct there.

 

 

[Bruce]

November snow is unusual Yenn. But as you say,  it doesn't prove anything at all about climate change. The average temperature across the planet was not low during this time. 

 

I reckon that most of the excess energy is going into melting ice, and we will not see much change till more of the ice is gone.  If you put a cup of ice out in the sun, the temperature will stay at zero until all the ice is gone.

 

I reckon your mate is wrong about possums and right about too many humans. We are in plague proportions. 

 

There is a crazy Gaia theory that the planet acts like an organism and needs to run a fever in order to kill off this plague.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I've long had the idea that our planet can only support a finite amount of living things; add more crops and cattle and we lose an equivalent amount of natural biomass. The accelerating rate of extinctions seems to match the increasing numbers of humans and their livestock and crops. Most of our surviving wildlife has been displaced into diminishing natural areas, with our species nibbling at the edges. 

 

A small ray of hope is the declining fertility of affluent countries, where human populations are actually declining.

 

Will this trend save us? Is it too late?

 

 

[Marty_d]

I listened to Michael McCormack and Barmy Joyce with disgust as they sledged the Greens for pointing out the obvious - that more severe fires were a foreseen consequence of climate change and the government has done nothing to mitigate it.

 

Every right-wing pollie is now trying to change the subject by saying "now is not the time to discuss climate change."  As Phillip Adams said the other night, it's just like US republicans when there's a mass shooting... "now is not the time to discuss gun control".

 

If it's not the time when the effects of the event are on full display, when the hell IS the time?

 

 

[Bruce]

I thought it was repressed  guilt which caused  Barnaby to attack the greens.  The extreme weather events have been predicted for years, during which Barnaby has been in power.

 

Mind you, I reckon the greens are at fault because they have effectively stopped nuclear energy which they clearly regard as worse than coal.

 

Gosh, both sides of politics are stuck at less than grade 7 in their science understanding.

 

 

[Yenn]

What makes you think that Pollies don't understand science. I am sure they have the same grasp of it as we do. They are just too stupid to realise that their demands for power and control should be tempered by common sense. They are not ignorant, they are just greedily arrogant. There is not one politician who wants to do what is best for Australia, they only want to do what is best for the party.

 

 

[Bruce]

I reckon the greens really don't understand the latest stuff on nuclear energy, where the radioactive waste and thermal runaway problems have been overcome. I reckon they are stuck in a time-warp due to poor education. They think the old Chernobyl design is what a nuclear power station would be like.

 

And the rest of them are indeed cynically aware that the average voter has no idea either and they might lose votes for their party if they pursue nuclear power.

 

BUT its been blowing a gale here for more than a week. There must be spare wind-electricity around to do some pumped hydro. If pumped hydro is cheaper than nuclear, I for one would be happy to go that way.   I know there are  guys on this forum who argue that nuclear is just too expensive.

 

Alas, there is nothing on the horizon, either a battery breakthrough or a big pumped hydro project or a new nuclear station.

 

 

[Marty_d]

What politicians want is a "silver bullet" they can sell the public.

 

The trouble is that no issue is simple to solve.  If policy gets too complicated, they can't sell it.  And before we jump on them for this they have justification - look at what happened to Labor.  A raft of well-crafted and costed policies, which on balance would be fair and equitable and actually go towards improving the lot of most punters.  But they lost the election, in part, because it all seemed too complicated to the voters.

 

Take these fires for example.  They're threatening communities... why?  Is it because there haven't been enough fuel reduction burns?  Is it because councils are letting houses be built in bushfire-prone areas? (Not to mention flood plains.)  Is it because of climate change?

 

The answer is yes, yes and yes, plus yes to a host of other factors that I'm not smart enough to think of.  Now there's the "why".

 

Fuel reduction burns - if you were going to keep every community safe you'd be doing burns constantly.  Now imagine the smoke, particulates, health effects, and complaints from residents affected.

 

Building permissions - councils want revenue.  Plus areas of bush that were never prone to bushfires before, are now.  People need somewhere to live, and for 99.99% of the time it's a more relaxed and healthier lifestyle in the bush than it is in a city.

 

Climate change.  We all know this one.  Government never got its act together.  Labor tried several times - the mining super profits tax (shot down with the help of $20m advertisements taken out by the big miners), the carbon market (shot down by the Greens who let their principles get in the way of compromise), and the carbon tax (shot down by Tony Abbott).  Finally they came to the last election with ambitious targets, and were shot down by the Australian public.

 

The common factor in all of this?  Us.  We don't want complicated solutions.  We're NIMBY's.  We don't want to listen to scientists and experienced fire chiefs.  We don't want the mess and inconvenience of fuel reduction burns.  We don't want to use valuable land and pay more council rates to make buffer zones, like parks with fire-resistant trees or golf courses.  We don't want to vote in governments who might actually do something about climate change because the other lot reckon they'll cause $100 lamb roasts.  It's all too complicated.

 

So I guess we'll keep on having bushfires which take lives and property.  As long as we don't have to do anything about the root causes.

 

Hey, maybe "thoughts and prayers" will help.

 

 

[octave]

I reckon the greens really don't understand the latest stuff on nuclear energy, where the radioactive waste and thermal runaway problems have been overcome.

 

 

 

Bruce as I have said many times here I am not philosophically opposed to nuclear.  I believe it is drawing a long bow to suggest that the only impediment to nuclear power in this country is the greens.  I would strongly suspect that if a nuclear power station or waste facility were to be proposed in the most politically conservative location in Australia that opposition would not be only from greens but from local residents.  

 

The impediments to building a nuclear power facility in Australia are are more complex than "it would be a goer if only the greens would us".  There are countries around the world where what the public want or not are not an impediment to what the government does.  Are there any countries who derive all of their power from nuclear? If not an if it is so cheap and easy then why not? 

 

I am quite interested in all sorts of technologies including nuclear but I am not sure what the new technologies regarding waste processing are, perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

 

I have posted the above clip before, it is not anti nuclear but it does highlight some of the present problems.

 

I am all in favour of researching new so called small modular reactors and I am especially interested in research into travelling wave reactors which are supported by the Gates foundation.

 

I am most definitely not a fan of large reactors such as Hinkley Point C which has become enormously expensive and behind schedule and involves large overseas corporations to build.

 

I don't think that any one technology will be the answer.  Nuclear is unlikely to happen here anytime soon and far from the greens being the biggest impediment I would suggest that the biggest impediment is the coal loving conservatives.  Nuclear only makes sense in terms of climate change mitigation but these very same people say there is no problem. 

 

 

[willedoo]

I was reading about Iran's future nuclear power plans. They have one reactor at present and get 90% of their electricity from fossil fuels. They've just started pouring concrete for the second reactor and are saying the third reactor will be built in eight years time. All up, they're planning for up to eight reactors in the next fifteen years which will provide less than a third of their electricity. It sounds like nuclear is handy to have but not the magic solution. To be fair, Iran has a lot of gas to burn and the nuclear progress might not be as urgent as in other countries who have to import gas.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The northern hemisphere is in the grip of an early and intense winter weather. It has been described as unprecedented. In North America the weather has been compared to January, with 97 local low temperature records set for November. Interesting.

 

 

[octave]

The northern hemisphere is in the grip of an early and intense winter weather. It has been described as unprecedented. In North America the weather has been compared to January, with 97 local low temperature records set for November. Interesting.

 

 

 

I am guessing you see this as some kind of evidence that climate change is a hoax.   Cherry Picking is common tactic amongst deniers.  If you believe an instance of record cold is significant in itself then surely you would also attach the same importance other extreme events such as the fires in California.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/11/04/forecasters-california-fire-season-could-last-into-december-expect-more-large-blazes/

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Yeah, both. Fires and ice, neither is evidence of anything. Weather is not climate.

 

 

[octave]

Yeah, both. Fires and ice, neither is evidence of anything. Weather is not climate.

 

Individual events are not evidence but trends are.

 

The fire season in both hemispheres is getting longer is it not?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/11/04/forecasters-california-fire-season-could-last-into-december-expect-more-large-blazes/

 

Again I am going to stick with overwhelming majority of scientific consensus on this until there is convincing evidence to the contrary is published and peer reviewed.   

 

Today I watched the press conference by these guys. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/11/14/fire-chiefs-bushfires/           Now  deniers usually claim that climate change is a scam by people who want to overthrow the economic system or scientists who are merely trying to get research dollars (of course research dollars could also be gained from the fossil fuel industry).  These guys have don't have either of these motives as far as I can see.  The one I am fairly certain is that a denier will come up with a rationalisation as to why these people are speaking out.  It must be hard work being a denier, having to dismiss The majority of the worlds scientific organisations and the majority of scientists in favour of the odd contrarian.

 

 

[Marty_d]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-13/fire-and-climate-change-what-do-experts-have-to-say/11696586

 

 

[Yenn]

It is unprecedented. That is just about all we hear on the radio nowadays.

 

Most of the things are not un precedented, they have been predicted and happened before.

 

Nuclear power may help, but one of the causes of fires is shorting power lines. How will nuclear solve that problem.

 

What we need is to produce our electricity as needed locally. Some people already do that with PV collectors and batteries.

 

Our governments are not really interested in fire prevention, they love the kudos of being seen to be looking after us. All the while there are fires and we can watch TV of firies with a big red glowing background, or a fire bomber dropping pink liquid, it makes our pollies feel really important.

 

 

[octave]

What we need is to produce our electricity as needed locally.

 

 

 

I strongly agree with this.  One reason I am not a fan of nuclear (as it is done at the moment) is that it is very centralized and gives control to large corporations.   I can see a time where  all houses will have solar and storage and perhaps a suburb that is interconnected whereby power is automatically traded between households.  I also see a place for EV vehicle to house. In my case being semi retired and doing some work from home I find my car (not an EV at this stage) sits idle.  A 60kw battery would provide power at peak times or evenings quite easily and maintain enough range for my use.

 

 

[Bruce]

Here's the problem: there is no cheap battery. My Jabiru uses an 8.4 amp-hour battery at 13.2 volts and cost just over $100. Now 8.4 amps for 1 hour at 13.2 volts is 110 Watt-hours.

 

So I paid about $1 per watt-hour and it was real cheap, most pay 4 times as much. ( they get better control-stuff built into the box though )

 

SO at $1 per watt-hour, or $1000 per kWh, or $60,000 for 60 kWh, the  idea is real expensive.

 

The world is crying out for a battery which will store electricity for a few cents per kWh, I wish I could invent one.